is the idea that the first black president should take the side of black anger and resentment against whites. There is no sign that obama is inclined to do this but it seems unreasonable to expect that someone won't want him to.

if they ever do change that won't be the reason.

I'm afraid it just won't be the same though, because Obama isn't going to fuck up everything he touches the way Bush did.

This attitude is actually a problem; Bush was called a chimp all the time i.e. www..smirkingchip.com. If Obama can't also be called a chimp becaue it is racist then you are saying that president Obama because he is black has to get special consideration that a white president doesn't get. Don't promote this idea unless you are working for a big Republican comeback soon.

she might be ok. I don't think she is any dumber than Bush, just a less privilidged background.

then by a "20 questions" process it will be possible to force people to reveal everything (or commit political/social suicide) If you don't have the right to ANY answer why would you have the right to an honest answer. It would be like stealing something from a store and then complaining about the quality of the product.

only want/can stand sex rarely and only under very specific conditions does this mean that, in the interests of fairness, women wouldn't have problems with the man in a relationship only wanting/being able to stand talking to them rarely and only under very specific conditions?

then why is it that so many women complain and object to the "medicalization" of women's lack of interest in sex but I have NEVER heard of a SINGLE INSTANCE of any man ANYWHERE complaining about the existence of viagra? Evidently SOMETHING is different.

is that you made an assertion that "things are the same for women as for men" (in this area) and I provided compelling evidence that they are not.

and wishing that she would forget about sex? I'm not saying ALL or even (necessarily)most women do the equivalent but certainly SOME do, don't they? So things are different, right?

we are "allowed" to make generalizations about the groups which have any validity. If you really want to. But you'll have to do most of the work.

being a rotten human being makes men unattractive to women but doesn't make women unattractive to men, so no, the viagra analogy isn't applicable in all respects.

bad freudian typo.

more realistically it usually means that if a man can't stand to sleep with a woman they usually break up. Apparently some women stay with men anyway. Obviously economics may be a factor.

It seems that that distinction may not be valid 100% of the time either.

Of course we will never know but I honestly don't see any reason to believe that this is true and lots of reasons to believe that it isn't.

with Iraq is that they are in no way comparable in the damage, loss of life, or for that matter the lack of legal justification.

EITHER admitting the affair or being caught in the lie would have had the same effects. It is certainly true that a Bush, FDR or any other president of the "right sort" would never have been put in this postion even had all the facts been the same.

maybe it's a toxic combination of all the abstinence education they get combined with exposure to a media controlled almost entirely by the right wing.

there is some change with younger people but not that much. The real discontinuity is between the boomers and their parents. For instnace fundie gen xers, millennials, whatever are maybe SLIGHTLY better than fundie boomers but it's not a huge difference. A complicating fact too is that a lot of what changed in the 60s (i.e between the boomers and their parents) was not how people really acted or what they really thought but the belief that keeping up appearances meant something.

what did: cultural mores and attitudes towards sexuality (or at least public discussion of it)

WHAT DID NOT: anything fundamental having to do with the question of: regulation/vs non regulation, what the level of involvement of govt. in the economy should be, income inequality or the lack of it. THESE issues have been on the table in essentially unchanged form since AT LEAST the 30s.

the real problem is that since the average women can't be truly hot for the average guy most women end up with people who don't really turn them on. No amount of helping with the housework will fix this. It might make her WILLING to sleep with you, it won't make her WANT to.

and in the bad old days before feminism when men supposedly didn't care what women thought this difference might not have brought everything to a screeching halt. Now it does. Isn't that what women wanted, for men to notice and care what they think.

This IS actually a scientifically testable hypothesis, it has been tested and definitively found not to be true. However, for ideological reasons many people have found it very difficult to give up.

gets to see what the Clintons were up against.

on the other hand why would any man ever be willing to commit to a woman who has this attitude towards sex. I predict that if a method of male birth control is ever developed that allows men to have real sex and which women can't sabotage that the population will crash unless women agree to marriage/parenthood contracts which contain an enforceable provision requiring women to maintain a sex drive. Apparently though someone has figured out how to make sperm from stem cells so it may turn out that women CAN completely ignore men after all.