ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

This Hub Is About Something Even More Important Than Men Wearing Panties (But Has A Picture Of A Man Wearing Panties)

Updated on July 15, 2011

Recently a concerned little birdie expressed his (or her) aforementioned concern over the plethora of hubs I have written about men and their lingerie. The comment went thus:

“What is the obsession with putting men in womens underwear? Granted most of these hubs are entertaining, and some even insightful; but still.

If there is anything else in your life this uimportant to you, I'd like to hear about it.

Concerned. Lol”

Deftly, I interpreted this question as a request for deep discussion of an issue which cuts to the very core of our human condition. Fortunately, I am not without ideas on this subject, and there is one theme that has been niggling ever stronger as the months and years go by. It is this:

(Skip to the end for the juicy solution, which will make more sense if you read the whole thing. Articles are funny that way.)


I'm beginning to think democracy doesn't work, and not only does it not work now, its never actually worked. Democracy had its inception in Greece, notably Athens, where it was determined that the people should determine their fates. All men could vote for representatives and on the occasional issue as well. Issues were brought up and debated vigorously in public forums and the assembled men would vote according to their consciences. (It was a little more complicated than this and involved the formation of a senate and whatnot, I'm not going to give a history lesson here, check out Wikipedia: Democracy for further information.)

Even at this time, when public participation was relatively high (unlike today, where over 60% of any given nation is probably apathetic to the point of not knowing the names of all the candidates in any election,) the system was flawed. For starters, only free men could vote, slave males could not and women of any flavor could not. Democracy therefore, was governance by the educated patriarchy.

Today, although a great deal is made out of democracy, in many countries a two party system, or a system where two parties are dominant, results in a situation in which the public can vote for one of two puppets. The real powers that be are now, as they were in ancient times, a bunch of predominantly rich, predominantly old and predominantly white men. Democracy is an illusion which keeps the masses quiet because it gives them the illusion of control. If you look at what is occurring in Iran, the public is rioting because they feel their votes were taken from them, the fact that the guy they actually voted for is alleged to have presided over genocide in the past is irrelevant. I admire, respect and support their right to vote and their refusal to accept the travesty which clearly occurred, but I also mourn due to the fact that either way, it doesn't look like they have much of a chance of achieving what it is they truly want.

Iran and other countries where they're not afraid to burn a few buses to make their point aside, (no, I'm not condoning violence, simply noting it,) the enemy the West faces is our complacency, our laziness, our herd mentality. We're easily distracted by shiny things and we're easily put off by the work involved in discovering the truth about our leaders. How much do any of us ever know about those we vote in to positions of power? My guess is most of us vote along party lines at best, if we vote at all. (I spent the last election in bed, because the shiny American election made ours seem boring. Yes. I suck at this too.)

The Solution

So what's the solution? Well, its a sticky wicket. Humans take the path of least resistance, so unless we are actively caused pain by our politicians, we don't tend to do much about them. On the other side of that coin is the fact that by the time they start to cause any real pain, we're generally already stuck with them. You're not allowed to vote out a President or a Prime Minister in any country mid term, but perhaps that should change. Perhaps the power of the vote should truly belong to the public, and a vote should be able to be called at any time, not every three or four years. I don't think Bush would have invaded Iraq if he would have been voted out the next week for doing so. He took that action against public opinion because he knew he had time to make them forget. And if the American public had voted for the action, then they would be implicit in the criminal act, instead of blaming a crazy yokel from Texas for the tax payer backed war crimes which were perpetrated over the past five years, and continue to be perpetrated today.

Every democratic nation should have an independent authority, separate from the government, which when approached with a sufficient amount of signatures, should have the authority to call a snap election.

Why should we be left to suffer for years under the tyranny of fools and evil doers simply because they managed to con a vote? That's not democracy, that's Russian roulette played with the lives and livelihoods of every man woman and child in a nation.

Your thoughts chaps and chappetes?


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • profile image

      Doug 7 years ago

      Hope and all, you should read a book called “Muddling Towards Frugality.” I read it in the 1970’s, and am not sure it is still in print, but I still remember the main thesis of the book, which is that it is a good thing that our (US) government is inefficient because that prevents the government from going too far, too fast down the wrong path. For example, the Nazi government was very efficient.

      There has to be a critical mass of public will to make major changes, as there was from the 1940’s to 1970’s for civil rights.

      Whenever I hear people say that the “masses” are asleep, too apathetic, sheep like, etc, what it means to me is simply that things aren’t going the way he/she would like. I’d caution anyone who thinks that they are the only sane voice to step back and consider the possibility that those with whom you disagree may have valid points.

      Democracy is very far from perfect, but it is the best system ever conceived of by humankind. In America states and local governments used reading tests and poll taxes to disenfranchise blacks. It would be a great way to bar one’s political opponents from the political process.

