jump to last post 1-39 of 39 discussions (138 posts)

Texas GOP wants to make blow jobs illegal

  1. kerryg profile image88
    kerrygposted 7 years ago

    LOL, the Texas GOP recently voted on a platform that would:

    * ban oral and anal sex
    * ban "sexually oriented businesses," such as strip clubs
    * ban pornography

    I foresee this going over real well with their male constituency. tongue

    1. livelonger profile image88
      livelongerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      This was just a meaningless gesture to the "social conservatives", about 99% of whom would flee the state if this were to actually pass.

      Republicans don't have a habit of restricting their own freedoms (only everyone else's), so I don't see this passing in any of our lifetimes.

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        "Republicans don't have a habit of restricting their own freedoms (only everyone else's)"  I don't recall EVER seeing anyone trying to restrict their own freedoms, whether it be sex, smoking cigarettes, drunk driving, or anything else.  ALWAYS someone else's freedoms. 

        Problem is that most people just can't believe that the (?) party would cut their freedoms - it isn't any of their business anyway - so they bury their head in the sand until it happens.  And then it's too late, and too difficult to get changed back.

    2. Uninvited Writer profile image83
      Uninvited Writerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      That'll thin out the GOP won't it?

      1. Pearldiver profile image86
        Pearldiverposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        And the ones that Act the Goat behind the scenes hmm

    3. Stevennix2001 profile image84
      Stevennix2001posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      i doubt seriously any police officer is going to enforce it if they do pass that law.  seriously, how are they going to know if a couple does these things or not?  Are they going to do random house searches at night or use thermal goggles to spy on other people, inside their houses.  wouldn't that violate some sort of privacy laws if that's the case? 

      Or maybe they'll have undercover officers in the bars to be hit on by guys, that'll invite them back to their places.  Then they'll try to coerce the guy into saying that he wants oral and anal sex, then arrest him.  You know kind of how you saw them do it in an episode of cops once.  where they have a female officer coerce some dude into saying he wanted to pay for sex.  is that how they're going to enforce this law?  if so guys, i think we all better start practicing abstinence then, as the government might arrest your sorry a** if you do anything sexual that could be construed as illegal.  lol. 

      all i can say is, good luck enforcing that law.  lol.

    4. leeberttea profile image59
      leebertteaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      A blow to freedom if you ask me, and certainly not a way to garner support with the Tea Party or anyone else. Republicians, here's a little advice, stay out of our bedrooms and focus on the job at hand, keeping us free!

      1. Ron Montgomery profile image61
        Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        http://www.whataboutclients.com/archives/beavis_and_butthead_mtv_image.jpg

        Huh Huh, you said Job at hand.

        1. AdsenseStrategies profile image71
          AdsenseStrategiesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Good Lord, he really didn't say "a blow to freedom" did he?

    5. AdsenseStrategies profile image71
      AdsenseStrategiesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Will there be a black market?

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image71
        Ralph Deedsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Nota bene: The GOP left out bestiality and masturbation.

        1. Ron Montgomery profile image61
          Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          AKA the Dick Armey exclusion.

    6. profile image0
      Brenda Durhamposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Is this for real?

      If so, good deal.

      And no, there are no items more important.

    7. patp profile image61
      patpposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Yes, they will vote on stupid legislation, and fillibuster on important legislation. They are among the "Top Blow Job getters, why would they want to make it illegal, this shows the stupidity of the Republican Party.

  2. earnestshub profile image89
    earnestshubposted 7 years ago

    Banning it. That should work! lol lol lol
    Hello Texas! Remember the good ole prohibition? That worked great didn't it? A bit like the "war against drugs" works. lol

    1. bgamall profile image84
      bgamallposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      When the hurricane hits and it rains oil on that big state we will see their politicians become victims of that which they want to ban. smile"

  3. wyanjen profile image87
    wyanjenposted 7 years ago

    But, the bible says it's ok...
    What's up with that, Texas GOP?

    Holier than thou, much?
    lol


    Song 2:3, "Like an apple tree among the trees of the forest, so is my beloved among the young men. In his shade I took great delight and sat down, and his fruit was sweet to my taste."
    (Song of Solomon.)

