Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Use my Amazon Portal
Been a long time since I read Playboy but I did subscribe for quite a few years in the late 70's, early 80's. I did not know that Hugh Hefner was such an advocate for marriage, of any type.
Says the person who made his life about nothing but sex. I'm a little creeped out by this idea that your whole life is defined by sex. Having it with anyone you want, whenever you want, not paying for it yourself, and on and on. This seems like the very definition of slavery. You are in thrall to your appetites and everyone or anyone who dares to comment on it after you make it the sole topic of conversation is a hater. Those who don't want to deal with your consequences are selfish puritans. It's completely selfish and unaware, but, somehow because it's edgy or because not everyone embraces it you have a more valid claim to your point of view.
Pot, kettle, do the math.PS What circle of Hell is reserved for panderers again?alan markus said...Been a long time since I read PlayboyYeah, sure, we know...Just for the great articles.
Polygamy: the new gay marriage.How could Hef object to that?
Hef, I love you. I'm an Illini. You are, without doubt, the greatest of all Illini.That said... lighten up! It's not 1955.
Same-sex marriage has nothing to do with sex. Decoupling intercourse and reproduction is what is dehumanizing, since it leads to addiction and using others.
"Today, in every instance of sexual rights falling under attack..."Wow, I didn't realize that President Obama, until just a few weeks ago, was such a fascist Puritan. Or that Bill Clinton was interested in sex only for procreation.
Hef is just frustrated. Having pioneered f/f photo shoots, he's angry because when he tried introducing just one m/m photo spread, sails softened and winds died. He doesn't know where to go or how to expand next.
So if you are just having sex ...nothing wrong with that. I would suggest rephrasing your argument for the bigger things you want in life.
You are, without doubt, the greatest of all Illini.Forgive me, please, Dick Butkus!
And, by the way, have any of you thought about why Dick Butkus was so fucking mean?It's a story right out of "A Boy Named Sue!"Kids were calling him "Dick Butt Kiss" in grade school. You'd get pretty damned mean if you had to go through that to!
I don't see anything wrong with homosexual sex. Or even "men" loving "men." But in my view marriage is for children.Government has a compelling interest in marriage. Not so sure about those lesbian couples, but it's pretty clear the single mom experiment has failed. What started out as a way to deal with single mothers from WW-II has been taken over by leftist and feminist crazies, and the results are terrible.Read up on the "Man in the House" rule, in which AFDC was denied if the man was residing in the house.As Patrick Moynihan said, it ended up making inner city black families into a matriarchy, and potentially destroyed an entire culture. I was watching a documentary last night about the Crips and Bloods, and the gang members repeatedly pointed out there was no man helping the sons to become men, and as such, they found it on the streets. Mom couldn't teach men how to become men.An old study, circa 1991, indicated that once the crime rate was adjusted for single parenthood, there was no difference between white and black crime.So there you have the case for government interest in marriage. What's the government interest in homosexual marriage? It's simply additional cost. I don't see the value in two able bodied guys hooking up so one can stay at home taking advantage of the marriage benefits, including survivor benefits.Yes, unemployment is high today, but we need all able bodied people out there pushing, not sucking off the government teat.
"“The fight for gay marriage is, in reality, a fight for all of our rights. Without it, we will turn back the sexual revolution and return to an earlier, puritanical time..."Hef appears to believe that if we are not moving forward at breakneck speed, we will move backwards at the same rate. Isn't it possible to move forward at a lesser pace? Or to just say, "ah, this is the sweet-spot, let's stay here? Or maybe, we've gone a bit far, maybe we should retreat a bit, but not all the way back to where we started from.Is it possible that this guy, famous for being suave and sophisticated has never heard of the either-or fallacy? Maybe he is fully aware of it and just assumes his readers are all idiots.
...have any of you thought about why Dick Butkus was so fucking mean?An excess of testosterone.
Their goal is to dehumanize everyone’s sexuality and reduce us to be slaves to our passions, to make love superfluous and unnecessary to the most intimate of acts, to be nothing more than dogs who will hump anything in sight, to using sex -- an act involving one's reproductive organs and the transmission of procreative genetic material -- with the purpose of perpetuating an anti-child mentality in favor of exploitation and selfishness. And most especially to dehumanize women and reduce them from human persons to mere objects of use.
that déjà vu thing just happened again really hard.
Oh, there it went.
They have vu meters, for measuring deja vu.You can see it happens a lot.
"They're gonna put y'all back in chains"
Its just yet another display of anti-Christian bigotry, tarted up with Progressive lipstick.
Some people might argue that what dehumanizes your sexuality is removing it from the biological basis of it.Dehumanizing (objectifying) your partner does the same.If "something with batteries" can do the job that a person is doing, then, that's "humanizing" sexuality?
I call "bullshit":Saying the word "marriage" defines a union between a man and a woman doesn't "criminalize your entire sex life..." - or that sex is for procreation, or anything about sex, really (which can seem to be all gays have on their minds) - it simply means we have to call gay unions something else.NEXT!