      In regards to GoneNylon’s comments on the US founding fathers, I don’t think they would be shocked by much. In the years immediately following US independence, politicians had no compunction about throwing their opponents in jail for publishing dissenting opinions, they Americans tarred and feathered people (a sometimes fatal experience as hot tar burned large areas of skin), and Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton out and out bought votes by sitting outside the polling place in Alexandria, Virginia with kegs of whisky and giving free drinks to anyone who voted for them.

      The more things change, the more they stay the same. In the US, voters moved towards the right after the terrorist attacks of 9/11 (I knew people who were killed that day), and in 2006 and 2008 decided to move to the left. Recently there has been a shift towards the right again, as people realize the risks in having both houses of Congress and the Presidency controlled by the same party. It’s the checks and balances that preserve out inefficient form of government (I’m in the US).

      I know many people who work in the government, and have friends who work for politicians from both the Republican and Democratic parties. They are honest, hard working people who sincerely believe that they are contributing to the common good. One challenge is the enormous complexity of government at the national level. Bills are hundreds or thousands of pages long, and nobody can possibly read, let alone understand it all. The government regulates everything from air traffic control, to the economy, farm policy, criminal codes, defense, etc.

      We also express our wills in other ways. For example, voting with our pocket books (which is why I urge every male out there to go out and buy a skirt and make sure the sales person knows its for you).

      Hope, I may not agree with you on all aspects of politics, but I am a loyal fan our your fashion guidelines. Lets see if we can get a skirt-wearing man elected!

    • profile image

      madeleine 7 years ago from Takoma Park, Maryland

      As would I Sissychuck. I've read more intelligent and thoughtful comments here, and from so many that it least gives me faith that there still are people who don't mind being intellectually capable (meeaning intellectuals-which seems like a dirty word these days, but is really just about people who give thought and observation to the less iname substance of our lives) and sharing in the discourse of IDEAS. I've seen more democracy being expressed of that fact here on this subject than I generally do in my daily life. Now if we could only harness all this incredible energy... and put it to work...who knows?

      One problem I have with agreeing to disagree is though it may avoid conflict, it isn't necessarily helpful in achieving a consensus, which I'd like to think a democratic ideal. Make no bones about it, the US has never truly represented itself as more than a representative form of government. It's in the pledge of allegiance: "and to the republic for which it stands" not the democracy for which it stands. A fundamental misunderstanding of our form of government, flawed as it is.

      I have a friend, who is almost exact polar opposite to me politically- me flaming liberal, him, a member of the delusional Fox news/Rush Limbaugh state. But we had a conversation on which we agreed on a few things. One was that a representative or Senator, local or national, should be limited to a set number of terms in office. This literally forces new blood and ideas into the process on a regular basis, and prevents the tyranny of the "seniority" system in which the asshole can restrict and virtually control the flow of legislation until it represents him or her, more than it does the people. Yet occassionally, senior statesmanship can be wise, so lets let senators have two to three terms, and representatives, four or five. And allow the good one's to run again for office after they've been out of office for at least a term. I think it should apply to Presidents too. But this senator or representative for life stuff is just ridiculous.

      Paradoxically though, I believe the biggest problem with our present system, which is based way to much on polls and what the people are thinking-right this moment. I believe it sometimes requires the courage of a politician to express a vision, and ideals to strive for, and to be an inspiration to active participation to achieve something greater than ourselves. That's why Jack Kennedy was so popular. Despite his relative youth, andas we've foun, his many flaws, he inspired creation of things like the peace corps, where people were inspired to serve in the interest of humanity, not politics, money or a country. Sometimes, if you've got a good idea you've gotta go against the flow until people get it. Like universal health care, flawed and costly as it presently is, will eventually serve us better, and save us money in the long run. Whereas no health care supports big business and the short sighted propoganda of Rush Limbaugh. i.e.: the health "Death squads". Where the f*ck did that come from!

      Any way- what I originally intended to write is: that democracy isn't always the best government for a given place and time. Such as Hope's example of how women are treated more shabbily now than under Hussein.

      I was thinking about China, back in the 50's through the 70's- some terrible things happened, but I think only a borderline totalitarian control of the system (when properly applied), prevented chaos. It secured universal medical help, fed the masses and kept them from starving, and as draconian a measure it may be to restrict a family to one child per- is something we may all have to do someday to prevent us from consuming ourselves. In a way, it was visionary, and apropriate to China's circumstances at the time. They literally couldn't feed the people they had. I believe some of those polies led to the prosperity they have today. And don't doubt it, they are allready becoming the economic colossus that the US was in the twentieth century. And we may never again be the all powerful country that many of us still choose to believe we are.

      When a country moves with true moral authority, they gain respect around the world. When they do not, as we did in Iraq, we lose all presige and respect. And to think it doesn't affect you personally-just try visiting some places in the world where Iraq has given us a black eye and see what they think of you-just for being an American. Guilt by association.

