There will always be stripping and pr0n and I don’t have a big problem with that. I just think it belongs in the shadows and not in the mainstream. Besides, I would think that making something forbidden would just add to the sweetness when it is indulged in… privately.

Part of it has to do with looking at my 16 year old and thinking, where do I want him to be in ten years? Settled down with a good, responsible woman… or stuffing fives into a strippers garter belt? I want him to choose the former… but I also don’t want any government to mandate that he has to.

My main point was that we all aspire to conquer our base instincts. And sometimes we lose the fight. All we do then is pick ourselves up and try again.

Regards,
Peter H.

I’m not about using state coercion to stop people from stripping or from ogling strippers. I am about making the point that as human beings, we can treat each other better than that.

It’s interesting to me the bargain the left has made with the great mass of society: “We will give you absolute liberty to do whatever you want in the bedroom, and in return you will surrender your freedom to do as you wish anywhere other than the bedroom.” It’s misfortunate that so many in society have embraced this offer.

But, I suppose, they were just doing what their base instincts drove them to do.

All else is expenible.

And then I’ll show you someone who is afraid of his own sexuality.

It is the nature of the beast. All men – gay or straight – have that inner “id” inside of them that seeks to fulfill its sexual gratification. And if the guy in the g-string on the box at the local bar is there on his own free will, with no coercion or threats from others, and wishes to express himself in that way – who are we to stop him? Isn’t that the true meaning of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?”

If a guy wishes to exhibit himself, it is between him and his God.

Sorry for the rambling, but this issue is a hot topic for me.

Regards,
Peter H.

A lot of conservative women are more or less gender feminists, whether they articulate it as such or not.

Maybe that’s why so many libtards are afraid of true gender feminists?

Regards,
Peter H.

/sarc

I had plenty of girlfriends, some serious. But I was only truly excited in the lockerroom. One of the reasons I like Camille Paglia is that she understands, accepts, and celebrates our natural selves — yet she’s a feminist, a true feminist. She understands that to celebrate the female isn’t automatically bought at the price of tearing down the male, that gender and sexuality isn’t a zero-sum game. (I would use the analogy of a pie, but I’d rather not go there.) She’s an honest intellectual — rare, these days.

I’m not quite sure why (perhaps it’s the double jeopardy the lacrosse players are inspiring in this thread), but I’ve been thinking about a movie I saw several times years ago that dealt with sexual repression (among many, many other things). If you haven’t seen Picnic At Hanging Rock, I highly recommend it. It asks many questions, but offers no answers. Based on what you convey in your posts, I think it’s a movie you’d understand.

Regards,
Peter H.

Here’s a well-presented analysis of DA Nifong’s possible criminal liability. The point the author misses though is in the timetable defense/prosecution: the defendants were likely suffering the most repurcusions in the media, school, and elsewhere when the DA’s office was not proceeding with the prosecution, one that ultimately fell apart under the weight of nothing. Holding back exculpatory evidence worked to seal the fate of the lacrosse players in public opinion, at least enough to taint a jury pool (if one were needed under NC law) and certainly enough to put pressure on the AG’s office to facilitate a verdict the public would expect. Everyone knew at the time the ‘evidence’ was flimsy at best (even, I suspect, the race-baited protesters who wished the defendants dead). It is a legal gray area, one that is not de jure, but de facto and this is what makes Nifong so dangerous — he’s not stupid enough not to investigate and, hopefully, prosecute.

P.S. I dislike the MSM as much as anyone and especially Sixty Minutes, but kudos to them for presenting an obvious miscarriage of justice. To the faint-of-heart goes faint praise, but praise nonetheless.

Hiring strippers is legal, not exactly moral by some standards, but legal, and not unheard of after all many a bachelor party involves the hiring of strippers.

The drinking is a different issue, but if underage drinking equals guilt or implied guilt of rape, then almost every college student in the US is guilty of rape. I figure this line of debate would probably lead to a disucssion of why we have a 21 age limit for drinking, and whether it is neccessary.

But I don’t think underage drinking is exactly on par with rape, or even means the drinkers were somehow heinous actors.

Then in 2002 came a night of bizarre behavior that would be repeated in the coming years, including at the lacrosse party. That night in 2002, she appeared coherent one moment and falling-down intoxicated the next. She had been performing at a Durham strip club late on a Thursday night, and while fondling a customer who was a taxi driver she slipped his keys out of his pocket, according to a Durham County Sheriff’s Office report.

She sneaked outside and, without turning on the headlights, drove off in the taxi and led deputies on a tire-screeching chase over five miles until she crashed. She laughed at a deputy who approached on foot and tried to run him over, the deputy wrote in his report.

When she was finally taken into custody, deputies said she kept trying to lie down and finally passed out cold. She was taken to the hospital, where she slept it off. She had more than twice the legal limit of alcohol in her system.

Mangum turned once again to Burnette, asking her for money to help her pay for the damage to the taxi and to a patrol car. After pleading guilty to misdemeanors, she spent two weekends in jail and was ordered to find treatment for substance abuse.

In early 2006, she began dancing under the name “Precious” at The Platinum Club, a rundown strip joint in the countryside between Durham and Hillsborough. Yolanda Haynes, The Platinum Club’s manager at the time, told investigators that Mangum seemed mentally unstable and appeared to be under the influence of drugs or drink whenever she was there.

She also got into fights with other dancers and with patrons, Haynes wrote in an affidavit in connection with the lacrosse case, and was repeatedly told to stop engaging in sexual contact with customers. One night, Haynes wrote, Mangum had to be separated from a female customer after making unwanted sexual advances to her. Mangum then walked into a back room, took off her clothes and passed out, Haynes said.

In the days leading up to the lacrosse party on March 13, 2006, Mangum frequently checked in with at least eight escort services, according to phone records that were subpoenaed in the case. She spent the weekend of the party with a friend, Jarriel Johnson, 32, of Raleigh, who drove her to a blur of escort appointments in hotels in Durham and Raleigh, he told police.

Ironically, what facilitates this so well is the anti-police attitude of so many academics and leftists. When Len Bias died, the investigation revealed that U of M police were literally not allowed to enter and search student housing — which kids took full advantage of, turning their dorm rooms and apartments into dope dens.

Part of what made this woman’s story even remotely plausible was the fact that there was a ton of alcohol involved. “Boys being boys” may explain why it happened, but it’s hardly an excuse for it.

Am I using bad words?

My eaten comment basically said that their poor judgment more or less mirrors the stripper’s bad judgment. Neither makes either set of people deserving of being falsely accused or of being sexually assaulted.

“She’s a stripper” doesn’t take away her rights.

“He’s a rich-boy jerk” doesn’t take away his rights.