This is not a ploy to drum up traffic via pervy search hits
I hardly ever read “Vanity Fair” anymore – but contributing editor Wolcott inevitably seduces me into picking up the latest issue.
His latest offering, “Why Are British Sex Scandals So Much Better than Ours”?, contains (as usual) a spot-on observation regarding public life in America:
“… a dreadful piety has taken hold in American life, predicated on the notion that no one misbehaves out of choice or inclination or a simple warm itch, but because they were driven to it by drink, drugs, or childhood dysfunction (next stop: rehab), or because they lapsed from grace into the gutter lane (next stop: joining their paws in prayer with Chuck Colson).
I would substitute the word “piety” for “immaturity” – particularly in the way we view public figures, particularly if those public figures are in the seat of power. When I was much younger than I am now, I wrote in reaction to a conversation with a good friend who told me that she could never buy a vibrator on a credit card, because she wants to go into politics. I wondered then – why would a gifted young woman with political ambitions think this way? And what does this say about the nation we live in? Well, that it’s terribly boring, for one thing, and there is also the fact that
…in the age of mass information, we’ve emerged as a society of tiresome hypocrites.
Why do our politicians lie to us? Because we can’t handle the truth about anything, from vibrators to wars.
We are infantilized to the point of (unintentional) hilarity. We have never left those playground conversations about pee-pees and wee-wees behind. And if one of our public figures is caught playing with the wrong person’s wee-wee – they are next seen putting on a pop psychology peepshow with a bland TV personality/fatherly religious leader – and ratings go through the bloody roof.
Blah.
Natalia A. 
Maybe she foresaw a day when shrill feminists would accuse her of worshipping phallic symbols. Maybe she foresaw a day when she would recognize her private remarks on her friend’s website.
C’mon Natalia. Do you think only unsophisticated people would laugh at or take less seriously someone who used inflatable dolls or artificial vaginas as a substitute for human sex. Please, come off your high horse.
Masturbation is a natural enough solution to distracting and unrelieved libido, but it’s not a stain on society that most people feel they have a right to privacy in such matters.
I disagree Mr. M.
Why I think it natural that one would want to keep one’s masturbatory habits private (I don’t really feel like discussing any of mine here), I don’t think the fact of masturbation should be considered embarrassing.
We live in a prurient yet puritannical time, our society is fixated on sex yet simultaneously ashamed or hysterical about it.
No aspiring politico should have to discuss her sexual history or proclivities with the public but should the fact that she owns a vibrator come out (Through illegal credit card bill trawling?), that should be a non-event.
Plenty of girls I know own a vibrator and EVERYONE I know has masturbated and I think none the less of any of them for that.
I’d even vote for some of them.
*
P.S. Just seeing the new banner. LOVE IT!! KEEP IT!
I think the French norm, where the media just entirely ignores any sexual habits of their politicians is ideal. We need to get to the point of societal development where we accept that sex is ubiquitous, that everyone has sexual oddities, and that therefore no one’s particular habits are of any political (or other) importance.
One exception: if you base your political platform on religious purity and are then caught fucking a 13 year old, your career should be over.
Mike, but that’s exactly my point – politicians should have private lives, and yet they often don’t. People shouldn’t have to hide the fact that they’re sexual beings – this should be accepted as fact, and left well enough alone.
Of course, if you’re doing something highly immoral (re: “fucking 13 year old) and illegal – then yeah, you ought to be fried.
But France ignores the fact that Chirac has girlfriends (unless I’m missing something, I haven’t even been to France in years) – and maybe we could stand to learn something from them.
See, I don’t care if you’re doing something illegal (never bothered me) or immoral (morality is relative), but if your entire political existence is based on ‘purity’, then the hypocrisy is just absurd. For example, Ted Haggard wrote rather lurid IM’s to 16 years olds. Personally, I don’t think there’s much wrong with that as such, but his entire moral/political philosophy depended on him not doing anything of the sort, so screw the asshole.
As far as I’m concerned, politicians can have sex with donkeys if they like, as long as they don’t preach the opposite. Hell, it’d make politics far more interesting.