      Oh well Hope, I'd hoped to write only a paragrah about China,but you've all inspired me into consuming great gobs of my time in this discussion. Thank you, from a 24hour panty (and occasionally more femme clothing) wearing lover.

    • profile image

      sissychuck 8 years ago

      I enjoy wearing panties and wear them exclusively. i own no men's underwear at all and don't want to ever wear them again as long as there are plenty of nice panties to wear. in fact, if i could get away with it, i'd wear women's clothing from head to toe and love every second of it.

    • profile image

      Gr8 Legs 8 years ago

      Maslow's hierarchy of needs is a theory in psychology, proposed in 1943 by psychologist Abraham Maslow in his paper "A Theory of Human Motivation", that states that humans are driven to satisfy certain physical, social and psychological needs.

      He ordered these needs in the form of a pyramid, with the most basic (physiological) needs - those of food and shelter - at the base of the pyramid, whilst others (safety, social, esteem) were placed higher on the pyramid as they became more removed from basic survival, with the highest ranking given to Self-Actualisation.

      Maslow proposed that as we are able to satisfy each of the lower needs, then we move up the ranking system to pursue next highest level above in the pyramid. This is what Mikki is referring to in his opening paragraph.

      I have written in another post elsewhere on Hope's hub about the reason for the negative veiws on men wearing "female" clothing being as a result of social conditioning whereby women wearing "male" attire are seen to be striving towards a higher ideal, yet men who wear "female" clothing are seen to be debasing themselves. It is for this very reason that feminists should be wholeheartedly supporting the right of men to wear skirts, dresses, hosiery and lingerie, as it elevates the position of the feminine ideal within the psycho-social conscience of society as a whole and further promotes the cause of female equality. Ergo,this equality will never be achieved until society recognises the "feminine" ideal as being equal in social status to the "masculine" state, thus leaving both genders able to wear whatever attire suits their needs and desires without the risk of ridicule or belittlement at the hands of others (e.g. "butch" women or "sissy" men).

      Your thoughts?

    • Hope Alexander profile image

      Hope Alexander 8 years ago

      Agreed, baehron, the two puppet system is perhaps the most frustrating element of all...

    • profile image

      baehron 8 years ago

      Voting for two puppets is the key line. Even if able to vote out 'evil' politician, our next choice will be but another puppet, who accomplishes the same thing as the last puppet. As for democracy, I always saw it as the best form of government, but then I realized that wasn't quite the so, all it did was allow me to choose the politician that was going to cause me some kind of greif with either stupidity or corruption. And in the end, its the quality of our life, so...if we were ruled by a King, a good, wise king who knew that a happy kingdom required happy serfs, then life without democracy would be fine. As it is, we get to choose the power-hungry folks ourselves.

    • profile image

      GoneNylon 8 years ago

      Well, Hope, I'd posted my two cents' worth and been away from this particular thread for a couple of months, but just came back by chance and read Mikki's comments and must say I'm a tad bit steamed.

      Those who say "Well, yeah, but name someting better and it's OK if you do because I've bled for your right to say it" make certain assumptions not grounded in fact. It is manifestly selfish to make such an assertion because the assertion itself is undergirded in the notion that the rest of us DON'T have generations who've foughtAndBledAndDied.

      I can assure you I do, and every time I criticize the current state of governance, I do so with those generations in mind. THAT, and not the status quo, was the purpose of all that blood. Does anyone really think that southern boys walked home from Appamatox Courthouse and looked at the freed slaves and said "Well, I foughtAndBledAndSoForth for your right NOT to be free?" It's mostly the same argument Mikki made.

      Mikki makes a most fundamental mistake in his/her argument: that all that has come before precludes anything that might come after. There ARE better ways. Quite simply, we haven't yet either (a) discovered or (b) implemented them.

      What would Mikki tell the Iroquois Confederation of Democracy? After all, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, et al. lifted much of their governance from them and called it "America." Then the Iroquois were rubbed out. What would Mikki say of the Shawnee, whose participatory ruling structure, which contained no term for "democracy," consisted of a male War Chief leading a council of tribal leaders who had to seek permission of the female "Peace Chief" before going to war?

      To call any system which relies in whole or in part on group participation in decision-making "democracy" smacks of the same thought processes which led early "saints" of the Xtian Church to grandfather Socrates and Plato into Heaven on the artificial concept of "homo christianus naturaliter," the naturally christian man. It's a fiction and a cheat and intellectually dishonest.

      So, too, with Mikki's argument. "I was in the military, so you're wrong" doesn't wash with me, or, I suspect, many millions of others whose forebears have walked the same or similar roads.

      In the final analysis, there are very, very, VERY few people on the planet whose relatives haven't borne the bloody stain of some military action. Relying on a military past for some totemic justification of present failures is no more valid than a woman arguing the sole right to wear lace because she's a girl. It's bigoted, short-sighted and betrays an underlying insecurity in the system being defended.