    1. SparklingJewel profile image65
      SparklingJewelposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      ...I believe your interpretation is a bit misguided smile

      Song of Solomon is a very mystical book of the Catholic's Bible...not even allowed into the other Christian bibles...

      one mustn't' take it literally or with a modern(sexually) minded definition of words

  4. Ron Montgomery profile image61
    Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago

    NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

    mad

  5. thisisoli profile image55
    thisisoliposted 7 years ago

    I think that is the same Texas party which wanted one of the founding fathers to be removed from the history books because they were against Christianity being involved with the creation of the united states, and enforced their views vehemently. I Might be wrong though, not too up to speed on the local politics over here yet!

    1. kerryg profile image88
      kerrygposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      That was the (Republican-dominated) Texas Board of Education. Just to refresh people's memories if they missed that particular moment of idiocy, the founding father they wanted to remove was Thomas Jefferson.

    2. RKHenry profile image79
      RKHenryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Here, Here!!

      Been to Texas, hated it.  Now I know why.

      By the way their BBQ sucks!

  6. MikeNV profile image72
    MikeNVposted 7 years ago

    If they ban sodomy then the politicians are all in big, big trouble.

    The American people keep bending over and taking it from politicans now they want to make it illegal?

    Isn't this a circular reference?

    As much as I dislike most of the Politics of the Democratic Party I am equally appealed by the Republicans continual insistence on prying in on the lives of consensual adults.

    I could care less if people are gay and want to do whatever they do.  But I don't want to ban it any more than I want to support paying for it.

    Prohibition has proven a very effective strategy in the War on Drugs and Alcohol.  What are these people thinking?

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      "If they ban sodomy then the politicians are all in big, big trouble."  No they're not - very very few of them have the integrity to behave as the laws they pass apply to them - just to others.

  7. Pearldiver profile image86
    Pearldiverposted 7 years ago

    Be fair....
    You know that the proposed ban on oral and anal sex came about as a result of a combination of reasons...
    including: the nominator not knowing at the time whether he was Arthur or Martha...
    and the seconder not understanding that there is actually (or should be) a vast difference between oral and anal sex vs his complete misunderstanding of the recommended placement of the tongue and nose during such acts!  roll

  8. SomewayOuttaHere profile image61
    SomewayOuttaHereposted 7 years ago

    ..huh?..
    http://thebiglife.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/whatever.jpg

  9. profile image69
    logic,commonsenseposted 7 years ago

    Are they banning it for everyone but themselves?

  10. Greek One profile image79
    Greek Oneposted 7 years ago

    I guess they couldn't just flip a coin and decide which one to outlaw, so they ended up picking both head AND tail.

    It is a counter productive move... guys will still seek out oral sex, and if they end up going to jail because of it, they will engaging in sodomy whether they are willing or not.

    Some might argue that it is a slippery path (pun intended) we go down when we try to legislate morality and sexual behavior in adults.. but others are already inspired by the move.   Just today for example, the Dallas Cowboy cheerleaders showed off their new uniform, which was designed to appeal to the same segment of the Texan population the GOP is going after...

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/woman-with-burka_64.jpg

    Perhaps a compromise can be reached?  What if, in the spirit of ironic justice, they allowed sodomy just around tax time?

  11. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 7 years ago

    Good pic!
    Yes, they are the American Taliban. That phrase is attributed to Howard Stern...a victim of their suppression of speech: The Christian Right.

  12. Len Cannon profile image88
    Len Cannonposted 7 years ago

    Don't worry. They'll conveniently only prosecute gay people for it like they did before the law was declared unconstitutional in the first place.

  13. PrettyPanther profile image84
    PrettyPantherposted 7 years ago

    I bet they volunteered themselves to police and enforce, right?  lol

    Nothin' like gittin' yer jollies watchin' them sodomites 'n throwin' 'em in jail when yer dun.

  14. tonymac04 profile image87
    tonymac04posted 7 years ago

    This is the funniest thing I've heard of in long, long time (since the then South African government tried to ban sex across the colour line, in fact)!
    Can you imagine cops on the oral/anal sex beat! LOL
    What will they be doing - peeping through curtains? Trying to catch married couples in their beds doing something naughty?
    This will sure catch on with Jimmy Swaggert and like minded ones!

  15. JeniferD profile image61
    JeniferDposted 7 years ago

    PFFT! This is just stupid!  oral sex means the girls can't be impregnated!  Nothing wrong with it, it's just foreplay.

