I'm not familiar with non-lethal acquisition---I'll have to give this some thought. It's a very interesting twist on current policy. I do think that if less lethal means were developed that would give the US what it wants, there is a chance they would be adopted to some extent, if only for public relations purposes to show our superior humaneness. But in part, the US wants other countries to be afraid of us, afraid of what we might do if they defy us. Non-lethal weapons wouldn't serve this purpose very well. Unless there was perhaps a ray that could stun an entire population, allow the US to remove only the offending officials of that country, and then wake everybody else up. But in general the trend has been to develop 'cleaner', more efficient means of inflicting violence rather than turning away from violence as a tool of policy.
You have probably guessed that the US government in general does relatively little out of the goodness of its heart when it comes to foreign affairs. The challenge is to make the actions of the US government match its pro-democracy, human-rights rhetoric. This is very difficult because the ties between the government and the arms manufacturers are extremely tight. The end of the Cold War scared the hell out of American policy makers because it meant that there wasn't a designated enemy any longer to justify the vast billions spent on weapons. So here we are with no Soviet Union and there is still no peace, because peace would reduce the flow of money to the weapons makers and somebody would want to spend the savings on horrible socialist programs like universal health care. There is no justification for terrorist violence and some way must be found to stop it, but there is also no justification for unnecessary military aggression that kills tens of thousands of innocent people and generates numerous further acts of counter-violence. This is how an endless war is created.
It's going to take a real change in consciousness to turn this around, and that is no easy task. We Americans need to stop thinking of ourselves as especially virtuous people with univerally good intentions that sadly keep going wrong, and start thinking of ourselves as world citizens, living in a world in which every human being is as important as any other, American or not. If we saw the bodies of the children we had killed in 'collateral damage', and thought of them as just as precious as our own children, there would be a tremendous outcry to stop the slaughter. But images and stories from war zones are heavily censored now by the Pentagon, so almost no one gets to see what the real consequences of our military policies are. If there were a way to stun 'suspected terrorists' without killing them and everyone around them, perhaps we'd use it and soon feel better about ourselves. But there would be loud objections from the conventional arms makers and ridicule from conservative politicians, if only in private, about becoming sentimental over these non-American nobodies our weapons have been killing. That sounds ugly and it is, but it's really the way these casualties are seen by many of the planners of our policies: They simply don't count as people. We need to work on expanding our national consciousness to take in every person, everywhere, as having the same inherent value and rights as our next-door neighbors. That will really be the key to stopping violence as a means of policy.
I agree but what are the solutions.
One idea is to spend the billions of military research money on non lethal techniques of acquisition rather than maximum destruction. These techniques would be copied by everyone else. Whoever won the Syrian conflict would Acquire a state with no destruction, intact, same with Iraq or Libya.
Bear in mind I'm not an army of experts with billions of dollars and years of development time but a non expert dreaming something up of the top of my head. Instead of drones killing innocent people. If you could stun a select group of people from a mile high, you could then use the same techniques to remove them from the site that were used by the people who killed Bin Laden and then removed his body. You could then drug them all with drugs that have been available for several years now, (Bush didn't stop waterboarding out of the kindness of his heart you know) so they tell you everything. Innocent people are returned and financially compensated and the the rest are detained.
So any more ideas to replace what we don't like? because the US military are doing the worlds policing and we're not. We need to do more than express our opinions, I think we need to offer alternatives and I think non violent acquisition of targets that refuse all efforts at peaceful negotiation is a good idea.
Truth-out.org had a piece recently on 'American Exceptionalism'---basically the professed belief by the American ruling classes that whatever they do, however evil and violent, is justified because the United States is by definition a saintly land doing God's work, and is exempt from the moral standards applied to other nations. It's why Obama and Bush before him can order invasions, extra-legal murders, and drone attacks that slaughter untold numbers of civilians, and still claim without visible irony to be the leaders of 'the greatest nation on earth'. We are now, by design, in a state of endless 'war' that gives Congress and the president a blank check to fund deadly weapons and military aggression in perpetuity. Such national arrogance and self-delusion will not last forever; they never do.
can we lock our selves into a room for 9 hours and recreate that night!
D, not only is it ok, dating Cougars is amazing! I have date many and the only woman I have been in love with was 14 years older than I. They will love your youth and you will love their maturity, it is amazing!
happy you are happy, dear!
My last post has been removed of here? I have not done anything wrong. What about my right for free speech. Thought this was an open site where anyones comments could be posted.
Models who look like the picture on the right cost more money (£600) than people who look like the pic on the left (£250), and the photoshopping time is a tiny cost (£6.50).
Why are fashion models so thin?
An A line skirt in size 0 has a 23" waist
and in size 6 a 30 inch waist.