    • profile image

      kfsteve391 8 years ago

      I wear womens thongs and panties daily. I like lace, ruffles, bows and tie sides in feminine colors such as pink, lilac, etc. The sexier the better. The ladies look so nice in theirs. I want to look just like they do, so I wear the same thing. I look and feel great in my panties.

    • 50 Caliber profile image

      50 Caliber 8 years ago from Arizona

      Jason, this is intended with all due respect and is meant in noway as an Attack, as I beleive all are entitled their opinions and choices in life.

      There exists however a reason for the "Electoral College". It represents the total population. If we were to electronically count individual votes, the elections would be decided by Los Angeles, New York City, Atlanta and so on, you get my drift? as those areas dense in population would out number all. As a matter of fact I, until recently shared your sintements on this Idea.

      After reading "The Federalist papers" I had a better understanding of the process of our "Republic", at least a better understanding of what it was intended to be. The U.S. is off course, and in my opinion, with little hope of returning to the simpler times I grew up in.

      Life has become a full time job that requires us to keep records for 7 to 10 years, living in fear of getting an audit, or trying to track laws that change day in and out, one day your fine and the next day your a criminal. It is mind boggling.

      Ah the light at the end of the race, slipping into your favorite pair of panties and relaxing, forgetting for the moment, the problems and strife of every day living. I am blessed with an understanding wife who knows I like the feel of the panties as well as the veiw of a pantied butt, so she shares both as she walks around the home with short t-shirts and a pantied butt that drives me nutts :)

      As for government debates there have been some well thought out things posted here and to my pleasure it has been a civilized debate.

      Thank you, Hope for the topic and everyone who participated.

    • profile image

      Jason 8 years ago

      I remmember the sham us elections of a few years ago where Bush said "My daddy was a president, now you just keep re-counting those votes, until I get the right result"

      In this electronic age there should be an electronic voting system where all govt decisions are really decided in real time by the people not corrupt pollies.

    • profile image

      panties4everyone 8 years ago

      Any form of government can theoretically work under the right conditions. The problem is creating those right conditions. Democracy has been failing because, as already stated, the people who vote are uninformed and uneducated on the issues. The idea of testing voters sounds good. Or perhaps some sort of voting license (not just the current registration card) that expires after X amount of years. You have to pass a test to drive a car. You have to pass a test to practice medicine. ETC. The reason we require people to pass a test to obtain licenses for so many things is because people's lives are at stake. Why should government and voting be any different? Requiring someone to pass a test doesn't prevent anyone from voting anymore than requiring someone to pass a driving test prevents anyone from driving a car. Should someone have the right to drive a car or practice medicine even though they've repeatedly failed the tests?

      Men aren't allowed to freak out about women working jobs that have been previously dominated by men. If they do, they're labeled "sexist." So, why are women allowed to freak out over men wearing clothes that have previously been worn by women? I think when women started demanding access to all the things us men have, they forfeited their right to freak out about us having access to the things they have. After all, you can't demand equality from others and then turn around and freak out when others want equality from you.

    • Tomgeekery profile image

      Tomgeekery 8 years ago

      Jason, I disagree. Women have a right to freak out. The issue is that freaking out is their own problem. Not yours.

    • profile image

      Jason 8 years ago

      This is very political! But I do beleive that when one govt gets out of control, like in Iraq etc. it is right to remove the head. But not invade the country, let the local people fill the void, and then observe, it is really their country.

      Pollies should be able to be removed at any time, and paid according to results, not just for existing.

      Over paid Company directors are complaining that their termination pay should be equivelent to several years pay, but their employee's only get a few weeks severance pay, at basic rate. Is this fair??

      Men should be able to wear what ever they want, and women should have no right to freak out. I like to wear nylon lace bikini, but my wife wears grandma full cottons. When she wore the bikini I was content, when she stopped I changed also

    • Hope Alexander profile image

      Hope Alexander 8 years ago

      Mikki, did you just compare my sentiments to those of the Taliban? Because I assure you, I have no intention of making horses wear panties.

    • profile image

      Mikki-Maine 8 years ago

      I have lived and traveled outside the US since I was a young man by virtue of being a military dependent, then in the military myself and finally because I simply like to travel. In all my years I noted, even as a young person, that there is a truly global desire for only the basics in life and a few extravagances... a person to share your life with, a family and a safe place for them to sleep, enough food to eat, a work life to support these basics and enough to save to keep you warm, dry and fed when you are old. Beyond these basics people strive to be free from abuse by powerful forces (government agencies, criminals and faith based groups whose beliefs you do not share), educate your children and hope for a good (better?) life for them and to live your life free from terror, war and crime.

      Are there forms of governments out there which are not democratic in nature that provide these things? If there are, I have not heard of them or witnessed their good work. I have spent considerable time in what we refer to as 2nd or 3rd world countries who are struggling with this concept of one person, one vote. Does it work in every instance, no. Is it simply better than any other form of government developed in our (relatively short) history? Yes, especially for large and divergent populations. Is it perfect, nope. Never can be, never will be. Does it work? Yes.

