Sex Strike for Democrats!

[_schreech]

I've gotten past being embarrassed for you, I just think you like to be told you are stupid at this point. Again, feel free to point out where the article says:

"This lady argues women should go on a sex strike if their "men" don't vote for Democrats."

Otherwise you just continue to look like a tool who parrots nonsense from right wing rags that cater to shit-for-brains who need to told what to believe.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Maybe read the article. They are talking about getting women more involved in governing instead of taking a back seat to men who hold the majority of power in the govt. It doesn't suggest its a single party issue and that women should be more assertive about what they want regardless of political party. They are misrepresented and can change that.

Yeah. Sure. All the other stuff like THE TITLE, PELOSI, and the WRAP-UP STATEMENT totes has nothing to do with the election tomorrow and Democrats.



- Doc

[_canpakes]

If you google Trump dating D.C., you find numerous stories of woe from Trump administration officials who find dating difficult in a city where people work in the deep state federal government. But fear not: Everyone can now date within their own political bubble:

DonaldDaters launched Monday for Apple and Android devices with the hope of encouraging young conservatives to meet and mingle, Fox News reported.

"For many young Trump supporters, liberal intolerance has made meeting and dating nearly impossible," Emily Moreno, CEO of Donald Daters, said in a statement. "Support for the president has become a dealbreaker instead of an icebreaker. That's why we created a new platform for Trump supporters to meet people without being afraid of talking politics."

This could help contain the damage to the gene pool.

[_schreech]

Maybe read the article. They are talking about getting women more involved in governing instead of taking a back seat to men who hold the majority of power in the govt. It doesn't suggest its a single party issue and that women should be more assertive about what they want regardless of political party. They are misrepresented and can change that.

Yeah. Sure. All the other stuff like THE TITLE, PELOSI, and the WRAP-UP STATEMENT totes has nothing to do with the election tomorrow and Democrats.



- Doc

"What the ____ is it with posters on this board who're pathologically incapable of admitting any sort of error, no matter how small? Instead you get constant deflection of personal responsibility. That was a totally r____ response and if genuine, absolutely buffoonish reasoning."

You must have a pretty low opinion of women if you "interpreted" the article as a cry for women to withhold sex in order to get men to vote democrat. Normal people would read it as an attempt to show how sometimes there is a gap in the power dynamic between men and women, women taking a reluctant back seat in many areas sex, politics, etc. As a normal person, I read it as a call for women to stop taking a secondary, obligatory, service providing role in their lives and to actually take on an equal role with men in perusing what they want rather than constantly being on the giving end and just accepting the status quo:

"It's time for a revolution. At the polls, and in the bedroom. And in our understanding of who women are, sexually and otherwise. Given the tight interweaving of economic and political power with sexual entitlement, female sexual autonomy has never been more urgent, and women's sexual pleasure has never been more political. Let's consider what it might mean to go on a sex strike of sorts -- to get what we want, rather than give what we think we owe others.....Resetting the balance so women no longer provide service sex is not in itself a comprehensive answer to gendered inequalities, of course. But making sex female-focused and female-pleasure-centric could begin to force other shifts in thinking in important ways. When we cease to consider what women like and want as foreplay and reframe it as the main event, for example, we begin to challenge, from the most intimate and private and emotionally powerful place, a long-accepted, deeply believed but nearly invisible world view, and make an impossible-to-miss statement about who and what counts."

You guys are really only seeing what you want to see and you seem to have pretty shallow views of women but, hey, feel free to point out where incel dog got it right when he posted "This lady argues women should go on a sex strike if their "men" don't vote for Democrats" since all you guys seem to be capable of pointing out is how you interpreted the article.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Seriously. What the ____ is it with posters on this board who're pathologically incapable of admitting any sort of error, no matter how small? Instead you get constant deflection of personal responsibility. That was a totally r____ response and if genuine, absolutely buffoonish reasoning.

Schreech has officially jumped the shark tonight.

- Doc

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

You must have a pretty low opinion of women if you "interpreted" the article as a cry for women to withhold sex in order to get men to vote democrat.

A woman literally wrote the article. What the “F” is wrong with you? Why do you hate women so much?

Normal people... Something something projection. A woman wrote that article. She wrote that title. She wrote the wrap-up statement. You're the one that's clearly uncomfortable with what she wrote. I'm all for women withholding sex. We have too many humans on this planet, so I'm cool with ramping down the sex.

You guys are really only seeing what you want to see and you seem to have pretty shallow views of women

Like their only source of power and attaining equality is through the use of their vagina? That's pretty screwed up you're on board with the article.

but, hey, feel free to point out where incel dog got it right when he posted "This lady argues women should go on a sex strike if their "men" don't vote for Democrats" since all you guys seem to be capable of pointing out is how you interpreted the article.

I literally did that multiple times.

Seriously. What the ____ is it with posters on this board who're pathologically incapable of admitting any sort of error, no matter how small? Instead you get constant deflection of personal responsibility. That was a totally r____ response and if genuine, absolutely buffoonish reasoning.

Schreech has officially jumped the shark tonight.

- Doc

[_schreech]

Seriously. What the ____ is it with posters on this board who're pathologically incapable of admitting any sort of error, no matter how small? Instead you get constant deflection of personal responsibility. That was a totally r____ response and if genuine, absolutely buffoonish reasoning.