Across a whole collection you save 30% in material costs by going for size 0.and as all your models must be able to wear any of the garments in the collection they have to be the same size. Creating a collection isn't cheap, and there's no guarantee of success, and no copyright on your designs and people tend to gravitate towards solutions with the lowest costs.
Make sure there are no Klingons around your- anus.
One of my favorite Mae West quotes is on why the older woman / younger man is better than the reverse
Twenty goes into eighty more times than eighty goes into twenty.
For all you self-proclaimed feminists, I see an enormous difference between the quote from Phillips and the quite common statements in history that women cannot be artists, women cannot be great artists, women cannot even be good artists. I'm not really in the mood to look some up for you, but they are readily available.
And having to struggle in this world and being able, emotionally, to face what has been done to people and the planet, I will stick with my statement about vicious white males. I don't know of any African men coming to the U.S. and circumcising American men wholesale (Bill Clinton and his foundation). I don't know of any Asians doing drug testing on Americans or Europeans (as we are doing in Latin America and Africa). I don't know of any ordinary people of color (I am not talking about men in uniform) who have picnicked at the hangings of white people (they used to send picture postcards of lynchings). I live in the U.S.A., not in some past empire (the only non-Caucasians mentioned being the Japanese), and every day in every way I am inundated with the viciousness of white males and their sycophantic allies.
This conversation reminds me of sitting in church and hearing people talk about how great pacifism is. Pacifism is a superlative concept, but it is one much more easily indulged in by people who are safe and comfortable. There are some who have suggested we ARE in a war, a war in which many women, many children, and many people of color suffer and die daily. Very easy to talk about how the world should be, much easier than facing how the world is. And that means listening to people tell very ugly stories of real people's lives, no matter how much pain you suffer while listening.
Agreed, Jake. Life is not a gender war or any kind of war, unless we make it that way. We can equally make it a process of reconciliation by choosing to be compassionate and to demand equality and fairness without seeking vengeance.
To re-quote Marianne Ohl Phillips, whom Carlin cites above, "No man, no matter how knowledgeable, can be as familiar with the feminine form as a woman." This statement definitely takes in ALL men, including all male fine artists as well as all male pinup artists. It would also have to follow that no woman could possibly render a male as well as a man could---if we accept these premises. It's the divisiveness of these lines of thinking that I find both false and destructive. They place our particulars above our common humanity.
It's totally natural that people should enjoy positive statements about their group. However, to me it only makes sense if these statements are true, not just pleasant to hear. Bolstering one's collective ego through sweeping and questionable claims ("Gay parents are not just wonderful parents, they're the best parents!") doesn't make people feel better in the end. I think it's possible---indeed necessary---to raise up an oppressed group of people without trying to lower some other group's innate value at the same time. Yes, injustices must be corrected, but in a way that respects our common humanity and is disrespectful towards none. You're not alone in viewing 'vicious white males' and their allies as the enemy, but I would caution against any such blanket labels or divisions. The holders of power can and do shift. The Japanese, the ancient Greeks and Egyptians, white Europeans, and many other groups have at one time or another all seen themselves as indisputably superior, naturally entitled to oppress and exploit any 'lesser' group they pleased. This is what ultimately comes of these 'superior' and 'inferior' divisions, and it's time to end them.
I am a woman who has been with a circumcised man for many
years. Recently, through difficulties in the relationship, we have split up and
I have taken a lover with an "uncut" penis. I have to say, I really
enjoy it. It's natural, beautiful, and I love it. A "cut" penis is
great as well, but I find more joy in the lover that is natural. It is so sad
that, as a society, we are obsessed with women's pleasure, looks, and focus men's pleasure is pushed aside or considered unmanly or whatever!
Sex is supposed to be enjoyed, experienced, fun, exciting, and most of all
pleasurable. I feel that the social stigma created towards the
"uncut" cock is just upsetting. It demoralizes the glorious penis and
makes a faux normalcy out of a non-foreskined penis. I could not imagine
removing the hood of skin covering my clitoris. It would be very uncomfortable
doing daily activities and then eventually it would become desensitized. I say NEY
to circumcisions and if I ever have a son, I would never opt for that kind of
sexual abuse to be placed upon him.
Hail to the foreskin!
The artists gender difference between the pinup paintings is an interesting and useful observation. But the statement
“It is infinitely logical that these exquisite creatures were painted by a male. No woman, no matter how knowledgeable, can be as familiar with the masculine form as a man.”
is a sexist sweeping generalisation about the artistic ability of everyone based on gender. Gender is fluid. I think the reason people do this is because, we're heavily influenced by what we see around us, and it's true that for the lightning swift judgements our subconscious has to make about strangers every day "Clothing maketh the person" and clothes are usually gender polarised, but the people inside them aren't. Whatever the reason and which ever gender they're about, these "all women are bad drivers" type sexist sweeping comments are tiresome.