      I have read the sentiments stated above before... 40 years ago these things were said by the Sandinistas, 30 years ago by the Baathists, 20 years ago by the Taliban and so on. The "revolutionaries" who wanted to change and correct these and other governments included the Maoists, the agrigarian Pol Pot regime, the FARQ, the Shining Path Maoists, the Karen Rebels and the Tamil Tigers, the peace loving Al-Qaeda and all the various other groups on the African continent who are too numerous to list, all who purport to have a better way. I don't think any of us can seriously suggest these "systems" have demonstrated a more fair and more open system of government.

      To those of you who offer criticism of the current and past administrations - I salute you. I and my grandfather and my father and my son have all served in the military to defend your right to do so and I am pleased and proud for you to stand up and raise your voice. It is incumbent upon you to understand that it is my right to disagree with your opinion and it is my duty to actively and legally oppose your opinion when I do disagree with it. That is the beauty of democracy - we need to understand to "agree to disagree". For the gentlemen above who suggested that there be a weighted average for voting, splitting the representatives vote into percentages of their constituency - talk about reacting to instant polling?

      To those who criticize the current administration about not doing this or changing their minds on issues... I have first hand experience in dealing with public denial... you really do not know all that happens in the world. You also do not want to know who is doing what to whom. You do not have the tools to deal with these issues and I don't either. There are things that happen in the world that demand national actions - not all the citizens are going to agree, but again... see the "agree to disagree" segment above. Go about your business or get involved and legally supplant the seated representatives who you disagree with.

      Ahhh... time to go home and fold the skirts, blouses and lingerie I put in the was before my wife comes home and gets a very bad surprise!

      Hope - love your mind and will defend your rights to my last breath, but in my opinion this post represents your age group as much as anything else. Keep up the great work and get involved if you disagree!


    • Hope Alexander profile image

      Hope Alexander 8 years ago

      Actually Billy B, women under Saddam Hussein had more rights then than they currently do now. Sure, Saddam was evil and gassed his own people, but that doesn't mean war was justified (and it sure as heck wasn't the reason given for the war.) Women in Iraq are now being oppressed more than ever, because you know what happens when the West invades a Middle Eastern country? The hardliners come in. The same thing happened in Afghanistan prior to the Russian invasion. That's how the Taliban came into power there. That's why this time, the world is leaving Iran alone. Because we've all just seen what happens when you invade and also, we're kinda broke right now. Thank god for the global recession.

      Also, just to clarify, I don't really think that we should get rid of democracy all together, I think we should move towards making it more effective and truly representative. There's some great suggestions for that in the comments here.

    • profile image

      billyb 8 years ago


      I have been a fan for awhile now and for the most part have agreed with your posts, and this one has some very valid points but what out there is a better form of government yes democracy is not perfect but is Cuba better or Venezula or how about China remember Tinmen square. I did not agree with our country invading Iraq but Hussein was no poster child for equal rights Women had no rights at all. Today the people of Iran are fighting for their votes to count even though they are voteing for thugs. Evin though democracy and capitalism have flaws I will take the flaws and try to do my best fix them anyday over a tyranny or dictatorship. By the way I am still wearing my heels and lingerie

    • codyjo profile image

      codyjo 8 years ago from New Mexico.

      Hope, you are, forever, the greatest.

      I have very little faith in big government but I have even less faith in humanity.

      Ancient Greek society was as close to perfect as human beings may ever come. Each person lived "Arete", which is the practice of the excellence of oneself, so as to fulfill their complete potential. Each person was trained in athletics, philosophy, drama, and rhetoric. Not to mention that even men back then wore dresses (ahem, togas, robes, or whatevers). They understood that a true Democracy was possible only if each citizen strove for "Arete".They were so awesome that the Romans, with no hint of subtlety, adapted the majority of their culture.

      Few people in this world today strive for personal excellence. Fewer in America, even, where life can be lived so passively and in comfort. As such, Democracy is less effective. That is why I say I have little faith in big government but even less in humanity.

      The only solution I've ever surmised is to one day live in a small self-sustaining society, where each person whom lived there was chosen because of their commitment to the attitude of excellence. Each person would represent themselves and be of no higher rank than any other citizen. While leaders would appear naturally, nobody would be obliged to follow them unless all citizens voted to vest power in an individual in times of severe crisis only. If it sounds like a cult then consider that my idea is inspired by Plato's "Republic", Sir Thomas Moore's "Utopia", as well as studying 'The Others' in the TV-show "Lost".

      I guess the closest model of this in America is state-governance, all flaws accounted for.

      I day dream of sub-societies founded on Arete, Love, & Equality.

