Letters to the Editor
jschultz
Published Letters: 32 Editor's Choice: 2
-
video seems broken ...
[Read the article: "The greatest gift"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]same
-
I wonder ...
[Read the article: Blow-job blowhards]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Did any of these feminists discuss the obvious parallels between blowjobs and giving a woman oral sex? Is that also a submissive / exploitive act that degrades her partner?
If yes, then I strongly disagree with the whole line of argument, for both male and female receptive oral sex. It basically says that all oral sex is inherently exploitive and therefore should be avoided. I doubt you'll find many women who feel that way about receiving head (but quite possibly about giving it to men, which makes for a nice, but common, double standard).
If no, then why is a blowjob exploitive / degrading but eating pussy not?
John
PS - I can understand why women don't enjoy having a guy cum in their mouth -- it's pretty gross (although comparable to having a woman cum on your face and tongue). Most of the times when I receive oral sex though I just do it to get strongly aroused and don't want to make my partner get me off with her mouth unless she really wants to do that. I think using blowjobs (fluffing) in this manner is actually the more common way they are used in real life.
PPS - Sorry if any of the above was overly graphic or offensive :)
-
Misrepresentation ...
[Read the article: Look at that monkey dance!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Did anyone else notice that Travis says his choreographer brought out "the monkey, the animal" in him (Travis) and that he isn't commenting on anyone else?
I agree that a white guy talking about monkeys around a bunch of black guys is a recipe for disaster, but I think this was just an inadvertent "woops" comment and it seems he certainly didn't mean to have any negative racial undertones.
-
Is this for real?
[Read the article: Show us your... balls?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Because I saw a skit on the Man Show a long time ago where they spoofed the exact same idea and it looked very similar to this ...
-
Definitely real ...
[Read the article: Aw]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]IMHO
-
This comment is ridiculous ...
[Read the article: A motherless child ...]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Let me get this straight ...
Madonna is taking on the lifetime responsibility of raising a child who, by all accounts, would have lived a life of extreme poverty with a very low life expectancy.
Madonna donated $3M to a Malawian charity.
The child's father is glad that he will raised by someone who can offer him opportunities that the father never could.
Madonna is drawing attention to the vast numbers of orphans in Africa and is setting an example by volunteering to raise at least one of them.
And you have the moral high ground to look down on her actions as being not quite good enough somehow? And to draw parallels between her actions towards an orphan and the actions of missionaries and slavers who sought to "save" africans from themselves in the past?
In a word: ridiculous!!!
I'd love to know what you have done to help african orphans, or if you ever even considered this issue at all, before Madonna adopted this child?
-
Totally a fake ...
[Read the article: The viral bride]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Obvious bad acting!
-
I thought it was cute ...
[Read the article: What, was "Mandy" already taken?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]And I'm not even a big Hillary fan ...
Don't know the Celine Dion song, but I don't like most anything by her.
-
meh ...
[Read the article: Highlights from the Republican debate]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I didn't appreciate the cutesy editing and extremely small amount of actual content in that video.
If you are going to cover something important like a presidential primary debate, then actually cover it in a meaningful fashion.
-
Mideast war anyone?
[Read the article: The oil price paradox]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I see only one other person had the same thought as I. There are very scary things afoot in the middle east today, which is one of the primary sources of oil in the world.
First, there is the very real possibility of the US and Iran getting into a tussle in the very near future. If we bomb Iran, I'm sure we will go after their oil infrastructure for maximal economic damage to them.
Second, when we pull out of Iraq there is the very real possibility of a regional war involving, Turkey, Syria, Saudia Arabia, Iran and what is left of Iraq. Hopefully, such a war would be mainly fought through proxies within Iraq (militias, etc.) although I'm pretty sure Turkey will use their regular army to crush the kurds in the north. If Iran and Saudia Arabia get into a fight at all you can be sure the US will get involved in a big way (again).
Any way you cut it the potential disaster for mid east oil production over the next year or two is huge and obvious.
-
OMFG that was hilarious!!!!
[Read the article: Red State Update: Jackie's momma live!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Seriously, these guys just keep getting better and better!
-
requiring 60 votes vs. "actual" fillibuster ...
[Read the article: The WSJ editorial page lies about our surveillance laws]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Glenn,
In either scenario, Senator Dodd and others get to debate the bill and amendments and then when the other side comes up with 60 votes it's over. So, the distinction here is without a difference in my view and I don't think it right to criticize Dodd for not engaging in a "real" fillibuster.
A 60 vote requirement for cloture+passage is actually stronger than what is usually required. Often senators will vote for cloture to make forward progress and then turn around and vote against the bill. So sometimes you can achieve cloture, but then the bill can fail to get a simple majority. In the scenario underway in the senate you need a super majority to pass the bill.
It isn't Dodd's fault that so few senators will join with him to oppose telecom immunity.
-
Fineman has a point ...
[Read the article: Howard Fineman, mind reader]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Hillary could have responded that the question was ridiculous distraction and that obviously Obama is a rather devout christian. To the point, true, cut and dry.
She didn't do that.
Instead she basically acted as if she doesn't really know anything about it and simply has to take the person's word on it.
She left the door open for other people to wonder if there is something or not to the charge, when she does know the honest truth about Obama.
This isn't a BIG deal, but it is true that she was playing word games here and going along with a republican style smear campaign against Obama. That is why this is rather sad.