holeswideopen

On 7/2/2021 at 12:17 PM, PendragonSpirit said:

The short answer is that I honestly neither like nor hate Donald Trump. I simply don't know him as a person and as such, I wouldn't feel comfortable making that judgement.  

I have opinions on the persona he puts forth, however, as I believe Trump is primarily a bombastic personality who needs the spotlight. Maybe not a narcissist necessarily, but definitely craves attention, and the persona he puts forth absolutely embodies that aspect of himself. 

That said, however, I do actually agree he got somewhat of a raw (heh heh) deal with the media, and things he said or did were either mis-reported or deliberately skewed to avoid showing the entire truth (the "very fine people" incident, the "mocks a disabled reporter" incident, and most recently the "gassed protestors so he could hold up a Bible" incident.)

I don't support him as President, because I just don't feel he has the qualities I would want in my nation's leader, but I don't think he's necessarily evil personified.

Well said. I don't hate Donald Trump either. He brought a business mentality to the federal government, which helped break the long running complacency and set a few very ambitious, possibly positive goals. But, his lack of artfulness and experience caused disorganization and allowed a fairly small, controversial minority to gain an outsized platform in American politics. In either case Donald Trump is just a man like the rest of us and deifying or vilifying him is pointless as he already came, saw and conquered. A better idea is learning from the situation and applying it towards creating a better future.

23 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

If you believe Justice Alito's commentary that this abortion opinion (draft) has no bearing on same sex marriage or sodomy laws, I have 50 acres of beautiful oceanfront property in Iowa to sell you. I promise you, the price is a steal.

Supreme Court opinions almost always contain language that say, in effect, "we aren't deciding THAT case today because it's not before us" but they do not mean "we'll rule differently in that other case." What they mean is, we couldn't get the votes in THIS case to make a sweeping, more inclusive proclamation like "There are no rights that are not spelled out explicitly in the Constiuttion" but don't worry, we'll be back to take care of those things as soon as things quiet down just a little bit and another case comes along.

Look at the Voting Rights Act as an example. They struck down the preclearance formulas contained in Section Four, on the grounds that those formulas were adopted in 1970 and no longer reflected the actual practices of the jurisdictions that the formula subjected to Section Five preclearance. Then they sat back, and a few years later ruled that a law that had discriminatory effects on a protected racial minority wasn't inherently suspect; you very nearly have to prove *intent to discriminate on the basis of race* in order to succeed with a Voting Rights Act challenge. So as long as the racists trying to violate the law are good enough at hiding their motivation, no matter how blatant the effects are, it's very hard to win the case. That's despite Congress making it clear that disparate racial IMPACT was just as much a violation as express racial INTENT.

That's how the Court works - it whittles away a principle, little by little, and then eventually it says, well, with all these things we've ruled since the original principle was set, obviously that principle doesn't hold any more, we made a mistake, and we overturn the principle. That's been the history of abortion laws for the last 20 years, almost always upholding increasingly severe restrictions.

Don't think it won't happen to sodomy or same-sex marriage. It will.

Reading this conversation, I realize I know almost nothing about the history of abortion. So, I read up on it, most notably reading an article from a 1997 edition of the The Atlantic, which had the following interesting passages:

Until the last third of the nineteenth century, when it was criminalized state by state across the land, abortion was legal before "quickening" (approximately the fourth month of pregnancy).

The American Medical Association's crusade against abortion was partly a professional move, to establish the supremacy of "regular" physicians over midwives and homeopaths. More broadly, anti-abortion sentiment was connected to nativism, anti-Catholicism, and, as it is today, anti-feminism. Immigration, especially by Catholics and nonwhites, was increasing, while birth rates among white native-born Protestants were declining. (Unlike the typical abortion patient of today, that of the nineteenth century was a middle- or upper-class white married woman.) 

Nonetheless, having achieved their legal goal, many doctors—including prominent members of the AMA—went right on providing abortions. Some late-nineteenth-century observers estimated that two million were performed annually (which would mean that in Victorian America the number of abortions per capita was seven or eight times as high as it is today).

The conventional wisdom today considers Roe v. Wade to be an avant-garde decision, "judicial activism" at either its enlightened best or its high-handed worst. Reagan places the decision in its historical context, showing that it was a logical response to the times.Far from foisting a radical departure on an unready nation, the Supreme Court was responding to a decade-long buildup of popular sentiment for change. The movement was spearheaded by doctors who saw firsthand the carnage created by illegal abortion (more than 5,000 deaths a year, mostly of black and Hispanic women), and whose hands were now firmly tied by the hospital committees they themselves had created. They were joined by civil-liberties lawyers, who brought to their briefs a keen understanding of criminalization's discriminatory effects; and by grassroots activists in the reborn women's movement.

[think before following links] https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1997/05/abortion-in-american-history/376851/

While I recommend the entire article, the summary is a chilling echo of the debate we’re living through. A relatively small, homogeneous minority is trying to dictate policy for advantage, power and control. As others here have said, it’s so important to vote and for people who are willing and enthusiastic about our goals (barebacking included) as we are a minority and just as at risk as women are with the possible Roe decision. Worse, we don’t have varied interests willing to rush to our defense.

3 hours ago, BBArchangel said:

Although I value your insight into most topics, I think you seriously under play the value and importance of trust in a relationship.

I can only speak from my own experience, but for me the worst part of cheating is not the physical act of sex with someone else. It is the lying and the attempts to deceive and the disrespect that inevitably goes along with it. And not just disrespect for me, but disrespect and disregard for the relationship itself.  Over the last few years, I’ve grown tougher and much more cynical about men. I’m still in a 20 year relationship and I’ve changed a lot as a result of his cheating. Not all of those changes are good. But I’m not gonna let him bring somebody into our relationship at the expense of my feelings and my needs.

The funny thing is that I have learned get my needs met outside of our relationship but I’m totally honest with him, which is why he said he values the most. It’s all honesty. Great. But it turns out he is jealous and petulant and petty every time I do have sex with someone else. expect me to be cool with everything he does, but me? Not so much.

even the best relationships are complicated as hell. Cheating and messing around only makes things more complicated. And I would venture to say that most relationships don’t survive the complications. After 20 years together, I’m no longer sure that mine will survive. Love, Trust and certainty and just believing in your partner are the sad casualties of the choices we make. 

I couldn’t have said it better. For my own piece I’ll add communication too. Especially with an open relationship communicating each step can’t be undervalued.

I once had a guy role play his way to bareback. Started with a condom but he just couldn’t get it in. Magically he slid right in after taking the condom off. It was hot.