Here is the rest of what is not being talked about here - and when it comes to marriage, I suspect that it isn't male homosexuals that are the problem, but rather lesbians. Why? Because at least one study has shown that they are even worse, on average, than single women, in terms of outcomes, when it comes to raising children. My guess for their even greater failure is that some single mothers had male parenting from their kids' fathers (like my ex did), whereas the lesbians would have to go to non-related (often gay - which I think is irrelevant) males for the male parenting.You may call this sexist, but I would suggest that the big problem with both single parenting and homosexual couples raising children, is that in both cases, you find women trying to raise teenagers without strong male parenting and role models. At a time when the kids need strong limits, esp. for the boys, and unconditional male approval and love for the girls, you have mothers trying to compensate by trying to be the kids' best friend, etc. So, no wonder that the factor with the highest correlation with being in prison for males is having grown up without a father in the kids' lives. Wonder why so many blacks are in prison? Look to their lack of fathering as the primary cause. Let me add that the male homosexuals whom I know who have chosen to raise children have done just fine. My complaint is with lesbians, and, yes, some of them do just fine, but many of their children, in my limited experience, have not been well adjusted, esp. in terms of relationships with adult and near-adult males. And, keep in mind that so far, at least, it seems like lesbians, compared to males, seem to be the ones more likely to want to raise children with their same-sex partners.
If "something with batteries" can do the job that a person is doing, then, that's "humanizing" sexuality?Conversely, if jerking off into a cup while looking at porn so that a technician can mix the ejaculate in a petri dish with an egg surgically removed from a woman and then, following conception, have some other technician/doctor mechanically insert the embryo into a woman -- that is humanizing sexuality, which is by its very nature a potentially procreative act?
I think there's a solution to the whole gay marriage problem that I'm surprised hasn't been widely discussed. I'm sure it's controversial, but I can't imagine it's so controversial to put it outside the range of consideration.The solution is simple: Get government out of the business of ratifying sexual relationships and restrict it to ratifying economic relationships. In other words, remove the concept of "marriage" from government entirely and replace it instead with the concept of "household." Then define criteria for forming (or dissolving) a household and let the government deal with that.
This issue is so stupid. Is anyone being tossed in the slammer for having a gay wedding? No. It's just that gay couples can't check a box for a tax break. Gay people can write up a contract and agree to limits and responsibilities and sign it. And boom goes the dynamite, they are married for intents and puroposes. That's what a marriage is, a contract.
How does this have anything to do with gay marriage? Since when have gays had any problem finding sex partners? And how would restricting gay marriage make those numbers go down?
@bruce H.It's interesting that you bring up parenting failure among lesbian couples.Last Spring, we had dinner at a Thai restaurant in Bethesda, MD. As we were finishing, A young gay male couple came in with a baby, which caused the Thai waitresses to go all a-twitter.My friend, after we left the restaurant went on to tell us about the same sex couples with kids at her very liberal Episcopalian Church in DC. her words: "Oh, the men do fine. But the lesbians & their kids! You just wanna fucking strangle 'em."I have to admit I was shocked. If I would have been forced to bet, I would have gone with the lesbians as doing the better job. You know, maternal instincts and all. The stereotypical "Mom knows best" prejudices, I guess.
Hmmm, a long standing pornographer supports same sex marriage. Wow, shocking. I'm stunned at the originality of it all. [rolleyes]
When did Hugh return to relevancy? Or is it, when and why do some think he returned to relevancy? This inquiring mind...really doesn't care.
I would be a bit worried about any man his age padding around in a robe and slippers....and chickies who think that is cool.Gives me the creeps.
Gay marriage is not illegal; it is currently not recognized as a legal institution equal to that accorded traditional marriage.Liberals, on the other hand, when they disapprove of something, do make it illegal e.g. lightbulbs, plastic bags.So who are the real totalitarians.
If you want to see "dehumanized" sex, just revisit the gay bath house scene of the 1970s. Uh, not literally but through the writings of Larry Kramer or Randy Shilts. I mean, there were guys lying on towel with a can of Crisco, taking on all comers. Guys blowing each other through holes in the wall... Yeah that's some romantic shit there.
This is about the meaning, definition and purpose of the institution of marriage, not sex. Some people think it is about the procreation and acculturation of the next generation, upon which our (or any) civilization depends. Others take a more sentimental and/or welfare goodies approach involving tax breaks and Social Security benefits. It's as if society has no legitimate interest in perpetuating biological families as the best environment for the procreation and acculturation of the next generation.
As a non-religious social conservative, I always worry about unintended consequences. Marriage, after all, is an ancient institution that predates every government on the planet and their predecessors. The hubris to think that we know better in a single generation is worrisome. Perhaps we could think about it for a couple of centuries before we go fiddling about.
Children do not care about their parents' sexual desires, but the do care if mom and dad are not fighting with each other.Even if you are a virgin, you have a mother and father. Their relationship with each other has an affect on you, good or bad. Hopefully good.
