Well, maybe he and Sasntorum can fight it out.

In any case, it's silly to expect him to treat a "commitment ceremony" with any respect or dignity. I'm stunned he's not openly admitting that he doesn't support Neff simply because she's a woman.

Brownback is an outspoken social conservative, joining staunch Senate conservatives such as Rick Santorum, Pat Roberts and Tom Coburn on issues of social legislation. He opposes same-sex marriage[1], and pornography.[2] He favors teaching intelligent design alongside evolution, is strongly pro-life, having referred to the amount of abortions in the United States since Roe v. Wade as "a holocaust" [3] and believes there is no inherent right to privacy in the Constitution despite expressing disapproval of President Bush's assertions on the legality of the NSA wiretapping program.[4] In accordance with his Roman Catholic beliefs, he has, however, taken a moderate approach to capital punishment. In a speech on the Senate Judiciary Committee, he questioned the current use of the death penalty as potentially incongruent with the notion of a "culture of life," and suggesting for its employment in a more limited fashion.[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_D._Brownback

He's opposed to contraceptives, for god's sake. Don't expect him to tolerate commitment ceremonies.

First of all, Fleiss' brothel, if it ever happens, will probably not survive.

And all the nervous jokes flying around this idea "what? a brothel for women?! oh those girls are funny! next they'll want the men at home to please them sexually too!" just shows how uncomfortable and possibly hostile we still are to women's sexual desire. The idea that a woman may want sex with an anonymous stranger, will demand that she have an orgasm, and will play money for it is still quite foreign, quite scary. Our society doesn't quite know yet what to do with women who have prodigious sexual appetites and want them satisfied (maybe not by Mike Tyson), especially in such an anonymous, classically "male" way with money exchanged as well.

As for the last comment, about how she's not going to allow men to partake of the men at the brothel. Well, she can't do everything at once. She's addressing the lack of male brothels for women. Perhaps someone else will set up a homosexual brothel for men or women. I am not exactly sure about how brothels work in Nevada, but can a woman show up to a female-staffed brothel and get some service? Does it matter that the women in the brothel might not be gay?

I agree with all of No Name Given's points.

A lot of strip clubs for women and male strippers (though of course not as many as for me) certainly exist, but it's still surrounded by jokes, by giggling. It's not serious. It's the butt of many jokes.

It's not accepted as "something some/many women do on a semi-regular basis." It would be acceptable to bring your clients to male strip club, but it is in many places in this country to bring your clients to a female strip club.

Just look at portrayals of sexually empowered women in the movies and on TV. They're either jokes (Samanthan Jones from sex and city), sluts who need to reform their ways (too many to name), serial killers (see Sharon Stone in Basic Instinct), or victims (it's not their fault they're sluts). Number 6 from Battlestar Gallactica is a murderous cylon. It's not potrayed as a healthy and serious option for women like it is for men.

In fact, the "victims" portrayal is the most offensive because it infantilizes women, it doesn't allow them to have responsiblity for their own sexual lives, or to have ownership of their own bodies.

Try being a person with a foreign accent in the south. Try a Eastern European one. Every fucker you talk to along your merry way will inquire "where ya from?" "Slovenia" "Oh, well, welcome to America!" How friendly is that! "Well, i've lived here fore 12 years."

They also think they're being very friendly when they're trying to convert you to Jeeeahsus.

They think they're being friendly and polite, but in fact they're very often just very ignorant, and don't understand how offensive they are.

It is a wonderful sight to behold, and indeed, they are getting their come-uppence (sp?), and they deserve all of it. Especially the fact that they can no longer avoid reconciling their ridiculous sexual hypocrisy with the reality of their party's makeup.

But:

it's starting to bother me how quickly the Democrats jump on the "pervert" "predator" morally judging puritan shame-filled sexual hypocrisy of their own. Just shut up and let the people judge, Democrats. You don't need to get your hand dirty with scandal, to say things that sound very much like what the Republicans said about Studds and Clinton. If Foley's relationship with his pages was legal and consensual, it's legal. You have to face that. It may have been "inappropriate" but he should be treated just like Studss was, no worse. When I see HuffPo have headlines like "porn-addicted husband wanted to run for GOP Congress" I want to scream, "hey! porn is legal! so what if he's 'porn-addicted'? Aren't we the open-minded, pro-sex party?"

I just don't like this anti-sexual, quasi-republican language coming from the Democrats. We're smearing ourselves.