“Of course, if you’re doing something highly immoral (re: “fucking 13 year old) and illegal – then yeah, you ought to be fried.”
Ah, be careful, Natalia. Any good feminist knows that fucking a thirteen year old is not only moral, it’s laudable. The child has learned of his or her sexual options, and who better than an experienced adult to deliver the lesson?
You’ll end your career making such judgements about “good rape”.
You were doing so well in your refusal to condemn child molestation. What happened. Rann catch you off guard?
I really do adore how much you know about feminism, mikey. It’s really sexy.
Bless you for trying to figure out what Mike is talking about now.
Are you being cute, Natalia? I have prodded you several times to outright condemn child molestation. You have refused to answer repeated requests to do so because I made clear that I included the scenario in V.M. so gushingly applauded by feminists and considered so mainstream feminist.
Now, you have no idea (YAWN??) what I’m talking about?
Um… V.M.? As in “Vagina Monologues”? I’m not really a huge fan, if that’s what you’re talking about – it was a whole lot better at seventeen than it was at twenty-two, so you’re barking up the wrong tree here.
My problems with V.M. aren’t limited to the underage girl scenario – there are other issues within it. It’s kind of like watching “Braveheart” – I love the visuals, but could easily dispense with half the dialogue.
You might be interested in the fact that when a “hot” high school teacher seduced a teenage boy – the public reaction was similar in some instances. I heard a whole lot of men yee-hawing and wanting to give the kid a high-five. We view certain kinds of sex as inherently non-threatening – and there are many reasons as to why.
But I AM cute, of course. Though I have to tell you – it’s innate.
I can confirm that Natalia is indeed cute.
Are you cute, Mikey boy? I think you are, baby!
Is a firmly adult lesbian seducing a 13 (not 17) year old girl with booze an act of child molestation and perversion or not?
” We view certain kinds of sex as inherently non-threatening – and there are many reasons as to why.”
Natalia, Natalia, I fear you are selling out your principles and I am doing you a favor by giving you a chance to stand up for children everywhere. What kind of adult/child sexual encounters are inherently non threatening. (you should be ashamed, seriously), non abusive, non coercive? Have you just decided to carve out an exemption for oral copulating pedophiles from the most basic rules of decency? Is that what you are attempting? Please, please tell me I am mischaracterizing your remarks.
A relationship between an 18 year old ‘adult’ and a 15 year old ‘child’ can most certainly be non abusive, etc. Far more so than a relationship between some 70 year old and an 18 year old.
Fixed legal/moral lines are rather silly.
Actually, I agree more with Mike on this one – I think there are exceptions to every rule – but I was uncomfortable with the specific scene portrayed in V.M., and it was one of the several reasons why I no longer consider myself a fan of V.M.
However, when I say that society views certain sex-acts as non-threatening – I don’t mean myself. And I don’t mean that we see every particular issue in black and white either: but I did use the example of the adult teacher and her male student, and the comments that followed. I think that very few people recognized the skewed power-dynamic of that relationship and how it was wrong. There’s a reason why the law exists – though the law isn’t meant to take into account every individual’s needs. Dostoevsky believed that Satan had given birth to law – and it was an interesting assertion in the face of those fixed legal/moral lines that Rann is talking about. But I would rather have the law.
Mike might think that “evil feminists” are at fault here – but I think that our society’s entire perception of sex is what’s really weird.
Seriously Natalia? Do you really think that 18 year olds who have relations with 15 year olds should be considered criminals? That’s what the law says…
Yes and no. People grow in leaps and bounds as teenagers – someone at 15 could be a helluva lot less mature than someone at 18. And then again, the opposite could be true. Plenty of 15 year olds could be abusive to their 18 year old partners.
The law attempts to err on the side of caution – that’s all.
Your example, however, ultimately proves Dostoevsky’s point – the law can’t rescue us.
Exactly, the law can’t rescue us. In fact, the law condemns us to idiocies. Teenagers are sexual beings. The law prevents society from acknowledging that, leading to real sexuality (as opposed to the repressed sexuality inherent cheerleader-adoring conservatives) being taboo and creating all sorts of trouble, like not feeling able to buy a vibrator with a credit card.