Schreech has officially jumped the shark tonight.

- Doc

Maybe the problem is I actually have normal relationships with women. I have never been shallow enough to be manipulated by sex and I have never been with a woman shallow enough to think they could manipulate me into voting a certain way by withholding sex. Maybe that is where we are not seeing eye to eye. You think that it’s possible for a woman to use sex to manipulate you, a man, in the privacy of the voting booth, to cast his vote a certain way. OR, maybe you just have such a low opinion of women that you believe they think it’s possible to use sex to manipulate what a man does in the voting booth.

Either way, I feel like our experiences and views of women lead us to “interpret” the article different ways. But, hey, you and incel dog do your woman hating thing. I’m bored now.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Maybe the problem is I actually have normal relationships with women. I have never been shallow enough to be manipulated by sex and I have never been with a woman shallow enough to think they could manipulate me into voting a certain way by withholding sex.

You mean like the author of the article? A woman? You know. The one that titled it that way?

Maybe that is where we are not seeing eye to eye. You think that it’s possible for a woman to use sex to manipulate you, a man, in the privacy of the voting booth, to cast his vote a certain way.

I didn't write the article, and I certainly didn't title it that way. Also, this is a feminist position. Take that up with them.

OR, maybe you just have such a low opinion of women that you believe they thinks it’s possible to use sex to manipulate what a man does in the voting booth.

Ooooh. You're doing the best defense is a good offense thing. What the “F” ever, dude.

Either way, I feel like our experiences and views of women lead us to “interpret” the article different ways. But, hey, you and incel dog do your woman hating thing. I’m bored now.

You're the one advocating that woman's power lies with her vagina. Not me. I'm an egalitarian. You're the feminist. But, you do you. I'm cool with you believing what you want.

Seriously. What the ____ is it with posters on this board who're pathologically incapable of admitting any sort of error, no matter how small? Instead you get constant deflection of personal responsibility. That was a totally r____ response and if genuine, absolutely buffoonish reasoning.

Schreech has officially jumped the shark tonight.

- Doc

[_schreech]

Maybe the problem is I actually have normal relationships with women. I have never been shallow enough to be manipulated by sex and I have never been with a woman shallow enough to think they could manipulate me into voting a certain way by withholding sex.

You mean like the author of the article? A woman? You know. The one that titled it that way?

Maybe that is where we are not seeing eye to eye. You think that it’s possible for a woman to use sex to manipulate you, a man, in the privacy of the voting booth, to cast his vote a certain way.

I didn't write the article, and I certainly didn't title it that way. Also, this is a feminist position. Take that up with them.

OR, maybe you just have such a low opinion of women that you believe they thinks it’s possible to use sex to manipulate what a man does in the voting booth.

Ooooh. You're doing the best defense is a good offense thing. What the ____ ever, dude.

Either way, I feel like our experiences and views of women lead us to “interpret” the article different ways. But, hey, you and incel dog do your woman hating thing. I’m bored now.

You're the one advocating that woman's power lies with her vagina. Not me. I'm an egalitarian. You're the feminist. But, you do you. I'm cool with believing what you want.

Seriously. What the ____ is it with posters on this board who're pathologically incapable of admitting any sort of error, no matter how small? Instead you get constant deflection of personal responsibility. That was a totally r____ response and if genuine, absolutely buffoonish reasoning.

Schreech has officially jumped the shark tonight.

- Doc

Yes, I’m sure you are right. The author wasn’t using sex as an example of the power dynamic between men and women. I am totally wrong, women are actually shallow enough to believe that by widely withholding sex they can get more democrats elected because, pelosi. You believe it so it must be true. If the article talks about sex it must just be about sex and certainly nothing broader than sex. It’s just about how women can use sex to get what they want which is more democrats.

I have a couple more hours to kill in this lounge before my flight abroad so I think I’ll hit one of the nap rooms and contemplate how wrong I was about the shallowness of women in thinking they can manipulate men to vote for more Democrats by withholding sex. Silly women, no wonder they earn less than men. In their little minds No sex= More democrats. Im with you now about what the author is REALLY saying. Thanks for setting me straight. You are definitely right on this one and don’t seem to be taking the article far too personally. You also definitely understood what I said and responded in a reasonable and appropriate way. Thanks for being here to set me straight and inform me as to the manipulations of those wiley women. You are a gem.

[Guest]

You know Schreech, I don't really get why you're doing the mental gymnastics thing, but you implying that the notion of a sex strike is somehow my brainchild or that I think women something something whatever nonsense you just posted makes any sense.

https://qz.com/958346/history-shows-tha ... al-change/

That article talks about feminists and sex strikes. It's women, feminists in certain quarters specifically, that are suggesting sex and "respecting the vagina" can influence men and politics.

Again, I'm all for it. Total and unmitigated autonomy, my friend. 100% behind them. What I'm not down with is objectively lying about it, or dissembling over that woman's CNN article, which shows me just how uncomfortable it makes YOU. That is something I find baffling. You should be heartily hailing the CNN author and what it means for feminism and this mid-term. She wrote it. The title is right there. You can't lie about it and expect not to be called out.

- Doc