Comments: Politics and Porn

Maybe there isn't more female-gaze-directed porn because women are more likely than men to say "you know? what I get off on really isn't any of your business." :)

Posted by Elayne Riggs at January 20, 2004 03:55 AM

I suppose it's too much to consider that Dean didn't do well because he failed to attract Democrats, or does the vast right wing conspiracy extend far enough to control even the Democratic Party?

As for porn, I personally need a little something more than just a naked woman, but I'm probably just different. ;)

Posted by Andrew at January 20, 2004 06:01 AM

Anne: I'm quite perturbed at the mean-spirited and even petty insults being tossed his way by disgruntled bloggers from the Left.

I'm not seeing this, Anne. Can you back this up?

Posted by Retrogrouch at January 20, 2004 08:36 AM

Oooh! Comments!

Elayne: If we're that coy about what we like, we might not get it. That's all I'm saying.

Andrew: By now, you know that I'm prone to sweeping, half-considered generalizations from time to time. Obviously there are a lot of men for whom the sight of an undraped female figure, just any random female of a certain age group, is insufficient for arousal. Men of uncommon intelligence, charm, and sophistication. :)

As for Dean's appeal to Democrats, well, who knows?

My personal opinion has always been that a lot of Dean's popularity was a media creation. The media was so thrilled to have a "new angle" to use to write about over the past few months (the "WWW" angle) that they practically saturated the news with discussions of Dean's on-line strength, his fund-raising, his "anger," his anti-war speeches, his anti-Bush speeches, and endless debates over the depth of his appeal to the voters.

Had said media coverage been more evenly spread among all viable candidates, maybe the media 'pundits' wouldn't have fallen for their own rhetoric and found themselves floundering last night?

Of course, one state can be an anomaly. I could be wrong and Dean could come out strong in New Hampshire. It's going to be interesting to watch.

In the end, I'm pleased, very pleased, that the voters chose based on the candidate they wanted and not the candidate the media told them to want.

Posted by Anne at January 20, 2004 12:40 PM

Ooops. Missed one.

Retrogrouch: Unfortunately, I don't always have the same bookmarks on my computer here at the office as I do on my home computer I'll take a look as I blog around today, okay? The only one that sticks in my mind at the moment was someone who referred to Kerry as "droopy drawers" or something similar. Embarrassingly childish. (I tend to delete these bookmarks when I see a post like that but I might be able to retrieve that one or one of the others I saw last night.)

Posted by Anne at January 20, 2004 12:41 PM

To Retrogrouch: If I had been keeping up with what was going on, I'd probably have written one of those mean-spirited attacks on Kerry. As it is, I just got up this morning and did a double-take when I saw the paper.

Anne: could well be that concerns about electability are circulating. And at this point, what does it matter if a candidate was against the war before it started? I checked out a comparison between Dean, Kerry, and Lieberman's proposals on Iraq's reconstruction at the Dean website, and there's not a lot of difference between them—and I preferred Lieberman's proposal for the War Crimes Tribunal better to Dean's (non) proposal.

Read Kerry's health care proposal paper at his website and (mostly) liked it. Saw Edwards' and wanted to scream.

Posted by Curtiss Leung at January 20, 2004 04:32 PM

Coy? Or, you know, private?

Posted by Elayne Riggs at January 21, 2004 11:57 AM

Well, I'm not talking about sharing the absolute details. :) If you prefer a chicken to a feather, that's cool.

I was only referring to "beefcake" to the extent of having the opportunity to stumble across an image or concept that's appealing from time to time.

Posted by Anne at January 21, 2004 02:12 PM


Posted by politics at February 19, 2004 12:43 AM