The National Review defends Bernie on rape essay

[*bfine32*]

(05-31-2015, 12:39 PM)GMDino Wrote: Of course you do.

You are obsessed with how people have sex and why its "wrong" compared to your view of sex based on religion.

We would expect nothing less of you.

What in the article led you to believe that Sanders thought that folks really didn't have these fantasies?

I am so obsessed about folks sexual activities that I actually wrote an article about it. Oh wait; that wasn't me. 

But you are correct. My religious views should be more open to fantasies of rape and abuse.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(05-31-2015, 01:21 PM)bfine32 Wrote: But you are correct. My religious views should be more open to fantasies of rape and abuse.

Use a safe word and could be a lot of fun.

[*bfine32*]

(05-31-2015, 01:41 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: Use a safe word and could be a lot of fun.

I didn't see any discussion of safe words in the article.

[GMDino]

(05-31-2015, 01:21 PM)bfine32 Wrote: What in the article led you to believe that Sanders thought that folks really didn't have these fantasies?

I am so obsessed about folks sexual activities that I actually wrote an article about it. Oh wait; that wasn't me. 

But you are correct. My religious views should be more open to fantasies of rape and abuse.

I didn't say anything about Sanders or his intentions or beliefs....

Anyone can read your posts and see your obsession with how people are having the "wrong" kind of sex.

From gays to people who engage in S&M or B&D.

You religious views should be more open to not worrying about what consenting adults do.

But then you wouldn't be religious, would you?

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(05-31-2015, 01:44 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I didn't see any discussion of safe words in the article.

Well now ya know

[*bfine32*]

(05-31-2015, 01:44 PM)GMDino Wrote: I didn't say anything about Sanders or his intentions or beliefs....

Anyone can read your posts and see your obsession with how people are having the "wrong" kind of sex.

From gays to people who engage in S&M or B&D.

You religious views should be more open to not worrying about what consenting adults do.

But then you wouldn't be religious, would you?

So your response had less to do with the OP and more to do with me?

As I have pointed out numerous times that there is no mention of consent in the article. So I will concern myself with rape and abuse.

I would say this constant bringing up of views from other threads and forums and focusing on the poster as opposed to the post is poor form; however, the moderator has already demonstrated it is an accepted practice.  

[Belsnickel]

(05-31-2015, 01:55 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So your response had less to do with the OP and more to do with me?

As I have pointed out numerous times that there is no mention of consent in the article. So I will concern myself with rape and abuse.

I would say this constant bringing up of views from other threads and forums and focusing on the poster as opposed to the post is poor form; however, the moderator has already demonstrated it is an accepted practice.  

I said from the beginning that I would give the same leash here as we had on the other forum. None of this is any different from what happened over there.

[*bfine32*]

(05-31-2015, 01:59 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I said from the beginning that I would give the same leash here as we had on the other forum. None of this is any different from what happened over there.

No doubt and I opposed the practice over there as well.

I personally think the ad hominem should be cleaned up on all sides; but that's just me.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(05-31-2015, 01:55 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I would say this constant bringing up of views from other threads and forums and focusing on the poster as opposed to the post is poor form; however, the moderator has already demonstrated it is an accepted practice.  

If you're really this thin skinned, this may not be the forum for you.   I've been called far worse, that was pretty mild.  It's politics and religion people are opinionated, if it makes you uncomfortable probably time to exit.

[GMDino]

(05-31-2015, 01:55 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So your response had less to do with the OP and more to do with me?

As I have pointed out numerous times that there is no mention of consent in the article. So I will concern myself with rape and abuse.

I would say this constant bringing up of views from other threads and forums and focusing on the poster as opposed to the post is poor form; however, the moderator has already demonstrated it is an accepted practice.  

Nope. I was responding directly to your interpretation of the article which you posted here:

(05-31-2015, 11:54 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course you do.

I read it and came to the conclusion that he explains why gender roles cause us to get off on these fantasies. Nothing lead me to believe he doesn't think they do.

I wonder why Sanders is trying to distance himself from the article?

I then responded to a direct question about Sanders. Which I had not mentioned in my response.

If you'd like me to pretend you never stated your beliefs in other threads I will do so. But then you would have to stop making sweeping generalizations about the board and their beliefs and how it puts you in minority.

Although I did just remember that crying out for mod support is another TommyC trait. You forgot to try and hide that one.

[*bfine32*]

(05-31-2015, 02:10 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: If you're really this thin skinned, this may not be the forum for you.   I've been called far worse, that was pretty mild.  It's politics and religion people are opinionated, if it makes you uncomfortable probably time to exit.

I am not thin skinned and there is nothing wrong with opinions.  I just find ad hominem to be the lowest form of debate (does it make you uncomfortable that I continue to point it out?) and turns the discussion away from the given point.

It is not my nature to abandon. 

[GMDino]

(05-31-2015, 02:16 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I am not thin skinned and there is nothing wrong with opinions.  I just find ad hominem to be the lowest form of debate (does it make you uncomfortable that I continue to point it out?) and turns the discussion away from the given point.

It is not my nature to abandon. 

Nor is it your nature to call names...or answer questions with questions.

[*bfine32*]

(05-31-2015, 02:23 PM)GMDino Wrote: Nor is it your nature to call names...or answer questions with questions.

I have admitted to stooping to that level. That is most likely why I said it should be cleaned up on ALL sides. But the mods and experienced forum members have made it clear that this is not a need. So when in Rome.....