    1. Greek One profile image79
      Greek Oneposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I think I love you JeniferD

  16. Rafini profile image88
    Rafiniposted 7 years ago

    lol  I'd like to see this one enforced!!  lol

    (sorry guys!  lol)

  17. Sab Oh profile image61
    Sab Ohposted 7 years ago

    There's no need to make them illegal, there's already a sure-fire way to stop them from happening: Marriage.

    1. Greek One profile image79
      Greek Oneposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      EXACTLY

      1. wychic profile image81
        wychicposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        LOL....yet another proof that I really need to find that marriage handbook telling me all the things I need to stop doing to be a proper wife...seems like I'm getting it all wrong so far tongue.

  18. Jane@CM profile image60
    Jane@CMposted 7 years ago

    ROFL - funniest thing I've read all day.  What will those poor boys do with their admins under their desks???? lol

    1. Greek One profile image79
      Greek Oneposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      funny??????

      it is the saddest news story in the history of the world!

      1. Sab Oh profile image61
        Sab Ohposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        You're right. It just sucks, I mean, not, that is, doesn't...nevermind

        1. Greek One profile image79
          Greek Oneposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          you said a mouthful!!!

          (which will soon be illegal to do in Texas)

          1. Sab Oh profile image61
            Sab Ohposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Could be bad for tourism to the state. I mean, if this really happens then no one is gonna come

            1. Flightkeeper profile image78
              Flightkeeperposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Well it means that the liberals and democrats won't visit and the remaining will probably get out of Texas. Not a bad strategy big_smile

              1. kerryg profile image88
                kerrygposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                You really think liberals and democrats are the only ones partaking of oral sex, porn, strip clubs, and sex toy shops? LOL.

            2. Greek One profile image79
              Greek Oneposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Texas will really take it up the butt if that happens...

              which will also be illegal, of course

  19. Dominionmaster2 profile image60
    Dominionmaster2posted 7 years ago

    First of all greek one, you crack me up, LOL.
       Now this type of legislation is not new, they tried to make sodomy illegal back in the early 90's as well, you see how well that went over, but what get's me is the thinking behind this subject. How are they going to do the actual policing of this? Are they going to form a new type of police, the Fellatio, butt police? The truth of it is, this is their childish idea of how to try and quell the activities of the gay populace. Because in their retarded socially inept patterns of thinking they believe that only homosexuals perform these acts. This country never ceases to amaze me more and more every single day.

  20. profile image0
    ralwusposted 7 years ago

    I feel sorry for the rodeo boys. what will become of those buckle bunnies?

  21. Disturbia profile image60
    Disturbiaposted 7 years ago

    Nothing about Texas surprises me. I can't imagine how anyone could police what two individuals do in private, however, what concerns me is that they would be creating a new class of criminal, as if our prison system isn't already overburdened.

    The porn industry, strip clubs, and sex shops will either just move out of state or continue underground just as bootlegging did during prohibition and Texas will have accomplished nothing more than losing a large chunck of tax revenue which I'm sure these industries produce.

    A stupid law like this can only result in the suffering of innocent people, the growth of organized crime, and more coruption of police, courts, and politicans.

  22. Chaotic Chica profile image82
    Chaotic Chicaposted 7 years ago

    Not to burst anyone's bubble or anything, but certain sexual acts are illegal in certain states as well as in the United States military.  In fact, the position of 'doggy style' is, I believe, the most popular banned position.  Technically, under the UCMJ, pretty much anything other than missionary is a considered a court-martial offense. 

    Of course the trick is in enforcing it, as has been mentioned, and I have not heard of anyone recently punished but it is on the books.  Even if it passes, it will likely fall to the wayside to be forgotten though not removed.  Kind of like how it is still on the books in my county that a man can take his wife to the courthouse on a certain Wedensday and beat her on the front steps.  You would be arrested for it today but you'd get off because the law is still on the books, albiet inactive.

    1. wychic profile image81
      wychicposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      And in my state it's still legal to do a citizen's arrest for spitting on the sidewalk, and to hang people who steal your horses. I think some laws are made just to justify the lawmaker's existence/paychecks, and others just went out of societal norms and never got changed. Once upon a time, stealing a man's horse in this desert state was tantamount to murder....today, worst case scenario is that he'll have to borrow someone's 4-wheeler to go get the cows, or more likely won't be able to go for a pleasant trail ride until the horse is recovered.