More Pulp:
The Night That Minnie Timperley Died
“There’s a light that shines on everything & everyone.
And it shines so bright – brighter even than the sun.
That’s what Minnie thinks as she walks to meet her brother,who is nearly two years older, on a Saturday night.
He’s DJ-ing at some do on the edge of town on the night that Minnie Timperley died.
It’s such a beautiful world, you’re such a beautiful girl.
So much that you want to try, the world wants to sleep with you tonight.
But Minnie, Minnie if I could I would give you the rest of my life.
How can a girl have sex with these pathetic teenage wrecks?
Football scarves, the girls drink halves & her brother’s crying ‘cos he has lost his decks.
Outside the air was cool, an older guy sitting in his car asked if Minnie needed a ride.
He thought he was still dangerous – paunchy, but dangerous – on the night that Minnie Timperley died.
It’s such a beautiful world, you’re such a beautiful girl.
And he only did what he did ‘cos you looked like one of his kids.
But Minnie, Minnie if I could I would give you the rest of my life.
Minnie. Oh, Minnie I can feel the pain. Oh yeah”
Well, we ALL are sexual beings – even children – but it’s not a simple and easy question of abolishing the law, IMHO.
Agreed, but it’s a good step forward.
If you’re into anarchy. Which I’m not.
No, if you’re into logical societal development. As I said before (and you implied), putting sexuality in law leads to rather fucked up shit.
I also find that the opposite can be true. Take law completely out of the equation – and fucked up shit ensues.
“Mike might think that “evil feminists” are at fault here – but I think that our society’s entire perception of sex is what’s really weird.”
I’ll address the repeated “evil feminist” remark later. (I support equal rights, wholeheartedly, but that is not feminism. Feminists support female superiority and special rights, and that is just as ugly and evil as male superiority and patriarchy.)
How can feminists be not at fault for a film and scene that they produced, they promoted, they gushed over and so on? Are you telling me that a similar scenario with a male teacher and a thirteen year old girl would be given the kind of support that you blame on America’s weird ideas about sex?
It’s child molestation, Natalia. No doubt about it, no ‘if, ands or buts’. If a male rights community produced such propaganda in favor of adult/child sex as a learning experience, you and feminists in general would be reminding us of how it legitimized every child sex abuse case thereafter. It’s just an example of where feminists declare for themselves a special exemption from rules meant for others.
“… but I did use the example of the adult teacher and her male student and the comments that followed”
So what? Even earlier you used an example of the girl who was raped at Duke, and her female friends commented that she was a lucky girl to be raped by such a hunk. Did that introduce grey areas into your thinking about the evils of rape? Did it put things in perspective? Or did its ignorance take your breath away?
You can’t have it both ways, Natalia. Child molestation is just that. And true feminists, indeed women everywhere, and certainly children, are ill served by your colleagues.
Thanks for being “uncomfortable” with the child molestation scene. A dramatic statement in favor of child rights, indeed.
I am relieved at your tepid criticism, honestly, but isn’t that condescending at best?
You are blaming ‘feminists’ for one scene in one play written by one (or a few) feminists.
Analogously, since there were some black people who agreed (and endorsed) slavery, black people are responsible for it.
And the left categorizes people, eh?
Oh please, Mike, don’t start putting words in my mouth. That’s, like, sooooo bitchy.
I’m not here to be your monkey. If you can’t understand the many colourful ways in which this great planet of ours is severely fucked up – it’s your problem.
Like I said, V.M. is good when you’re seventeen and just starting to get comfortable with the idea of having a cunt.
Get over yourselfg.
“You are blaming ‘feminists’ for one scene in one play written by one (or a few) feminists.”
This is a laugh. VM was easily the most widely publicized, widely distributed, widely and wildly praised by feminists themselves (as a community) as anything ever produced by the feminist movement. That scene was the most widely discussed scene in the presentation because of its obvious message of the joys of adult/child sex. And yet it remains, unchanged till years later when feminists grudgingly changed 13 to 16 (Gee thanks, teacher). To talk about it as some obscure, unwelcome distraction from feminism is Rann style “objectivity”.
