New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Sorry, guys... no comfy balls for you!

PhilFish

Administrator
Staff member
I think sex ed is the proper business of the nation. We, as a people, have to deal with the unwanted pregnancies and STDs that result from parents who neglect their responsibility to provide good quality information to their children about sex. There's a reason the Bible Belt is a hotbed for teen pregnancy, while liberal New England --with less of an evangelical virginity cult-- has much lower teen pregnancy rates. Education matters, and the lack of it ends up costing all of us.
can't argue with that. my position is that such conversation is the purview of the parent(s) (yes some shirk it)...but that it is not appropriate at the age discussed...and certainly not at the scope outlined.
 

Barbella

Senator
Yes. A friend posted on facebook of these totally hot buff guys nekeed with big ornaments covering their um... package. At first glance it was good eye candy. But, then you realize that its four naked guys sitting on a stage, with their legs crossed over the other guys.... yeah.. no hetero guy would be nekkid in such close proximity to another nekkid guy... took the fun out of the whole thing.
Hah! Was that the one with the Christmas ornaments? Because that was on MY facebook page.... LO
 

connieb

Senator
Yes! Lol.
Hah! Was that the one with the Christmas ornaments? Because that was on MY facebook page.... LO
I actually tagged a gay friend in it after I saw this, and said, "should I be bummed". He laughed and said, definitely. We have a running joke about that since he told me practically all male strip club dancers are gay or bi. Which goes waaaaaaaay back to when a mutual friend took me to see the chippendales without me knowing what we were going to see and I was horrified.
 

Barbella

Senator
I actually tagged a gay friend in it after I saw this, and said, "should I be bummed". He laughed and said, definitely. We have a running joke about that since he told me practically all male strip club dancers are gay or bi. Which goes waaaaaaaay back to when a mutual friend took me to see the chippendales without me knowing what we were going to see and I was horrified.
Same here... LOL
 

Arkady

President
Your lying comes in comparing Jay Z to Cash or Merle. There is a substantive difference in character and evil effect on a wider society - that was the scumbag move.
So, if I make a comparison that you don't agree with, I'm lying? I do not think that word means what you think it means.
 

Arkady

President
Merely presenting the idea of considering whether it is the right time, is encouraging the activity
No, by definition, it is not. Encouraging the activity would be if you presented the idea and then argued for why doing it would be good, or if you presented it and then stacked the deck in favor of reasons to do it. If anything, they err in the other direction. They don't mention any of the many pros for becoming sexual active (the physical pleasure, the cardiovascular exercise, the chance to get to know a new aspect of your personality and to connect with another person in an intimate way, etc.), while they mention a great many cons. If it isn't neutral, then it's only because the material provided tilts against having sex.... it just doesn't tilt that way enough for your liking.
 

Mr. Friscus

Governor
Is it your view that he's encouraging that attitude or that he's speaking through a character, with an intent to critique the character? It's a critical distinction. For example, do we think that Randy Newman actually believes the United States should nuke every other country (other than Australia)? He has a song calling for that exactly.

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/randynewman/politicalscience.html

Similarly, did the Beatles think it was right to kill a woman who doesn't want to be with you, or were they speaking through and critiquing a character:

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/beatles/runforyourlife.html

Did the Barenaked Ladies want to glorify or criticize stalking when they spoke through the character of a stalker?

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/barenakedladies/theoldapartment.html

Same with the Police?

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/police/everybreathyoutake.html

Is Elvis Costello a psychotic killer?

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/elviscostello/psycho.html

Does Pink Floyd want Jews, black people, pop smokers, queers, etc., to be shot?

http://www.pink-floyd-lyrics.com/html/in-the-flesh-2-wall-lyrics.html

You're REALLY going to try to say this?

My goodness Ark. You're desperate.

The key element here, of course, is to look at the artist's entire body of work. In doing so, you can identify a song that is obviously in another character.

However, all of Jay Z's work has a very similar message. Plus, he's never mentioned this deeper artistic character you're referring to in any interviews. On the contrary, any time I've seen him questioned, he says he's hard, and the real deal.

But then again, you're making judgements in a comparison where you admit you don't know much of anything about one of the subjects.