Feminism to me is about correcting gender unfairness, which 95% of the time involves emancipating women, that's why it's called Feminism, and I'd like it to get 100% support from all humans, it's not a gender war.
I'm a grinder/hand girl and I also started when I was even much younger than you were. I have finally found someone who gets me. All my friends can orgasm with a vibrator and I cannot.
I may introduce my brain to an orgasm because what I call my current King tide orgasm may actually be small in ccomparison to these stories I hear about Vibrator orgasms...thanks for sharing...I feel like someone gets me
This is such a great story, I personly love to lick girl ass holes every chance I get... Keep asking for it men love ass more than girls think.... Keep getting it licked, fingered and fucked its a massive turn on
you inspire me to make my own orgasm-enhancing list.
In my last relationship, which was bi-cultural, nothing in our everyday life was secure and I wa s basically in charge of EVERYTHING. When we finally went to visit my ex' country where HE had to carry responsibility... guess what happened... marvellous orgasms for me!
I know I can be multi-orgasmic and I am looking forward to get there. "What you seek is seeking you".
I would suggest to you that positive claims about homosexuals, women, people of color, etc, are hardly EXACT mirrors of the claims by people in power. First, their affirmations do not come with centuries of power and privilege, including laws that exclude and oppress others. Second, I may dream of a better world, but I am fully cognizant of this world in which people are blamed and shamed for their genitalia, their skin color, their sexual orientation, their sexual proclivities. Their enjoyment of anything that suggests they are not inferior is hardly comparable to the viciousness of white males (supported by females and males of color who have chosen to throw in their lot with their rulers).
Tobysgirl, I don't blame anyone for enjoying positive feedback about one's community. We all need that. We all need positive role models. The groups you speak of need far more such feedback than they now receive, and they should get it. But it gives two very different messages to say on the one hand that gay people often make fantastic parents and deserve full equality, and to say on the other hand that gay parents are always superior parents. I doubt that even most gay people believe that. I do understand Carlin's point because the objectification of women is a real phenomenon that has caused many injustices. I can do my best to empathize with groups that are currently 'on the outside', and I can promise you that my Irish Catholic ancestors were not among the privileged where they came from.
To question the literal accuracy of the claim that all women artists always draw women better and more accurately than all male artists is not to deny the ugly history of the oppression of women. It's just questioning a claim that arguably goes too far. There are (and have always been) superb women artists and poets and writers, as good as any that ever lived. And there's Betty Dodson herself, a fantastic draftsman. These are the women who should be praised and celebrated. Sexism and the objectification of women are terrible forms of oppression and they must be stopped, but they won't be defeated by making divisive, questionable claims about innate superiority.
Maybe the biggest problem I have with these kinds of claims is that they are exact mirrors of the claims of superiority that have always been made by the dominant classes. They help to perpetuate a way of thinking that always has to have a winner and a loser, a superior and an inferior. I don't accept these claims about groups of human beings. All oppression is founded on breaking human beings up into classes of superior and inferior. If any of us dream of a world of true equality, it won't come about by reassigning 'superiority' to a different class of people, but by working together towards eliminating the hierarchical classification of human beings altogether.
It takes a lot of the other sort of messages to get past the social norms of our culture. What we need to ask ourselves is how we personally are stuck in those norms, not how people who don't fit in find affirmation in positive messages about themselves.
I would like to know who is behind this poster. The answer to violent patriarchy is not ending abortion but creating opportunities for women and girls to survive and thrive. What the religious freaks would like is to have an Earth overrun with human beings, presumably because they are so looking forward to the apocalypse.
I do see your point, and I agree it's very valid to draw attention to the gender distortions in our culture. Pin-ups by their very nature are a kind of caricature; a pin-up that was too 'realistic' would just be a portrait. But sorting out variations in art based solely on the gender of the artist could get impossibly complicated. Would a gay male artist with no erotic interest in the female form produce more realistic drawings of women than a lesbian artist who loves women's bodies? How about if these same two artists drew men? Would a bisexual artist be more likely to produce distorted drawings of both genders---or less likely? Or is a good, self-aware artist simply a good artist? Speaking of distortions, the Barbie doll was created by a woman, Ruth Handler; it's hard to believe she didn't know what real women look like.
I agree that it's important to understand the influence of unconscious preconceptions. The famous male pin-up artists, however, probably knew perfectly well how to draw a realistically proportioned woman if they were well-trained. They may have consciously distorted their drawings, knowing exactly how to create the kind of exaggerated sexual appeal they were expected to create for a pin-up. I agree about most commercial pornography, by the way; I find it disrespectful and almost totally unsexy. It takes our cultural ignorance and prejudices about gender and sexuality and raises them to the Nth degree, thinking that's what people want. I personally believe that if people were more widely exposed to erotica featuring real bodies and real orgasms, they'd prefer its honesty by far and would (eventually) see exploitative commercial porn for what it is.