“Oh please, Mike, don’t start putting words in my mouth.”
Where? The rape at Duke ? Where. I will be happy to apologize. Even though you never fail to put “evil feminists” in my mouth.
“Like I said, V.M. is good when you’re seventeen and just starting to get comfortable with the idea of having a cunt.”
Or if you are a pedophile and trying to get comfortable with your desires, quite obviously.
And yeah, you’re not my monkey. I’m confronting you with issues that effect people, real people, men, women and children whose rights suffer when a noble movement for equality morphs into a demand for unequal laws, unequally applied standards of basic human standards.
You are not a feminist, Natalia, not in the moral sense. You are a matriarchialist carrying the same baggage as your earlier oppressors. Get used to being criticized. It goes with being the self proclaimed elite.
Mike, do you actually have any evidence whatsoever that any pedophile justified their actions by that one scene or are you just being hysterical?
Having said that, all this discussion of VM has got me constantly thinking of you as a five year old with an 18-inch dildo up your cute little ass.
By the way, quite a few 13 year olds do have sex. So that scene does confront you with “issues that effect people, real people, men, women and children”.
Who the heck are you to tell me who I am? And who the heck are you to judge my personal response to V.M. as a teenager, and as an adult?
You’re trying to tell me that I’m perfectly Ok with the notion of kids having sex with adults. I have told you that my response to these issues has changed over time – and you have used that to attempt to discredit me, stick labels on me, and generally make a big ass out of yourself in my comments section, all the while piously hoping to get banned – so that your stereotypes can be confirmed.
Learn some manners, then get back to me.
Here’s the thing – Rann, complicated responses go over Mike’s head.
So for the especially slow, here’s a little bulleted presentation:
* Natalia at seventeen: “Sure, I want to have sex with whoever and whenever! I don’t care about being exploited! It’s perfectly normal!”
(pssst – lots of kids have these feelings, and not just because they have been through abuse)
* Natalia in her twenties: “Hmmm…. It’s probably a good idea that the law protected my stupid teenage ass from a whole lot more grief!”
“And who the heck are you to judge my personal response to V.M. as a teenager, and as an adult?”
Pure strawman. I’m not attacking your response as a teenager to VM. I’m attacking your response as a feminist to a scene that depicts a young girl being liquored up and molested. “Uncomfortable” seems woefully inadequate considering your previous remarks regarding crimes against young females. Don’t bother trying to get me backpedalling on such a clearcut issue.
“I have told you that my response to these issues has changed over time…” OK. I’ll bite. I’ll ask the blunt direct question. Does it make a difference to you if the adult is a male or female as it does in Pro-Choice for women/No Choice for men?
And Rann, get real,or I’ll start demanding proof that pro-rape movies result in women being raped. Grow up.
As for begging to be banned, that sounds like someone grasping for a reason. You react hysterically to me pointing out the disconnection between your previous remarks and your current ones. That’s not “telling you” what you should say or feel, it’s criticizing what you say or feel. That’s not a legitimate comment?
***Does it make a difference to you if the adult is a male or female as it does in Pro-Choice for women/No Choice for men?***
Did you see my comments regarding the hot female teacher who seduced her young male student? And how wrong it was?
It’s not like I’m asking you to read between the lines.
And you HAVE been sniveling to me about how I’m going to ban you, on two separate occasions, I believe, so no, I’m not grasping for a reason. I’m telling you that you’re silly.
Heh. Here’s the reaction of a gay rights group to a Superbowl ad showing two auto mechanics eating from both ends of a snickers bar and mistakenly kissing. (They rip out their chest hairs to prove their manliness,)
” This type of jeering from professional sports figures at the sight of two men kissing fuels the kind of anti-gay bullying that haunts countless gay and lesbian school children on playgrounds all across the country,” Human Rights Campaign president Joe Solmonese said in a statement.”
The joke is, of course, entirely at the expense of heterosexual men, not gays, but it will be responsible for anti-gay violence.
Ridiculous, Rann?
“Did you see my comments regarding the hot female teacher who seduced her young male student? And how wrong it was?”
