Sexuality and politics --- do they mix? - Hell no!!!!!!

[Anonymous]

Taken form the Florida Statutes (2001)

Chapter 798

Adultery; Cohabitation

798.01 Living in open adultery.

798.02 Lewd and lascivious behavior.

798.01 Living in open adultery.----Whoever lives in an open state of adultery shall be guilty of a midemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. Where either of the parties living in an open state of adultery is married, both parties so living shall be deemed to be guilty of the offense provided for in this section.

798.02 Lewd and lascivious behavior.----If any man and woman, not being married to each other, lewdly and lasciviously associate and cohabit together, or if any man or woman, married or unmarried, engages in open and gross lewdness and lascivious behavior, they shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

From Orwell's 1984

"Unlike Winston, she [Julia] had grasped the inner meaning of the Party's sexual puritanism. It was not merely that the sex instinct created a world of its own which was outside the party's control and which therefore had to be destroyed if possible. What was more important was that sexual privation induced hysteria, which was desirable because it could be transformed into war fever and leader worship. The way she put it was:

'When you make love you're using up energy; and afterwards you feel happy and don't give a damn for anything. They can't bear you to feel like that. They want you to be bursting
with energy all the time. All this marching up and down and cheering and waving flags is simply sex gone sour. If you're happy inside yourself, why should you get excited about Big Brother and the Tree-Year Plans and the Two Minutes Hate and all the rest of their bloody rot?'

That was very true, he [Winston Smith] thought. There was a direct, intimate connection between chastity and political orthodoxy. For how could the fear, the hatred, and the lunatic
credulity which the Party needed in its members be kept at the right pitch except by
bottling down some powerful instinct and using it as a driving force? The sex impulse was dangerous to the Party, and the party had turned it into account..."

George Orwell 1984; Book II, Chapter III

This describes the Republican, and Democratic Party and all their bloody lot. Also read William Shakespeare's Measure for Measure. It deals with this issue head on.

EDIT:Not suitable for Work.


Felicia: I deleted the links, all of the ones I checked out were pornography.

(Edited by mentalbunny at 11:09 pm on July 12, 2003)


(Edited by felicia at 7:33 pm on July 12, 2003)

[mentalbunny]

EP, please be careful what you post.

[Felicia]

I agree. You can prove a point without using porn links.

I removed them, please don't be so foolish again.

(Edited by felicia at 7:34 pm on July 12, 2003)

[Zombie]

Were Jenna and Chasey in them also?

[Zombie]

Edit: double post

(Edited by Zombie at 11:27 pm on July 14, 2003)

[Saint-Just]

Don't you think Winston's relationship with Julia was somewhat... abhorrent. The fact that their entire relationship was based on a sexual interaction. That they were willing to let the other have sexual relations with other people.

There are conventions and rules guiding relationships in our society for a reason. That it makes us all emotionally happier and our society operate effectively.

Feel free for yourself to act like this, but you better stay away from me or any of my relationships.

'don't give a damn for anything.'

'If you're happy inside yourself...'

This, is very much similar to what guides capitalist, individualist ideology.

For what reason would post links to pornographic websites on this site. You want to shock people into sexual liberalism? Maybe you should go and live in the stone-age when your kind of practice was far more widely accepted. You could just beat your neighbour round the head and steal his partner and rape her.

Orwell's 'rot' can be seen from the childish depiction of Winston and Julia and his ridiculous vision of the Soviet Union.

If he had seen the Soviet Union he would have seen that their social structure and relationships is far more progressive than the victorian practices of our Britain in that period. He would have also seen people very much being happy and happy because of what Stalin's 5 year-plans had achieved for them. That had create one of the world's most developed nations by the 50's.

Felicia and Mentalbunny, you should not have only deleted those links but the entire post. I don't think any of us would like to be touched by 'Edward Penishands' physically or even by his words.

[mentalbunny]

CM I believe in free speech, unlike you, clearly. I would never delete a post unless it was to serve a purpose and is no longer necessary (eg Blacklist thread in Practice), and only ever with permission of the poster. This post does not need deletion.

[Saint-Just]

Quote: from mentalbunny on 4:51 pm on July 15, 2003
CM I believe in free speech, unlike you, clearly. I would never delete a post unless it was to serve a purpose and is no longer necessary (eg Blacklist thread in Practice), and only ever with permission of the poster. This post does not need deletion.

Yes, I agree I was joking about that. Obviously 'Edward Penishands' likes a bit of a joke too considering his username.

Anyway you could consider that his use of links to porn sites makes his whole post abhorrent and therefore requiring deletion. I would also suggest that EP is more concerned with sexuality and sexual relations than politics.

Nevertheless I knew you would not delete his post, I was joking about that. You are right, I am not a follower of the bourgeois interpretation of free speech. But if I were to run this site I would never delete posts unless they went outside what we find accaptable according to the conventions of our liberal western societies i.e. delete racist posts etc. or posts that were simply designed to make personal attacks etc.

I was criticising his intentions when I suggested you delete the post, not seriously suggesting you do.

I fully support free speech as regards this site and for example ISF. As you know, I don't delete any posts in the forum I mod on ISF. I never have, and if this post were to appear on that forum nor would I delete it there. Were it to appear on that forum I would not make that suggesting about it being deleted either because it would lose its substance since I could if I want delete it. I would only keep the criticism I included in my post.

Also, my post here is influenced largely by personaly prejudice and anger. As Dhul Figar and redstar2000 know when we discussed issues similar to this. My view of such issues is not influenced by politics such as it is by my personal experiences which I am sure you could find out yourself if you acquired a partner having similar views to that of the individual who created this thread.

(Edited by Chairman Mao at 5:44 pm on July 15, 2003)

[mentalbunny]

I wouldn't delete racist posts, I'd edit them and say clearly that those kind of posts weren't acceptable maybe but I don't think I'd delete them unless the majority of the board wanted them gone.

[Saint-Just]

Thats fairly lenient, undoubtedly though the majority of the board would want them gone. I'd just delete them because its generally unacceptable even on message boards on the internet.

If you look on ISF you will notice there is a resident racist. He denies it but both I and Comrade RAF have said he can sugercoat his views as much as he likes but beneath it all he is a racist. He doesn't post anything clearly racist though.

[Edward_Penishands]

Why was my post edited by this commissar?! "Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it," as Thomas Jefferson said. No ... but the prudish commissars who run this forum--- who probably lick corporate fudge in private (and hence hypocrites)---- want to castrate me! Defiance I hurl at your teeth.