    • profile image

      Dave 8 years ago

      In one of Neville Shutes novels people could have several votes by earning them, eg if you had a degree you gained a vote, a PhD another vote etc. Comments please on what could a type of meritocracy.

      I think the novel might have been 'Round the Bend'!

    • Hope Alexander profile image

      Hope Alexander 8 years ago

      Good points Gone Nylon, I was sniping at Mr 'iloveps' mainly... :D

      I wonder if the bulk of any population is simply provided with 'peasant' genes, meaning they are happy to live under leadership, corrupt or not. If that's the case, we should bring back feudalism. I'd like the chance to increase my landholdings and develop a small private army.

    • profile image

      GoneNylon 8 years ago

      This American isn't defending what we weakly call "democracy" here, Hope. We have a sham, as I said; a veneer of popularity contest over a very deep core of oligarchy.

      When corporations are deemed to have the same civil rights as a person beaten or killed for trying to vote, you know you've already gone down the rabbit hole.

      Through most of my life, the presidential choices have typically been between the lesser of two evils. The problem with that dynamic, however, lies in the fact that when one does that, one is still voting for evil, lesser be damned.

      Much of what America has become it most certainly wasn't designed to become. Those brilliant, bigoted, racist, misogynistic men who wrote the Constitution never for once imagined that the Congress would wallow in its own fetid swill and refuse to impeach a president who became an overt criminal. That they thought more highly of the leaders we'd elect is not the fault of the venal, shallow people who eventually seized power.

      It would have been equally horrifying to them to have seen Habeas Corpus chucked out the window and gleefully rendered useless. Torture? I can't begin to describe how Adams, Franklin, Jefferson et al. might've responded.

      In the final analysis, any inkling of democracy in the U.S. is persistently thwarted by corporate money. If we actually want those democratic processes back, the one and only one remedy exists: get the corporate money out of the elecfion process. Barring that, we're screwed.

    • Hope Alexander profile image

      Hope Alexander 8 years ago

      Strange to see a couple of Americans defending the current form of democracy when they live in a country which passively had its election stolen and then sat equally passively by whilst they sponsored an illegal war against a soverign state. Is it only on the Internet and when you're pounding the hell out of countries that can't fight back that you guys grow balls?

    • profile image

      Newbie 8 years ago

      Equality for mens and womens fashions ? Women have claimed panties for their own just like Hope says. Trouble is guys while a few of the females are starting to get the idea that maybe we should be able to wear anything we like, a big number don't want us intruding into "their" territory. I can't see a man being able to shop in a "womens" section of a store without the strange looks and snide remarks from the girls for a long time yet. It's only thanks to online shopping that most of us can buy the clothes we want.

      Roll on that happy day when store owners finally realise that a man has as much right to try on a Bra as a women and reflect that fact in their advertising. After all, isn't that Democracy in action ?

      Love you Hope, you're a bright light in what was a sea of darkness..

    • profile image

      iloveps 8 years ago

      "You're not allowed to vote out a President or a Prime Minister in any country mid term"

      In the US we can (or at least our representative can call for it and get a majority vote for investigation then let the senate tri the president for "high crimes and misdemeanors") and in the UK and other parlimentary systems you can give a vote of no confidence but once again it is not by the people only their representativs.

      But in some states here the people can "recall" the Governor and replace them (this is what happend to gray davis when he was recalled an replaced by Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2003). I think we should add that at some national level as well maybe similar to our constitutional ammendment process.

    • profile image

      ERINSY 8 years ago

      um, the alternative to democracy leaves alot more to be desired dont you think?

      I wonder if the germans alive in ww2 thought to themselves 'hey, this guys killing millions, but thank god we're not a true democratic society'. democracy only works if we the people show up. I agree that there is far to much complacency when it comes to who we vote in to run our country. Often times its like we are voting for the lesser of two evils. But its the people who make that choice. living in a democratic society means that we can get invoolved in the issue, we can run for government, we can vote, we can make a difference. running the country is hard to say the least, and not many of us can say that we would like that awesome responsibilty, so why hurl abuse at those corageous enough to do so. yes, politicians can be scum, and yes they can abuse their power, but the point is, we put them there. having an independent body won;t solve anything. thats just ghigher government. The australian public needs to take back control and realise that thje government works for us, not the other way around. Apathy is hurting our government, not democracy. And ending democracy will solve nothing, as history shows us, it may not be a perfect form of government, but look at the other choices.decisions are made by people who show up.

      By the way, when people do decide to get rid of a pm or president midterm, its called a revolution.

    • profile image

      Dee 8 years ago

      Back in the 50's, a science fiction writer named Robert Heinlein suggested that voting would only go to those that contributed two years of service to the country. Notice he didn't say military service, even though a lot of the characters in the book did just that. After the service, then you have "earned" the right to vote. It wasn't automatic. Most of the younger folks (sigh!!) will reognize this from the movie "Starship Troopers" which was based on his book. Earning the right to vote might be the right step

    • profile image

      wren 8 years ago

      Panties, nothing more or less than a piece of material, soft and sexy or not, it's only material...women now wear pants and not skirts...what does this tell us???