Simply incredible.
 

connieb

Senator
No, by definition, it is not. Encouraging the activity would be if you presented the idea and then argued for why doing it would be good, or if you presented it and then stacked the deck in favor of reasons to do it. If anything, they err in the other direction. They don't mention any of the many pros for becoming sexual active (the physical pleasure, the cardiovascular exercise, the chance to get to know a new aspect of your personality and to connect with another person in an intimate way, etc.), while they mention a great many cons. If it isn't neutral, then it's only because the material provided tilts against having sex.... it just doesn't tilt that way enough for your liking.
Neutral is just the facts and only the facts. Discussing why an when and if you are ready are VALUE judgments. That is between the parent and their children to discuss. By presenting them as if they are something the child should be considering even if they have not thus far considered the activity - is tantamount to endorsing at least beginning to think about the activity. I have nothing against discussing the cold hard medical facts of procreation. I do not believe that school is where kids should be taught or encouraged to contemplate their sexuality.
 

Arkady

President
can't argue with that. my position is that such conversation is the purview of the parent(s) (yes some shirk it)...but that it is not appropriate at the age discussed...and certainly not at the scope outlined.
I take my cues for age appropriateness from biology. When kids are so young that they're not going to have any physical urge for sex, I'd stick to educating them only on the most basic of science and on what they need to know to avoid being taken advantage of by more sexually advanced people. But by 13, young people are sexual creatures. Many of them are fertile, and most of them are going to have sexual urges. In fact, sexual urges at that age can be a whole lot more chemically overwhelming than what we adults are used to. I think it would be a great disservice to kids not to make sure they're well-educated at that age.

In my own case, I didn't get sex ed until 9th grade, at age 14. One of my peers got knocked up two years earlier, and another of my peers knocked a girl up one year earlier. The education came too late for them.
 

Arkady

President
You're a little too sensitive being called a liar. Makes one wonder why.
I take pride in my honesty. I put extra effort into making sure that I don't intentionally provide bad information here. So, if someone calls me a liar, I'm going to demand specifics.
 

Arkady

President
You're REALLY going to try to say this?

My goodness Ark. You're desperate.

The key element here, of course, is to look at the artist's entire body of work. In doing so, you can identify a song that is obviously in another character.

However, all of Jay Z's work has a very similar message. Plus, he's never mentioned this deeper artistic character you're referring to in any interviews. On the contrary, any time I've seen him questioned, he says he's hard, and the real deal.

But then again, you're making judgements in a comparison where you admit you don't know much of anything about one of the subjects.

Simply incredible.
I did a quick search to see if he meant it as a character or straight. It appears he meant it straight and now regrets it:

http://theybf.com/2010/10/28/jay-z-regrets-past-misogynistic-lyrics

"Some [lyrics] become really profound when you see them in writing. Not 'Big Pimpin.' That's the exception. It was like, I can't believe I said that. And kept saying it. What kind of animal would say this sort of thing? Reading it is really harsh."

another take:

"A lot of these albums are made when artists are young, 17 or 18 years old, so they've never had any real relationships. And if you come from the neighborhoods we're in, we have low esteem ourselves. And the women, well, the girls — they have low self-esteem as well. These are all dysfunctional relationships at a young age. The poet is pretty much [giving] his take on his dealings with girls at that time. He's not in a stable relationship; he's on the road. He's seeing girls who like him because he makes music. They spend one night together; he gets a phone number. He leaves for the next town and does the same thing over again."

http://www.npr.org/2010/11/16/131334322/the-fresh-air-interview-jay-z-decoded
 

Mr. Friscus

Governor
I did a quick search to see if he meant it as a character or straight. It appears he meant it straight and now regrets it:

http://theybf.com/2010/10/28/jay-z-regrets-past-misogynistic-lyrics

"Some [lyrics] become really profound when you see them in writing. Not 'Big Pimpin.' That's the exception. It was like, I can't believe I said that. And kept saying it. What kind of animal would say this sort of thing? Reading it is really harsh."

another take:

"A lot of these albums are made when artists are young, 17 or 18 years old, so they've never had any real relationships. And if you come from the neighborhoods we're in, we have low esteem ourselves. And the women, well, the girls — they have low self-esteem as well. These are all dysfunctional relationships at a young age. The poet is pretty much [giving] his take on his dealings with girls at that time. He's not in a stable relationship; he's on the road. He's seeing girls who like him because he makes music. They spend one night together; he gets a phone number. He leaves for the next town and does the same thing over again."

http://www.npr.org/2010/11/16/131334322/the-fresh-air-interview-jay-z-decoded
Yes Jay Z has somewhat mellowed a bit in his older age, as most rap artists do when they accumulate lots of money.

And I'm glad he's come to realize that some of his content is certainly as he described.. coming from an "animal".

However, we're talking about politics, where nothing dies. Bringing up things from 10 years ago, 20 years ago.. it's all fair game to represent the person at that time. Obama has made personal attacks on others in regards to their past... with no consideration for if they have "changed their ways", and rightfully so in the given context.