Yes, I did.
“You might be interested in the fact that when a “hot” high school teacher seduced a teenage boy – the public reaction was similar in some instances. I heard a whole lot of men yee-hawing and wanting to give the kid a high-five. We view certain kinds of sex as inherently non-threatening – and there are many reasons as to why.”
But I’m going to give you a pass on this now, because later, with prodding, you said that the skewed power relation made it wrong. (I think age/maturity difference is the greater sin, but whatever.)
OK, my next question was going to be, “What does it say about the feminist movement that it is so gushing in its approval of something you see as child abuse?”
However, I’ll save it for later. Meanwhile my boy-toy Rann will entertain.
Darling, I’m just trying show you how wonderfully gay I am for you. You so cruelly contend that my love for you results in other cute boys being beaten up. Oh, how will I ever live with myself?
I’m just going to cry in a corner now.
I don’t think you deserve my yawning right now, I’m going to have to leave you with a *snort*
***“What does it say about the feminist movement that it is so gushing in its approval of something you see as child abuse?”***
Feminists are individuals – there is not “feminist party” in Congress, and many of them hold views that contradict another’s.
I would say that referring to that particular part of V.M. as what defines feminist thought would be wrong – for you, and for feminists themselves.
Although, as I’ve already pointed out above, many of us children don’t believe we’re being taken advantage of when we are. And what society defines as the line between “moral” and “immoral” can be tricky wherein the law is concerned- if you’ve followed my discussion with Rann.
When I was a teenager, I wanted a certain older man to fuck my brains out – and what I know now wouldn’t have changed my decision to sleep with him (hindsight is 20/20, remember?), if he had acted on my feelings for him (he did not). If anyone had come in and said, “oh but Natalia, you’re just looking to get abused” – I would have spat in their face at the time. And if it had happened the way I wanted it – who knows, I may not have regretted it. I wanted to own my body at that age – I wanted to be the seducer. I thought that this was power. Looking back on it now, I can safely say that “yeah, it was pretty stupid of me.” But a lot of that has to do with the way my life went after fifteen.
Furthermore, I think V.M. was a real breakthrough in terms of women’s issues, body issues, and yes, even child abuse issues. People need to know how teenagers think. As teenagers, we often have no idea that our actions have consequences, or that our “warm itches” (thank you, Wolcott) – can end in disaster first and foremost for us. We’re “hormones on legs” (as another writer pointed out). A girl who liked the fact that an older woman got her drunk and took her to bed – those girls exist. I gush my approval of the mere fact that someone had the courage to portray such a girl – whether or not what her seducer did to her was “right” is a non-issue – of course it wasn’t right. Adults need to know better. Then again – they age of consent is 13 in Japan… Perhaps you’re better off trolling on Japanese blogs…
So ultimately you’re on here to rant and rave about the feminist movement, but I think you’re better off hitting on Rann. He’s a slut, after all. 😉
You know, I recall that you, Mike, were “gushing” over Marylin Monroe somewhere on this site – a woman who was graceful, charming, and a deeply troubled substance abuser….
So if I were to adopt your style – I would assume that you think that substance abuse is great for all women, as are failed marriages, affairs with married men, and so on, and so forth.
See how easy it is to play pin the tail on donkey?
“As teenagers, we often have no idea that our actions have consequences, or that our “warm itches” (thank you, Wolcott) – can end in disaster first and foremost for us. We’re “hormones on legs” (as another writer pointed out). A girl who liked the fact that an older woman got her drunk and took her to bed – those girls exist. I gush my approval of the mere fact that someone had the courage to portray such a girl – whether or not what her seducer did to her was “right” is a non-issue – of course it wasn’t right. Adults need to know better. Then again – they age of consent is 13 in Japan… Perhaps you’re better off trolling on Japanese blogs”
Throughout this thread you have discussed the child molestation scene in terms of the young girls role, her responsibilities, what led her to seek to be molested, what she did to bring it on herself. That’s just sick and disgraceful and outrageous and hateful.
“…whether or not what her seducer did to her was “right” is a non-issue, of course it wasn’t right.