    2. Len Cannon profile image88
      Len Cannonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      It already existed.  It was deemed unconstitutional five years back, thereabouts.  Texas wants it on the law books only for the purposes of harassing gay members of the community.

    3. psycheskinner profile image81
      psycheskinnerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Well they aso mean to do away with no fault divorce, which will be enforceable.

    4. Ralph Deeds profile image71
      Ralph Deedsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      "Not to burst anyone's bubble or anything, but certain sexual acts are illegal in certain states as well as in the United States military.  In fact, the position of 'doggy style' is, I believe, the most popular banned position.  Technically, under the UCMJ, pretty much anything other than missionary is a considered a court-martial offense."

      The UMCJ is pretty vague on that constitutes sodomy and on the punishment.

      925. ART. 125. SODOMY
      (a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration , however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.
      (b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

  23. SomewayOuttaHere profile image61
    SomewayOuttaHereposted 7 years ago

    I can't believe there'd be any law banning any unharmful sexual activity between consenting adults....besides...how would anyone know...I just don't pay attention I guess.

    http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_M-Nl0Fvwnzw/R1hnNB2956I/AAAAAAAAA4I/VyJvcsjwIVQ/s400/large_12-5-07SexToyLaw.jpg

  24. raisingme profile image91
    raisingmeposted 7 years ago

    Are they planning on having a BJ task force? hmm

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image71
      Ralph Deedsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      More likely "zero tolerance" and a "war on?"

  25. profile image0
    kimberlyslyricsposted 7 years ago

    hmmmmmm...........

    how would they police this?

      roll

  26. CYBERSUPE profile image61
    CYBERSUPEposted 7 years ago

    It's absurbed, are there not more important items to deal with.

    1. raisingme profile image91
      raisingmeposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Methinks you pose the correct question!  roll

      I do not think there is a big fella sitting atop a cloud somewhere keeping a sharp eye on our naughty bits.  And if indeed that is where the big fella has his attention focused we are all pretty much screwed as there are things on this planet of far greater concern!  Have there been or could there be any consequences for not taking responsibility for self?  To name one....you give your power away to others and some of those others are dimly lit or barely glowing!

  27. habee profile image90
    habeeposted 7 years ago

    We can't legislate morality - even if you think anal and oral sex are immoral, which I don't!

    1. profile image0
      Brenda Durhamposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Who says we can't?

      We legislate situations involving crimes like burglary, murder, money fraud, perjury (and even lying in some cases when not "publicly");  we legislate pornography and prostitution and even infidelity if tied to a bank account (lol);
        heck, we even legislate whether or not people can make business solicitations over the phone lines!   Some, if not all, of those are "moral" issues too.

      And especially NOW, since liberals want to legislate the intent of our hearts, even, by sticking a label of "hate crime" onto specific crimes,  there's no reason we can't legislate the issue of sodomy and other perversions.

      1. livelonger profile image88
        livelongerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Those crimes have a victim.

        Oral and anal sex between two consenting adults is victimless.

        1. Ron Montgomery profile image61
          Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Not exactly.  They make God cry.

          1. earnestshub profile image89
            earnestshubposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            .. and worry the crap out some of his botherers. smile

            1. Ron Montgomery profile image61
              Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Which actually comes in handy.  When those pests show up at my door I simply drop trou and ask them for their oral argument.  Works like a charm.

          2. Cagsil profile image61
            Cagsilposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            roll

      2. habee profile image90
        habeeposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        But oral and anal sex are victimless "crimes." Theft, along with the other things you mentioned, are not victimless. Who is hurt in any way if I indlulge in the aforementioned sexual acts with my husband? Why is this a "perversion"?

        Pornography is legal when adults are involved, and prostitution is even legal in some areas.

        1. profile image0
          Brenda Durhamposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          I'm ..pretty sure the GOP isn't saying they're for dragging people out of their private bedrooms and haulin' them off to jail (unless of course they have a juvenile in the bedroom watching them perform those acts, OR unless their actions are directly influencing a child in that house).

          Seems to me the GOP's intent is to stop the snowballing of the agenda that seeks to insert those practices into mainstream society and into our laws.

