Sometimes It Pays To Dress Like A Slut

You wrote, "I don’t care what happens in anyone else’s bedroom as long as it’s consensual"

 

Does that include incest?  Does it bother you if two brothers are doing it?

You dont care baout promiscuity, just "What I care about is health care, and human rights, and education"  But Tamar, my good good friend, dont you care about holiness?  I guess not!

Just so you know, I live on the west coast, I didnt post these comments on shabbos, heaven forfend!

everyone be on the lookout--it looks like they got us.  While the world foolishly wasted its time on trifles such as terrorism and global warming, the evil hordes of brothers having consensual sex were plotting our destruction, and now they're prepared to strike!! We must stop them now before they ruin our way of life and send us all to eternal damnation!

Tamar's point was not that she likes whatever may happen in the bedroom between consenting adults (although Soccer might want to see a shrink to find out what sort of Freudian issues cause him to bring up such lovely images).  The point is that, disgusting or unpleasant as an activity may be, it shouldn't form the basis of our political decisions.  

--Z

Soccer, I care if I have a holy life, and if my rabbi has a holy life, but I don't give one whit about how holy my Senator's life is.

Once again, Zbird makes absolutely no sense.  Way to exagerate my point and misread Tamars to try to dis me.  Lets hear a real argument genious. Nice try though.

Zbird makes sense to me, babe.  Read his second paragraph.  I don't care what politicians do in their bedrooms (or bathroom stalls).  I care what they do on the floor of the House or the Senate, but that's pretty much where it ends.  Now, if what they're doing privately is illegal that's another issue entirely, but if it's legal then I say go and have fun just don't tell me about it. 

Soccer, what IS your point? 

There is a fundamental difference between Craig's actions and Clinton's. Clinton's actions were truly distinct from his political role; he was never a moral crusader for marital fidelity. Craig, on the other hand, has long been involved with a party that demonizes homosexuality. Exposing Craig's indiscretions shows the hypocrisy of his party's politics, a purpose far more important than satisfying our gossipy ears.

I'm not sure Craig getting caught did anything to affect the outcome of the ENDA vote.  Most of us rational folks knew the hypocrisy was there anyway.

David,

I agree Craig's actions had deeper repercussions than Clinton's, although for different reasons.  You don't have to be raving moral crusader to acknowledge that having sex in an airport bathroom stall is less than completely "private" and that the government has a legitimate interest in forcing people to get a room. 

Soccer, I have little to add to what Tamar wrote in her response, except I'd leave out the legality caveat (20 years no gay politician would have been elected under that standard, and 40 years ago no one in an interracial marriage would have).  

--Z

You shared a story knowing it would gather attention due to the controversy of the subject. You left holes in your own argument, so that when the comments flowed in, every one was convinced that their thoughts were their own. Brilliant mind control.

It's interesting to watch people take sides here. The same book that chronicles this illicit behavior also holds us to a higher moral standard, and get this: Those same standards define Judaism! Now, one may be willing that politicians get their blow jobs as long as they are productive, while another would say that the same politician should be held to a higher moral standard. I say, can't we have it both ways? Whether a person is a political failure or a sexual libertine, we should be discerning.

I care whether the politician who gets my vote is morally defunct or politically corrupt, because the people I endorse says a lot about me.

"You shared a story knowing it would gather attention due to the
controversy of the subject. You left holes in your own argument, so
that when the comments flowed in, every one was convinced that their
thoughts were their own. Brilliant mind control."

Begging the question is suddenly a brilliant mind control device. :-O

"I'm not sure Craig getting caught did anything to affect the outcome of the ENDA vote."

Revelations of hypocrisy certainly affect bids for reelection. Even if one conservative gets replaced with another, it still disrupts seniority structures.

Even though I can't get a comment of the week recognition no matter what I say, I must admit that this line of Tamars takes the cakes for this week of all blogs:

 

"I love that the Bible includes stories of people fucking up"

 

Nice religious irreverence - respekt!  booya kasha

 

ps but you betta rekonize that I always get the discussion going nicely!  without SOCCER Faithacker would be booooooooring!

you dont care about the holification of the society you liveth in?