      Guys, eventually we will obtain equality!

    • SatinJenni profile image

      SatinJenni 8 years ago from Burlington Ontario Canada

      What about men wearing panties?

      Kind of like complaining about some one wearing blue isn't it? It's clothing and it covers my privates....really its such a non starter as a topic, but I certainly enjoy your writings, keep up the good work Hope!

      As for a reader or two that doesn't believe a masculine men can and does wear panties, "let them eat cake..."

      Where have I hear that before???? .. ;)

      I better go...time to slip into something lacy, satiny and sexy for bedtime.

    • Hope Alexander profile image

      Hope Alexander 8 years ago

      Wow guys, wow .... This is an amazing discussion... I love it...

      A few comments... the "Mass Media" comment wasn't meant to be a snide comment rather than an observation that media IS owned by individuals and aside from making revenue can and has been used to sway public opinion, that's how 60 something percent of the American public thought at one time that Hussein had something to do with 9/11 ... Media is communication, communication is power, owning and controlling the media does mean you influence minds. That is all. People like those in my family get all their information from the 6 o'clock news, which I can tell you, severely skews their view of the world.

      You're pretty awesome yourself, Mr Pantiesformen :)

      I agree that democracy works better in smaller states, I'm not sure how we adapt it to better suit larger ones.

      Tomgeekery, you're right, the failing of democracy can be that the people themselves are not equipped to make decisions. I'm not sure how to get around that one either, but I don't think putting absolute power in the hands of a few to make things like abortion legal or illegal works either.

    • profile image

      Newbie 8 years ago

      Denocracy is an ideal that some just haven't got a handle on yet, and I doubt if we will ever reach that perfect ideal (well,not in my lifetime anyway) Just to illustrate the ideal though there's a group of guys here in New Zealand who decided they had had enough of being shoved into a fashion straight-jacket and started up a support group for men wanting to wear female fashions. They call their group "Agender" and openly - and proudly - wear dresses and skirts publicly, showing the world that is how they want to dress and no-body is going to stop them!. They have taken a lot of abuse, and the jeers and sneers must have been horrendous when they started up, but now things have settled down and apart from the occasional comment no-body actually notices anymore. I believe their group represents true Democracy and I admire them all for taking what some would describe as a truly radical , but really Democratic step.

    • profile image 8 years ago from California USA

      "Hope Alexander says:Testing isn't a bad idea, but it cuts people out of the process, rather than empowering them further. My idea is flawed too, as it is still open to manipulation from the mass media and those who control it."

      It only "cuts people out of the process" that CHOOSE to be cut out by failing to educate themselves on Democracy. We should require our educational system (and the media, for those that fail to attend school) to teach how Democracy works. In my day they called that "Social Studies" but I don't think they have such a class today. Is it "Politicaly Incorect" to teach politics?

      Now....about your comment on "the Mass Media". It sounded like the old "Big Corporation" snide remarks made by the socialist far left (I am left leaning Indipendent). What is more MASS media than the Internet? No communications system in the history of the world reaches more people faster and more often than the Internet and it certainly is not "controled" by ANYONE.

      PS: Love you Hope and all you do and say. You are my Idol

    • 50 Caliber profile image

      50 Caliber 8 years ago from Arizona

      In short the United States is a crumbling "Republic" the founding fathers did not intend on it being a "democracy". There exists a fine line and as a nation we are steadily moving toward socialism. I understand it but cannot explain it as well as this...... I beg you to watch this,

    • profile image

      GoneNylon 8 years ago

      Democracy tends to work in the environs in which it originated, i.e city/locale level governance. The Athenian democracy (notowthstanding the sexist, racist limitatins you mentioned) was a direct democracy, not representative as you noted, Hope. The members of that body were there as representatives only of themselves. They voted on not only when to go to war, but which potholes to fix in the roads and when to build an aqueduct or strengthen the city walls. The same sort of thing happens in Vermont direct democracy today in the U.S. with citizens of a couple of towns even going so far as to vote for the criminal prosecution of George W. Bush.

      Plato, by the way, was no fan of democracy. After all, the Athenian Democracy killed his teacher and a man still deemed to have been among the wisest the world has ever known, to-wit: Socrates. It did so following a raft of trumped up charges (Corrupting the Youth, Impiety; sound familiar?) and a show trial worthy of North Korea. The Athenian democracy had devolved into Mob Rule, which, at its core, it IS.

      The only way for inherently dysfunctional democracy to ever truly work is for it to be direct at some level, and mandatory, be it ward, burrough, township or neighborhood. That body selects a representative to strictly do its bidding in the next higher body, without ability to gainsay her consituents, and upward as such, so that in the end, the entire process of legislating is a process of decisions made on the direct democracy level.