As a politician, Obama should know better than to be so outwardly supportive of Jay Z. And the media should know better than to not press the President on this issue. But, pretty much all of them voted for him.. so take from that what you may.

Just imagine, for a second, if GWB had an aggressive, vulgar country singer who even at one time in their career called women "b*tches", called gay men "f*ggots", and talked about killing police, black people, etc. to the White House. Imagine if Bush took selfies with the singer, and quoted the artist on campaign speeches?

Do you think you, or any liberal would give a damn if the singer had recently come around to realize that he was wrong?

Or would you simply quote this singer... without consideration.

I think if you're honest, you'll realize that you're really digging deep here to try convince yourself that this Jay Z connection to Obama isn't completely hypocritical to what our society stands for.. respect for women, being against racial and homosexual slurs, and not condoning and supporting violence.. with guns of all things!
 

PhilFish

Administrator
Staff member
I take my cues for age appropriateness from biology. When kids are so young that they're not going to have any physical urge for sex, I'd stick to educating them only on the most basic of science and on what they need to know to avoid being taken advantage of by more sexually advanced people. But by 13, young people are sexual creatures. Many of them are fertile, and most of them are going to have sexual urges. In fact, sexual urges at that age can be a whole lot more chemically overwhelming than what we adults are used to. I think it would be a great disservice to kids not to make sure they're well-educated at that age.

In my own case, I didn't get sex ed until 9th grade, at age 14. One of my peers got knocked up two years earlier, and another of my peers knocked a girl up one year earlier. The education came too late for them.

Again, I don't see the appropriateness of replacing the parent(s) in this instance.

We were all kids....so what happens.. is familiar.

That we assume by default that kids cant curb it, or should receive specifics at that age is an inappropriate assumption, IMO. I certainly understand and agree with age appropriate sex ed (generic. anatomy, biology, physiology...) I do not feel it proper to discuss gender identity, prophylactic use, STDs..or the provision of same.....outside of my control. And i'm pretty sure many would agree with the position.

Operating from the vantage that they by default all want to bang one another instills what i perceive to be a negative connotation to the understanding of sex and sexuality.
 

Arkady

President
Yes Jay Z has somewhat mellowed a bit in his older age, as most rap artists do when they accumulate lots of money.

And I'm glad he's come to realize that some of his content is certainly as he described.. coming from an "animal".

However, we're talking about politics, where nothing dies. Bringing up things from 10 years ago, 20 years ago.. it's all fair game to represent the person at that time. Obama has made personal attacks on others in regards to their past... with no consideration for if they have "changed their ways", and rightfully so in the given context.

As a politician, Obama should know better than to be so outwardly supportive of Jay Z. And the media should know better than to not press the President on this issue. But, pretty much all of them voted for him.. so take from that what you may.

Just imagine, for a second, if GWB had an aggressive, vulgar country singer who even at one time in their career called women "b*tches", called gay men "f*ggots", and talked about killing police, black people, etc. to the White House. Imagine if Bush took selfies with the singer, and quoted the artist on campaign speeches?

Do you think you, or any liberal would give a damn if the singer had recently come around to realize that he was wrong?

Or would you simply quote this singer... without consideration.

I think if you're honest, you'll realize that you're really digging deep here to try convince yourself that this Jay Z connection to Obama isn't completely hypocritical to what our society stands for.. respect for women, being against racial and homosexual slurs, and not condoning and supporting violence.. with guns of all things!
A former bad-boy with a criminal past who mellowed with age, expressed regret for troubling aspects of his past, and was embraced by a president. Something tells me if he wore a cowboy hat, the right wing wouldn't be hyperventilating about it. Maybe Jay-Z should change his name to Merle, affect a twang, and develop vetiligo.
 

Arkady

President
Again, I don't see the appropriateness of replacing the parent(s) in this instance.

We were all kids....so what happens.. is familiar.

That we assume by default that kids cant curb it, or should receive specifics at that age is an inappropriate assumption, IMO. I certainly understand and agree with age appropriate sex ed (generic. anatomy, biology, physiology...) I do not feel it proper to discuss gender identity, prophylactic use, STDs..or the provision of same.....outside of my control. And i'm pretty sure many would agree with the position.

Operating from the vantage that they by default all want to bang one another instills what i perceive to be a negative connotation to the understanding of sex and sexuality.
Nobody has said anything about replacing parents. Parents are free to teach whatever they want. It's their first amendment right. And nobody is talking about operating with the idea that all kids want to do is bang one another. But, yes, I absolutely want to educate kids about the risks of STDs and pregnancy and ways they can protect themselves, at an age young enough that the education can help protect them.
 
Top