Finally Natalia discovers an adult lesbian’s responsibilities in this story of a little girl’s awakening to her desires.
You make this sound as if it is written “for young girls, by young girls” instead of what it is, an approving portrayal of a child molester. A film that portrays the joy and sisterhood found as the “perfect victim” (my words) seeks sex with adult women.
Just imagine a men’s rights group producing something that portrays “a young girls desire to be taken roughly by a manly- man, her virginity violently but lovingly forced from her”.
Yeah, I can picture you describing that scene in terms of her responsibilities, her actions that led up to it.
There would be universal condemnation from everyone.
Cowards and hypocrites abound within the feminist movement.
“You know, I recall that you, Mike, were “gushing” over Marylin Monroe somewhere on this site…”
You are not the sharpest knife in the drawer, are you?
“So if I were to adopt your style – I would assume that you think that substance abuse is great for all women, as are failed marriages, affairs with married men, and so on, and so forth.”
Sure, cause I was *serious* when I cited her “Happy Birthday, Mr. President” as a great moment in feminism and I just forget to add the rest about her and her career.
Did you recently make a remark about things going “right over Mike’s head”? Is this the mostest deliciousest moment in NataliBlog history, or what??
Sigh.
“See how easy it is to play pin the tail on donkey?”
Rich beyond words. Natalia pins her own butt and crows in triumph.
BWAHAHAHA
What responsibilities? What actions? Like I already said, teenagers = “hormones on legs.”
Personally, I LIKE Marylin Monroe – I just know that the entirety of her career is not something that I’d wish to duplicate. You wrote she makes you “smile” (I really couldn’t care less in what context – just like YOU don’t care about context when it comes to others) – using your own twisted logic, that would make you an approving cheerleader for JFK’s affair. That’s the sort of logic you apply to other people – and you have nicely exposed its own absurdity just now. Good job.
Please don’t think that just because you’ve gotten away with personal attacks on this site means that I’m going to remain forever patient. I’m interested in what people with opposing views have to say – but when their trollishness outweighs everything else – they need to go.
One more strike – and you’re out.
You can always take the high-road and find a new hobby yourself.
Natalia, I have not attacked you to a greater degree than you have attacked me, just more repeatedly, on the same subject, as you avoided answering me in the first place. And you and Rann have had a nice ole time referring to me in stereotypical terms and with taunts that you and he think will cause me to flee. Most of what I have done in prodding you is the result of you not answering a simple question about what is right and wrong, or fair and unfair, and me having to poke and poke and poke before you answer. By then to you I’m just trolling.
And certainly, Natalia, I have not even approached the level of Rann’s ad hominems, hateful remarks, and persistent heckling. You have not even hinted that HE is “trying to get banned” (several times to me) or, richly ironic now, that I am imagining that “trying to get banned” is a threat of banning, or “one more strike”.
His heckling and ad hominems don’t challenge you, my persistent proddings do. That is why I’m one more strike.
“…You wrote she makes you ‘smile’.”
No Natalia, I cited her as a cute *obvious* joke, an ‘outrageously typical male thing to say’. Hence the “(smile)” to ensure others could laugh with me.
That scene, an actual event, was rather infamous among early feminists as a sad example of what men valued most in women, that is, a beautiful talented woman wasting her popularity and publicity to “stroke” the most powerful person in the world with an breathless, brainless children’s tune. Women condemned it with a feminist poke at “men’s version of the ideal woman” rather than Monroe herself, but the point is, no one ever thought her “Happy Birthday” was the height of feminism as I suggested.
You had just questioned my intelligence and made snarky comments about things going right over my head, which is fair enough. But the timing couldn’t have been worse for you and I had right back at you. What’s good for the goose… (at least in a non “feminist” world).
And forget that amateurish “do the honorable thing”. Why don’t you do the honorable thing and honor your statements and repeated admonishments to me that you would not ban me. I don’t call you names, I don’t call you anything close to what Rann calls me. You even warned me not to claim that girls who get drunk deserved to be raped. I didn’t say a word about it, despite it being low.