          1. livelonger profile image88
            livelongerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Kind of like divorce went from Biblical condemnation to widespread legal and societal acceptance, so much so that divorcees can act as self-righteous as a Pharisee nowadays?

            I guess I see your point.

            1. Dave Barnett profile image60
              Dave Barnettposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Frankly, I think this GOP BJ thing is rather counterproductive, after all they pay for most of them, and besides, what will they do on a saturday night when they are hanging with them there EVANGELISTS?

          2. Ron Montgomery profile image61
            Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            That's not the insertion they're worried about.

  28. habee profile image90
    habeeposted 7 years ago

    That might not be the intent, but if it's the law, it can always be abused by some fanatic. And as far as being part of mainstream society, anal and oral sex are already part of mainstream society!

    I agree with many of the GOP's views - but not when they try to tell people what they can do in their own bedrooms, between consenting adults. That's why the far right turns so many people off.

    1. livelonger profile image88
      livelongerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      The far-right shares much more in common with the far-left than it does with the mainstream right.

      The fringe is utopian and believes that if only everyone would behave exactly as they do, the world would be a better place. They believe that freedoms should be curtailed when they believe they're excessive, and they also are big believers in punishment for "moral crimes."

      As a left-of-center person myself, I find the far-left (and, obviously, far-right) far scarier than the right-of-center.

      1. habee profile image90
        habeeposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I agree, Livelonger. I'm right of center, but more of a moderate. I'm actually pretty liberal on a couple of issues, especially on recreational drugs and the death penalty (I'm against it).

        1. Ron Montgomery profile image61
          Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          If you give them drugs first is it OK to execute them.

          Get high, then fry.

    2. profile image0
      Brenda Durhamposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Actually, it probably is still on many law books.  But since when has it been enforced?   I haven't heard of anyone being prosecuted just for BEING a homosexual in the United States.  They've only been prosecuted for behaving lewdly in public like any straight person is also prosecuted for lewd behavior or conversation.   And that doesn't always even get proper prosecution.   So, because the laws have become so relaxed, now gays and other liberals want to push even farther, pushing their agenda upon us and pushing us into a corner.   This stuff from the GOP is most likely a defensive reaction and entirely understandable, given the crap we're having to fight against.

      1. habee profile image90
        habeeposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I don't think anyone should behave "lewdly" in public - gay, straight, or undecided.

      2. livelonger profile image88
        livelongerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Brenda,

        Why don't you give some examples where gays and lesbians are expecting special privileges for lewd conduct in public because they're gay/lesbian.

        I'll consider your claim a pile of B.S. until you provide proof.

        1. profile image0
          Brenda Durhamposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Just SAYING that it's okay for two men to engage in sex together, or two women, IS LEWD!

          And I'm pretty sure you'll always consider any claims of mine to be a pile of B.S., so I don't really care what you think.   You should be the one to provide proof that homosexuality is okay, but you'll never be able to do it because it's not okay.   You're just trying to get US to SAY it's okay so you'll feel better.   Sorry but it ain't happenin'.

          1. livelonger profile image88
            livelongerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            OK, I understand what you're saying.

            Naturally, since it doesn't make sense and it's not what you implied it would be, I don't agree with it.

            But thanks for clarifying.

  29. habee profile image90
    habeeposted 7 years ago

    For those who think pornography should be banned, please be aware that censorship is a slippery slope. I did extensive research on the subject for a college presentation. You'd be amazed at some of the wonderful books that have been banned in some parts of the US! Parts of the Bible were given to various boards to read, and even they were banned - before the members discovered that the excerpts came from the holy book. One of the books banned most often was Huckleberry Finn. Another was Cinderella. Why? Because of the use of magic.

    1. profile image0
      Brenda Durhamposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      No one can make a learned assessment of any book unless the quotes are given in context and with the overall message or intent of the book.

      Pornography and other books advocating immorality, however, have a clear intent.  There is no underlying "good" in it for children, and little redeemable factors to it at all.

      And there's a slippery slope of "tolerance" and "freedom" as it's termed, too, that has gradually allowed people to cuss and say lewd horrible things under the umbrella of "free speech".   So which is worse?
      There should be a middle ground when it comes to our man-made laws.
      ..Actually, there HAS BEEN that middle ground for a lonnnng time!  And the prostitutes and gay activists and other liberals weren't satisfied with that.  They want to shove their ways down our throats and into any level of society they can.