Polygamy: the new gay marriage.How could Hef object to that?For some reason the problem of property rights in polygamy has just occurred to me (And since the thought was prompted by mention of an aging male millionaire with a harem I'll frame the discussion that way). A woman in a monogamous marriage is entitled to 1/2 of the marital assets upon divorce. Upon the entrance of a second wife into the marriage, the first wife's share would drop to 1/3. There's a strong financial incentive for an existing wife to reject the addition of wives into the union.Conversely, polygamy would be an asset preserving mechanism for a rich man compared to serial monogamy. A man with two wives who went through two divorces would lose 1/3, and then 1/2 of 2/3, of his original assets, leaving him with 1/3 (again assuming the harem wives had negligible individual assets compared to the man). On the other hand, a man who married and divorced twice would lose 1/2, then 1/2 of 1/2, leaving him with 1/4. If America allowed polygamy, it might be malpractice for a financial adviser to not counsel a rich client to practice it.
A woman in a monogamous marriage is entitled to 1/2 of the marital assets upon divorce. Upon the entrance of a second wife into the marriage, the first wife's share would drop to 1/3. This is not an original thought (heard it from a clever friend of mine), but WOMEN should be in favor of polygamy. It increases the pool of men with superior genes.
"WOMEN should be in favor of polygamy. It increases the pool of men with superior genes."We have sperm banks, you know. No need for polygamy. (I don't agree with sperm/egg banks.)
Thus spake Socrates in silk pajamas.
Based on Crack MC's comment"They" = Straw men
His comment is over the top stupid. Still, I think Hefner has led one of the more enviable lives of the 20th century. I'd probably choose Joe DiMaggio's life over his, but Hefner is definitely in the top five.....What are the chances that a movie will ever be made showing a gay couuple as anything but exemplary parents? I saw that movie, The Kids Are Alright, with Julianne Moore and in every frame it ladled a new helping of bullshit on the screen.
Once upon a time it might have been Austin-Powers cool, but now it's just Old-Mummy creepy.shudder
William,What are the chances that a movie will ever be made showing a gay couuple as anything but exemplary parents? I saw that movie, The Kids Are Alright, with Julianne Moore and in every frame it ladled a new helping of bullshit on the screen.What are you talking about? They were AWFUL parents. The boy wants to find his dad because he's stifled in the totally female, and less-than-supportive-for-a-male environment. One female spouse doesn't support the either professionally, for no good reason, and is threatened by both a male presence and authority - even by someone as poof as an organic foods restaurant owner. (Hilariously, at the end, she claims the father should make his own family when - duh - he's only there because his son searched him out.) One female spouse betrayed the other sexually with the boy's father. And in the end, the entire collection of weirdos, the kids and the lesbian parents, ruthlessly betray the emotions of the guy they brought into their lives because (!) one of the lesbians kissed him. (What a great lesson for the kids in how to treat people.) If the producers were honest, it would've been advertised as a story about vampires.If The Kids Are Alright is what counts as anybody's idea of good parenting, then - for goodness sakes - these guys are fucking outstanding.
Does this mean they do not believe in evolutionary principles? Do they instead believe in pixie dust and magical storks?Contrary to popular opinion, it is not individuals who recognize a prevailing natural order, who define themselves by their sexual behavior. No, quite the opposite. They recognize the natural order, the enlightened order (i.e. human consciousness), and reasonable compromises thereof. As individual entities assumed to possess freewill, we have a choice and we pursue reasonable compromises -- but not rejection -- of the natural order.It's not just about sex! There is more to human life than that fundamental behavior. We are capable of self-moderating behavior and reasonable compromises, but we remain constrained by the prevailing natural order (e.g. evolutionary principles).Anyway, while there is no certainty about the future, it would be reasonable to assume that normalizing behaviors which constitute evolutionary dysfunction will reduce species fitness. Both homosexuals and heterosexuals that engage in deviant behaviors should take note, and voluntarily accept tolerance of their behaviors. The standard for normalization is a redeeming value to society and humanity.
The problem is the gods we pick. The gods of the tropics are much more tolerant than the desert gods, all of whom seem to hate sex. Maybe we just ought to ditch monotheism altogether and go back to the Greek and Roman models. They used to have mixed nude bathing in big pubic complexes. Man you try that in this country and they'd treat it like a terror attack. Before you could say hello some DA with too tight underwear would be sending in a SWAT team.
Dante: WOMEN should be in favor of polygamy. It increases the pool of men with superior genes.You can't have stable cooperative societies if alpha males get all the girls. What you end up with is roving mobs of young males. What probably prevents a lot of riots in this country is that young men can find . . . er . . "love" when they really need it.
I read the first few lines of the title and thought Ann was linking the Family research Council.Hugh Hefner railing against the dehumanization of sexuality? Isn't that like the Soviets complaining about treaty violations, or Todd Akin lecturing folks on interview preparation?It's not social conservatives that make a minstrel show out of sexuality. Who's side of the aisle dresses up like genitalia? Who goes gaga over trampy pop singers? Who gives us sexuality-ridiculing sitcoms? And who published Little Annie Fanny?
You can't have stable cooperative societies if alpha males get all the girls.Saudi Arabia isn't a stable cooperative society?/sarc
Saudi Arabia isn't a stable cooperative society?Whatever else Saudi Arabia might be it's not one in which the alpha males have all the girls. As to whether they have all the boys is another matter.
What's Arabic for "Sandusky"?
Post a Comment