If you are going to ban me anyway, ask yourself how it is Rann can be welcome with his making fun of Alzheimer’s patients and their symptoms and I’m not. That’s ugly stuff, Natalia, and you did roll your eyes about it, thank you, but no hint of a banning, no warning.
“But mommy, Rann’s parents give him sweets, why can’t I get some? Waaaaaaah!” – mikem.
“’cause you’d just put those sweets in your bum, mikey darling” – mikey darling’s mom.
Mike, Rann is a good friend. I know him and I know his motives. I don’t agree with him views – but we get along. There’s a lesson in there, I’m sure.
Once again, you’re wondering if I’m going to ban you. You’re the one who introduced banning into the conversation, not I – so claiming that I’m looking for an excuse is, once again, absurd.
I know it sucks to have people make assumptions about you (re: Marylin Monroe) – but you can appreciate the irony, especially since you have made a number of ugly assumptions about me.
You are MY guest here, not the other way around.
Un*be*lievable.
” Once again, you’re wondering if I’m going to ban you. You’re the one who introduced banning into the conversation, not I – so claiming that I’m looking for an excuse is, once again, absurd.”
Un*fucking*believable. I’m laughing and crying at the same time. Everytime you mention banning and I respond you respond back as if I am a paranoid nut. Even with your printed words to belie you just a few comments away. It’s like getting a firsthand view of how Soviet style double speak and revision can become a comfortable reality for the correctly trained mind.
I’m sorry to hear that Rann is a good friend. I had hoped he was just a fellow displaced/misplaced Soviet who you allowed to hang around despite his twisted humanity. I guess you are not so “strange bedfellows”, after all.
And by the way, YOU are our guest as well (since you want to be that way). Try to at least be honest, and clean up after Rann when he soils your parlor floor.
Unbelievable.
I am a fucking American citizen – and I didn’t come to this country on your personal charity fund.
Now, let’s examine your posting record on this site:
You start off thanking me for “allowing” you to comment. Twice.
On January 23rd you say this:
“I would like to offer to stop commenting here voluntarily. I enjoy commenting here, but I don’t want to make something you enjoy doing into something tedious, especially since I am probably going to be in disagreement with much that is posted here. So just let me know if my comments are or become unwelcome.”
On February 1st, you bring up the issue of banning:
“Are you going to answer my “Is feminist rape a good rape” question? At least before you ban me?”
Paranoid nut? Perhaps not. I’m going to reserve personal judgment.
Oh, Rann is Israeli. And he makes damn good spicy goat. Please don’t be jealous that I’m the one who gets to eat it.
Hey, Natalia, could you make an attempt at trying to understand what the hell mike is on about in that last comment? I can’t for the life of me figure it out…
Never mind 🙂
I didn’t say Rann was from the USSR, I said I had hoped that would be the explanation for your tolerating the kind of cruel and hateful remarks he makes about Alzheimer patients. Seeing Rann as a kindred soul says something.
And I mentioned banning only that once because you had been studiously refusing my politely worded question and I finally decided to up the ante with something that might draw a response. Since then, you have initiated the ban talk with, “you’re begging to be banned” stuff, almost immediately followed by, “I never said any such thing”. A few comments ago it’s “One more strike – and you’re out.”, followed by your insistence that you have not threatened me.
Now, it’s “Paranoid nut? Perhaps not. I’m going to reserve personal judgment.”
As sure as the sun rises, sometime soon you will insist this was not a threat to ban. It must get your juices going to play this game.
Congratulations on your American citizenship. I figured as much. And so you came here as our guest, didn’t you? And the point is, how does it feel to be talked down to like that. (Get it, perceptive one?)
LOL!!!
My “juices” are reserved solely for Anna. She will kill you if you try anything.
I really wish that others would step in and comment on the “good child molestation” scene in VM.
Not that I want to re-cover that endlessly with you, Natalia. I’m satisfied that you finally said it was improper. It just makes me sad that not one single reader would feel the need, if not be proud, to stand up for young girls (and boys) and say that child molestation is wrong no matter who does it.
Damn straight. I become violent when cornered. Oh, and I was born in this country. I feel SO validated.