      1. Dave Barnett profile image60
        Dave Barnettposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        And "All you need is love" Should be banned, and all those areas in the bible where it says you love your neighbor, love your enemies, and especially those places that say Judge not. Are all of these aren't taken out of context. Sure sex and love ARE two different things. But the judgement of these things is also immoral. It is really none of our business, and life is too short. The problem is that we have lost touch with an extremely important aspect of mankind, which has allowed perversion to overtake our society. But, in a truly civilized society things would be vastly different.

  30. habee profile image90
    habeeposted 7 years ago

    My point about censorship is that it's so subjective. It's up to individual members of some board to make decisions. And if we really believe in free speech, we have to believe in free speech for all - not just for those who say what we want to hear. Some on both the far right and the far left seem to have a problem with this. For example, it was fine when Bush was made fun of and called vile names, but some of the lefties get all upset when Obama is the target of similar verbal assaults. On the other hand, some of the very people who cried "foul" when Bush was being derided are the very ones who are hurling abuse on Obama. Hypocrisy runs rampant on both sides.

    1. profile image0
      Brenda Durhamposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Not "what we want to hear", but what is actually within the bounds of decency and/or propriety.

      For instance, was it in-bounds for (I can't remember her name!) for that woman comedian to say she hoped Rush Limbaugh had kidney failure?   No way.  That was so thoughtless and downright disgusting.

      And is it okay for people to spout the F-word in public around kids?  Or even, actually, around a group of adults?

      What should be included in "free speech" for everyone?
      And which infractions are prosecutable by law?

      The boundaries are getting blurred so fast that people lose sight of what's appropriate and what isn't.

  31. Jerami profile image78
    Jeramiposted 7 years ago

    If ya caint define it ya cain't legislate it.

       I think it was a supreme court judge that said ...
    I cain't define it but I know when I see it.

    Beauty is in the eye of the heholder ...   I guess ugly is too.

    1. profile image0
      Brenda Durhamposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Only when ya leave out conscience.


      And all perversion can be defined.

      1. Jerami profile image78
        Jeramiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Very true ... 
        I have done remodel jobs for a comittees, never do that again.  Ten people can't easily agree on much of anything.

           But ten like minded people have little dificulty.
           And it is easy to establish resonable boundaries... But ..
        there will always be those that have to bust boundaries just to see if they can.
           And some of them need to be! ... But who gets to decide which ones?

        1. profile image0
          Brenda Durhamposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Well, it should be the ones with some age and wisdom under their belts.

          1. Jerami profile image78
            Jeramiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Unfortunately they can't agree upon much either.
            not even on what time is best to take our laxatives.

               That is why they call us gripy old people.
            Even if I was going to say it ...  When you say it first I want to argue with that idea.   Just kidding    but not  cause I've known more than a few like that ...   
              And I can recognize a few younger folks on here that are surely going to be like that when they get older.

      2. PrettyPanther profile image84
        PrettyPantherposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Your definition will, of course, be different from mine, which will be different from the next person's.  You will find as many different definitions of perversion as you do people.

        1. Pcunix profile image89
          Pcunixposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          I was in a bar with my dear brother in law, now departed.  Someone in the group said something about someone not there; something like "That guy is really perverted".

          My BIL, always competitive, sat up straight and announced "I am more perverted than any of you!"

          He then leaned over and whispered in my ear:  "Tony, what does perverted mean?"

          It took me a while to answer :-)

          1. PrettyPanther profile image84
            PrettyPantherposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Funny!  big_smile

        2. profile image0
          Brenda Durhamposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          I doubt that.
          At least, not in people's consciences.


          If, say...a man intentionally runs naked into a roomful of people, that's obviously perverse.
          Doesn't matter if the man is straight or gay, it's perverse.

          Same for a woman if she runs intentionally naked into a roomful of people.
          Doesn't matter if she's gay or straight, pretty or ugly, whatever.   Still perverse.

          We know what perversion is.
          But the liberals try to cover it up even deeper, by saying that the act of homosexuality is okay to begin with;  so there's where the comparison ends.