Soccer, I *always* take the cake for irreverence.  It is my job, after all.  But big up for starting discussion.  It would be nice if sometimes you started the discussion in a way that didn't imply I'm a whore or an infidel, but I can't even imagine how that would go.

 

As for *sanctification* of the society I live in--I care about it, but I care a lot more that there's social justice in my society.  Check out Amos, buddy.  

"I care whether the politician who gets my vote is morally defunct or
politically corrupt, because the people I endorse says a lot about me."

 It's interesting how that actually plays out when people get down to it, though.  A significant percentage of people claim "moral qualities" (or some variety) are one of the primary things they care about in a politician.  When you poll the same people on who they believe are the top five American presidents, they almost without fail include multiple presidents who have had questionable moral practices (e.g. Clinton), and when asked why they picked those people, they always respond in terms of the president's policies, the economy, etc.  Worth thinking about how you'd answer both questions (most important thing in picking a candidate and top presidents). 

Oh yeah, and I've always found it interesting to see whom the Tanakh chooses as our model leaders.  Take Shaul and David:  We have Shaul, who is essentially a good human being throughout his story, but he blows the whole "Kill Amalek" strategy.  He blew it - he and his line are gone.  Take David, though, who unquestionably has serious moral failings (Batsheva, relationship with Michal, etc.), and despite that - despite sending a man off to be killed so he can take his wife, despite being unable to control his own children - as a political leader, he is ultimately successful, and he is ultimately chosen to be the scion of all future Jewish monarchs.  The Tanakh seems to be clear on what is most important to it in a leader, I think....

Tamar, I did nothing in this case to imply that you are a whore or an infidel.  Cant you give a brother a break this once?

Benjamin, I must correct the record. Saul was not a good man. Faced with obeying a clear directive, he failed. King David paid a clear price for his life decisions but he clearly earned his final reward, when challenged by the prophet Nathan, he readily admitted his wrongdoings. This is radically different from the worst President in our lifetime, by far, Mr. Clinton.

Dems still support Clinton whose constant whoring was a clear public problem and not merely a private affair. Bill Clinton credibly raped Kathleen Broderick, sexually harassed Paula Jones, used an intern as his plaything while on the public clock and used employees and goon squads to quiet "bimbo eruptions" while he was both President and Governor.

For Tamar, it is fair and good to try to keep an eye on a President's public political actions. The Constitution makes it clear that when a President's private actions become infamous and so problematic that his credibility is harmed, he should be impeached. This is the meaning of "high crimes and misdemeanors" and Clinton's behavior was well within the realm of impeachment. His lies and scandals were so bad that his legacy be be permanently tarnished. Please do not reduce all his scandals to a mere desire to get oral sex from a discreet young woman.

my gf always grumbling bout how much money i get an no relize that she dress like 1 slut to get what she want, she think its cuse she smart an good but still flirt an use her body to get ahead at her job, das not fair if she try work hard like me for money  instead of dressing like she teasing everyone for do her work for her

But at least she's not dressing like 2 sluts. Big up, Hawaii, by the way.

You are so awesome. 

The Tamar story in the Torah sure is squirmy. But that woman was certainly determined to have a baby. She is admired, as you say, because she was strong for what was right.

Oh, and a senator who is immoral in one way is going to be immoral in other ways.  People don't suddenly get virtuous, bingo, after their cigarette and shower. They are who they are, all the time. Either they have self-control, and standards, in general, or, they don't.

Your namesake had no problem being judgmental, and hugely coercive. She was not a liberal. In fact she was terrifying. I wonder what she would do today. Nobody would be safe. I wonder what she would say to you, if you and she met. She will be the ancestress of the Moshiach someday, soon we hope. Tougher than me, oh boy. But I bet her strength is in you. Sounds that way.

But she was awfully focused. That is out of fashion, that kind of focus.