I always make it a point to answer questions. Seems I am much more often asking people why they didn't answer mine. Seems I remember you pointing out this shortcoming in my posts as well.  

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(05-31-2015, 02:16 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I am not thin skinned and there is nothing wrong with opinions.  I just find ad hominem to be the lowest form of debate (does it make you uncomfortable that I continue to point it out?) and turns the discussion away from the given point.

It is not my nature to abandon. 

It doesn't make me uncomfortable at all.  It's just weak, almost like tattling to mods. 

One thing you  can count on from me.   I rarely give neg rep, and I never cry to mods, period. And I never whine about ad hominem attacks (though I try not to use them.)

[*bfine32*]

(05-31-2015, 02:30 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: It doesn't make me uncomfortable at all.  It's just weak, almost like tattling to mods. 

One thing you  can count on from me.   I rarely give neg rep, and I never cry to mods, period. And I never whine about ad hominem attacks (though I try not to use them.)

That's 3 things.

So the only thing you "whine" about is people "whining"? 

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(05-31-2015, 02:38 PM)bfine32 Wrote: That's 3 things.

So the only thing you "whine" about is people "whining"? 

I guess you could say whiny people are irritating.

But hey ya got me, I should've said 3 things.  :snark:

[*bfine32*]

(05-31-2015, 02:46 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: I guess you could say whiny people are irritating.

Yes they are.

[*bfine32*]

(05-31-2015, 03:16 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Of course I did. I'm educated and capable of understanding something written above an 8th grade reading level. Really wasn't that hard of a read. Maybe for you. But, you're probably right that the point of the essay was definitely the part in the first two paragraphs and not the other 9, lol...


And to answer your question, because whether he's talking about gender roles or sexual fantasies, it's an unnecessary distraction that can cause the uneducated to not vote for you. 

Nobody is debating that the intent of his article is to discuss gender roles and stereotypes. I read that he used the other 9 paragraphs to explain why males and females have such fantasies. You read them to explain why he thinks they do not. No doubt one of us was able to comprehend the message of article, lol... 

I have read what his camp had to say about the article and nowhere do they state that Bernie didn't think these things.

They do bring up broad statements such as "stupid", "not his opinion on women's rights", ect... but nowhere do they suggest that he didn't think individuals actually had these fantasies.  But somehow a middle school teacher from a message board has cracked the code.

What exactly in the other 9 paragraphs leads you to believe that he didn't mean what he stated in the opening?

[BmorePat87]

(05-31-2015, 11:54 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course you do.

I read it and came to the conclusion that he explains why gender roles cause us to get off on these fantasies. Nothing lead me to believe he doesn't think they do.

I wonder why Sanders is trying to distance himself from the article?

While you're trying to suggest you are reading it differently than I am, when you look at your post and your explanation, you really aren't. 

Crude, attention getting intro aside, his essay is a criticism of gender roles. The submissive female and domineering male roles create confusions in a modern world. We're expected to want one thing, but the reality is that it doesn't  lead us to be fully satisfied. The whole ending is the revelation that the man and woman were just perpetuating what they thought was a desire, creating a conflict and ending their relationship.

the part where you're wrong is in the last sentence where you say he doesn't lead us to believe we don't get off on these. The whole conflict is out of place if he isn't criticizing these gender roles for making us believe that these desires are the only ones that exist.


that said, tons of people do like BDSM. That's why 50 Shades of Grey sold 100 million copies. It's not about abuse, though, but playing with power dynamics that often contradict typical gender roles. 

To answer your question: because the socialist doesn't need a 40 year old piece of social satire being misread and hurting his underdog campaign. Easier to just ditch it than explain it. 

[*bfine32*]

(05-31-2015, 01:18 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: So I actually read the essay. I'd recommend all do so before commenting any further.

http://crooksandliars.com/files/images/15/05/man_and_woman_0.jpg

I can't post images on my phone, sorry.


It appears the point of the essay is a criticism of traditional gender roles In which the man expects the female to be submissive and the woman expects to have to serve or depend on the man. I would say after reading it all that the brief mention of sexual fantasies isn't suppose to be taken as Bernie suggesting men and women actually get off on this.

(05-31-2015, 03:53 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: While you're trying to suggest you are reading it differently than I am, when you look at your post and your explanation, you really aren't. 

Crude, attention getting intro aside, his essay is a criticism of gender roles. The submissive female and domineering male roles create confusions in a modern world. We're expected to want one thing, but the reality is that it doesn't  lead us to be fully satisfied. The whole ending is the revelation that the man and woman were just perpetuating what they thought was a desire, creating a conflict and ending their relationship.

the part where you're wrong is in the last sentence where you say he doesn't lead us to believe we don't get off on these. The whole conflict is out of place if he isn't criticizing these gender roles for making us believe that these desires are the only ones that exist.


that said, tons of people do like BDSM. That's why 50 Shades of Grey sold 100 million copies. It's not about abuse, though, but playing with power dynamics that often contradict typical gender roles. 

To answer your question: because the socialist doesn't need a 40 year old piece of social satire being misread and hurting his underdog campaign. Easier to just ditch it than explain it. 

4 pages of responses. I have heard: "These fantasies are common", "these fantasies are OK", "these fantasies are pointing to consensual sex", but you are the first to have cracked the code (here and Nationwide) that asserts Bernie doesn't even think folks have these fantasies.