      Having grown up in the American South, I can tell you that franchise tests REALLY don't work, for the simple reason that sooner or later, someone will use the requirement not in order to make sure individuals don't vote, but that entire classes are disenfranchised.

      Finally, referring to any current western form of government as "democracy" is generally false. In most western and certainly all Anglo countries, what we have is oligarchy with a thin veneer of popular democracy providing a bi-annual sideshow. Look at the U.S.: we've demanded an end to the Iraqupation almost since it started, but our "leaders" have soldiered on, and the flag-draped boxes of meat that used to be someone's precious baby keep coming home. We even "elected" a man who said he'd stop it. Now he says, "Eh, not so much." We elected him in part to end the practice of domestic spying. Now that it's HIS administration doing it, however, he's loathe to end the program. He promised to release the photographic evidence of the horrors commited in our name. Now he's not so sure. that's a good idea. Fifty million of us can't go to the doctor when we're sick, and he said he was going to fix that. Now, however, he's decided we need to continue letting insurance companies use the illness and misery of Americans as a vehicle for the Profit Motive.

      Thus, I don't think it's quite fair to declare democracy a failure or success based upon evidence of western government's conduct. Those governments have about as much to do with democracy as a hog does with fashion choices for High Tea.

      Now, back to the IMPORTANT stuff: I just recently bought a pair of mens "athletic" compression underwear. Know what it really is? It's a panty girdle! Slick, shiny sexy fabric, no fly and holds everything nice and snug. If it had a little rosette at the center waistband, it would be hanging on a rack in the lingerie department. We're winning, Hope, democracy or no!

    • Tomgeekery profile image

      Tomgeekery 8 years ago

      So, Hope. Do you think there is any place for democratic governments to do something that isn't supported by the majority of the population? Say there was indisputable evidence that we were causing climate change. And polls indicated that only 49% of people supported doing something about it?

      I certainly agree that the current systems I see used around the world do not work, but I'm not sure I agree with your solution.

      My proposed solution would be to elect representatives for a term (as we do now). But then each person has the right to override their representative for their portion of her vote. There is nothing that prevents this from happening now.

      Another emotive example:

      Lets say I vote Jane Doe into office. But then a vote comes up in parliment to legalise late term abortion. Now, Jane supports the bill and votes for it. But 10% of the people represented by Jane feel stongly enough about the issue to vote against it. As a result, the vote for that region is 0.9 for and 0.1 against.

      I doubt any country would ever actually do that, but I'm sure it would have its advantages.

    • Hope Alexander profile image

      Hope Alexander 8 years ago

      Testing isn't a bad idea, but it cuts people out of the process, rather than empowering them further. My idea is flawed too, as it is still open to manipulation from the mass media and those who control it.

    • profile image

      ILoveLingerie 8 years ago

      Great points you make, young padawan. I too think we should have the possibility to kick the politicians out, should they do stuff we don't want.

      Then they would think twice before making decisions they see fit.

    • profile image

      Cantsay 8 years ago

      Hahaha Komara you funny!

    • profile image

      Cantsay 8 years ago

      A very interesting hub yet again Hope. And a subject close to my heart also.

      I'm living in the UK currently (I was born here, though my home is in fact NZ) - I'd say we (in the UK) have a government similar to that of Bush and his circus.

      The issue here, as I'm sure it is elsewhere, is that most people are not educated in politics but are allowed to vote.

      I think one possible way to fix it is to have a questionnaire with a vote - if you don't answer enough questions correctly (about the government you're voting for and their policies) your vote is not counted.

      Thus the idiots here (for example) that vote for a government based almost entirely on the tabloid media opinion will not make us all suffer for years.

      If you don't know what you're doing you should not be allowed to vote - period. And if you REALLY want to vote you should get educated and make an INFORMED decision.

      You could argue in this (very real) scenario that the government is not to blame but the voters themselves. We allow it to happen and we should be the ones to drive the change. We teach our children about arguably pointless subjects at school (I won't offend anyone with my personal opinions on those subjects) but we don't teach them about politics or raising children.

      How can we improve society without being governed properly and without having our next generation primed and ready to keep up the good work?

      Of course educating voters on the 'spin' and lies that we're told by government candidates is not easy - there needs to be legislation around that too.

      As I'm sure you're all aware the UK government is currently gripped by a huge expenses scandal - our so called trusted leaders have been ripping us all of for MILLIONS and for YEARS - some are even facing criminal investigation for claiming expenses for things as bizarre as a "duck house" (for an MP's garden) and even expenses for a 2nd home which didn't even exist - fraud, and nothing short of fraud.

      It's a tough one. I guess we DO have a democracy in the UK, but we also allow it to fall critically short of a true democracy...

      So that's my vote - bring in vote testing and discard those who fail the test - simple, right? :)

    • Komara profile image

      Komara 8 years ago

      I think more men should wear panties.