It’s not a question of validation, Anna. My grandparents, all four, were Irish immigrants.
It’s a question of tit for tat. Goose and gander. Bully meeting a bigger bully.
Any comment on child molestation, Anna?
Always wrong? Sometimes wrong? (I won’t insult you with right and always right.)
Thanks for the response.
Someone’s a touch obsessed…
Yeah… I’m obsessed with finding one or two more people here who think child molestation is just plain wrong. Call me crazy. Call me a dreamer.
Hmmm… So a guy shows up on my blog – which is really sort of like showing up at someone’s living room, if you you follow proper net etiquette – flings a bunch of accusations my way, but I’M the bully.
How about you start you own blog, Mike – put your FULL NAME on it – take responsibility for everything you say on there – suffer trolls and spammers – and THEN talk to me about bullying, etc.
I’m talking about the “you’re a guest here” remark, Natalia. I think that qualifies as at least mild bullying. I gave you no worse than what you gave me, except your “threat” (OK?) has actual weight, whereas mine are merely rhetorical.
Ya know, 90% of the time, all I want to do is address issues you raise, but from an equal rights view. Most of the harsh remarks on both sides is due to a reluctance to reply with any seriousness to my views.
I’m not here to muck up your website. I’m here because you seemed to have an open mind and I could address my concerns to you and get a serious response. I’ld love to get back to issues only.
I’d like to find one or two people on here would will condemn cucumbers, personally.
Natalia, Anna, what do you have to say for yourselves? Are you disgusting, vile cucumber lovers or what?
Rann, I eat mine with sandwiches. On my way to visit Bunbury.
Mike, yep it’s official – you are a paranoid nut. I wasn’t going to agree with that characteristic before – but your suggestion that calling you out on the fact that you’re a guest on someone else’s blog was some sort “threat” makes it all crystal clear.
MANNERS, Mike. When you’re a guest at someone else’s house – you don’t put your fingers in the sugar bowl, and you flush the toilet after yourself. MANNERS. LEARN SOME FUCKING MANNERS!!!
Oh yeah, that felt good.
You cucumber loving whore!
I bet you and Anna get up to some terrible things using cucumbers!
Disgusting!
Busted.
spanky spanky.
cucumbers are delish.
Mike, baby, will you come to my rescue? Will you condemn cucumbers? Please? I just want one person on here to denounce these tools of the devil, these blights on our civilization, these green monsters of lesser times!
“You are MY guest here, not the other way around.”
But whatever.
” One more strike – and you’re out.”
And yep, “sure as the sun rises”, a few comments later: “yep it’s official – you are a paranoid nut.”
But whatever.
Please, Anna. Pretty please. An answer?
You should expect to be banned if you’re don’t flush the toilet in my house.
Don’t be paranoid – be realistic.
Anna, don’t give in! No more wading through rhetorical bullshit!
Don’t eat the cucumbers! Don’t eat the cucumbers!
Yeah, Anna. Do the right thing. Refuse to condemn all child molestation. It’s too much to ask. The misogynist bastards are setting a trap.
“You should expect to be banned if you’re don’t flush the toilet in my house.”
Rann “shits” all over your house, you consider him to be asset.
Why not be a good host and engage your readers instead of ignoring questions and giving flippant replies? It’s as if your nicely stated goal of addressing different views is just bullshit.
Almost every issue I raise with you, you reduce to “evil feminist” or “evil women” instead of the questions of fairness and principles of equality that they are. What the hell is it with people who most clamor for more rights, that they won’t address equal rights when their own policies are under question?
“No more wading through rhetorical bullshit!”
Remember that remark next time you touch our hearts with a horrible story about a young girl’s life crushed by sexual predation.
I think you’re confusing rhetoric and narrative, baby.
Damn, youz stupid!
Rann, why did you put the cucumber on my pillow? Not cool, man, not cool.
I just figured that if I left it there, you’d molest it, causing to grow up and become a pickle.
Then I could put it in my sandwich. Yummy.
pickles are sexy. rawr. perfect with a liquid diet.
Anna, i’m not comfortable with you talking about Pickles that way. You know Lorina and Lyndon are having one!!!!!