          It's like that beautiful woman teacher who had sex with her underage student.   She got a lighter sentence than most other people who molested or seduced somoeone into sexual activity.
          Why?  Probably because she LOOKED good.

          Perversion, no matter how it's dressed up or covered up or re-defined, is still just what it is---perversion.

          1. Pcunix profile image89
            Pcunixposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Nonsense.

            My wife and I summered at a clothing optional resort for many years.  We both have waked, strolled, skipped and run into many rooms quite naked and there was nothing perverse about it.

            1. profile image0
              Brenda Durhamposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Hogwash.
              Just because a whole group of people want to defy the rules of decency doesn't actually change the moral rules of it.

              1. Pcunix profile image89
                Pcunixposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Oh goody.  Now she wants to define decency.

              2. PrettyPanther profile image84
                PrettyPantherposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Brenda, your arrogance is showing.  Who made you the arbiter of what is decent and moral?

                1. profile image0
                  Brenda Durhamposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  ((snooorrrrt))

                  Better than having my naked butt showin' in public!  or yours, or anyone's, for that matter.

              3. profile image0
                Brenda Durhamposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                and unsanitary.

                Who the heck wants to sit on a bench or any other seat where a naked stranger sat?   Or walk around and see bodily secretions openly?
                Not only indecent, but gross.

                1. Pcunix profile image89
                  Pcunixposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  You need to get out more.

                  Actually, at clothing optional venues, carrying your own towel to sit on is required.

                  I bet you know nothing about the origins of nudity taboos.

                  Obviously, in some climates, clothing was necessary for survival.  But where it waas not, men still girded their loins for utilitarian reasons.  The stuff gets in the way of an active lifestyle and can hurt a lot when it does so.

                  Sweat, confined space and a lack of bathing opportunities surely contributed to the disgusting aspect of sexual organs.

                  For women, it was a bit different.  In far too many societies, for far too many eons, women were more like property than mates.  Even in relatively enlightened places, they held second rate status.

                  When they were property, their owners didn't want other men coveting them.  They put that one right in your favorite book, remember - and they made sure to mention the specific object of the coveting, too.

                  There was, as always, the poverty aspect to consider.  Clothing doesn't grow on trees.

                  Combine that with the bleeding thing and, in some places, the quaint idea that women were the lustful creatures who must be constrained, and pretty soon nakedness is shameful, sinful and just awful.  Add some centuries and you get real laws against it.

                  All very silly, of course.  Especially to those of us who have lived or now live the naturist lifestyle. 

                  Sometimes I forget how idiotic it all is and may start to venture outside nude.  I have to remind myself that not only would my neighbors summon police, but they would feel quite rightous doing so. 

                  Sick, sick world :-)

                  1. Ron Montgomery profile image61
                    Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    I had a different experience while working at such a resort - wrote a hub about it.

                    No towels required.  Plush overstuffed furniture everywhere.  Encounters with rattlesnakes.

                  2. profile image0
                    Brenda Durhamposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    LOLOL

                    "A towel is required"..?
                    Then what's the point of going nude in the first place?  A piece of clothing would take care of the whole problem.

                    And you said clothing doesn't grow on trees!   That's ridiculous!
                    I can tell ya where to get some for almost nothing.  Heck, I can tell ya where to get some for free.   I'll even tell ya to send anyone who claims to have to go naked to my house and I'll SEW them a pair of boxers or shorts.  They could even grab a fig leaf on their way!  Or...gee.. they can take that towel and put a few stitches in it and voila!-they'd have CLOTHING.
                    Nobody in America or anywhere else has to go naked.   LOLOL I thought I had heard everything until I read your post!

                2. Cagsil profile image61
                  Cagsilposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  How do you know that when you go over a friends house and you sit any chair there, that they didn't have sex in the chair. You don't know? Do you.

                  You can say that you know, but the truth of the matter is that you know nothing, with regards to their actions when you are not around.

                  So, please get off the high horse. Put your righteous attitude in check.

          2. Cagsil profile image61
            Cagsilposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Hey Brenda, also remember- perversion is subjective to a person's individual perspective. It is actually, not perverted for a woman to run into a roomful of people, if everyone else in the room is nude already?

            Just a thought. It is all a matter of perspective and situation/circumstances, which dictates perversion.

          3. Beelzedad profile image60
            Beelzedadposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Here are the definitions of perverse I found:

            1. Marked by a disposition to oppose and contradict.
            2. Resistant to guidance or discipline; tending to do the opposite of what is normal or wanted.
            3. Deviating from what is considered moral, right, proper or good.

          4. PrettyPanther profile image84
            PrettyPantherposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Now, see, I don't think that's necessarily perverted. Streakers weren't perverted; they were just defying cultural norms.  Most people thought they were funny.

  32. CYBERSUPE profile image61
    CYBERSUPEposted 7 years ago

    Excellent Brenda you are right on. Keep it comming

  33. rebekahELLE profile image90
    rebekahELLEposted 7 years ago

    am I missing something?



    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness


    oops! I forgot, this is the state that doesn't want thomas jefferson in the texbooks.

    happy july 4 everyone!!

    1. Randy Godwin profile image94
      Randy Godwinposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Only if everyone approves!

    2. Jim Hunter profile image61
      Jim Hunterposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I'm sure Thomas Jefferson won't be excluded from Texas text books.

      1. rebekahELLE profile image90
        rebekahELLEposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        oh yes, on their own ideological political agenda.
        http://impactnews.com/central-austin/29 … delay-vote

  34. habee profile image90
    habeeposted 7 years ago

    Sex with animals is taboo - they can't give consent. Anything two OR MORE consenting adults want to do with sex is fine by me - none of my business. No animals and no kids, though!!

    As I said earlier, all this is subjective. What might be perverted to Ralph might be fun or even normal for Randy Godwin (which it probably is!). Sorry, Ralph. Just using you as an example because I see your face as I'm typing.

    BTW, I had a student years ago who was convicted of animal cruelty - he raped a dog.

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image71
      Ralph Deedsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Or vice versa!

      1. habee profile image90
        habeeposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Go, Ralph!

      2. Randy Godwin profile image94
        Randy Godwinposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Which brings a new meaning to "doing dirty deeds"!  LOL!

        Sorry Ralph, couldn't resist that!

        1. habee profile image90
          habeeposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          RD, not "dirty deeds done with sheep"????

          Ralph's new nickname: "Dirty."

          1. Randy Godwin profile image94
            Randy Godwinposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            I didn't say sheep!  Some prefer goats!

            1. habee profile image90
              habeeposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              RD, that was baa-aaa-aad.

          2. earnestshub profile image89
            earnestshubposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Reminds me of AC/DC habee!
            Remember Dirty deed done dirt cheap? smile

            1. habee profile image90
              habeeposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Ernesto, have you heard the parody of the AC/DC version - "Dirty Deeds Done with Sheep"??

              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rifBVbuN … re=related

  35. TwO1FouR profile image61
    TwO1FouRposted 7 years ago

    Wow! This is too funny... and sad if you ask me.

  36. SomewayOuttaHere profile image61
    SomewayOuttaHereposted 7 years ago

    http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/funny-pictures-cats-stare-at-sandwich.jpg

  37. Jackson Riddle profile image67
    Jackson Riddleposted 7 years ago

    This thread + this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jU7fhIO7DG0 = My view of American politics

    1. Jackson Riddle profile image67
      Jackson Riddleposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      This made me laugh so hard!!!!!!!!!!!

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDwNrp1- … eature=fvw

      Only watch after you have watched the first one

      1. SomewayOuttaHere profile image61
        SomewayOuttaHereposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        i watched it twice.....

        1. earnestshub profile image89
          earnestshubposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Very very funny! lol lol lol

  38. Onusonus profile image85
    Onusonusposted 7 years ago

    Texas is starting to sound like a good place to raise a family. wink

    1. Randy Godwin profile image94
      Randy Godwinposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Charles Manson would agree with you!

      1. Onusonus profile image85
        Onusonusposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I thought he fit in well with the folks in Callifornia.......

        1. Randy Godwin profile image94
          Randy Godwinposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Perhaps even better in Utah and Oregon!

  39. habee profile image90
    habeeposted 7 years ago

    Good lookin' palomino in that Alabama video!

    1. rebekahELLE profile image90
      rebekahELLEposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I thought so too! was that for real? hmm the first one?

      1. Jackson Riddle profile image67
        Jackson Riddleposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Yeah, first 1 is for real

 
working