'''

Okay, well, I'm going to be a jerk here.

Curious, how does this fit in with your vision for a more moral American that respects the family and shuns pornography?

Curious, how does this fit in with your vision for a more moral American that respects the family and shuns pornography?

Well, if you'll notice, this was in the "HUMOR" section....oh, that's right, sorry...you libs inherently lack a sense of humor and take everything seriously. Sorry, my bad.
Also, the wife and I were just HAVING FUN and KIDDING with each other. The odds of any of those people actually coming to our door and wanting to have sex with either of us are astronomically against us, obviously. It's called "playful banter"...try it sometime.
Besides, I am allowed to think a certain person is hot or attractive, you know, without looking at dirty pictures of them. I do want people to be respectful, but I'm not dead.

Rightwinger:

Well, if you'll notice, this was in the "HUMOR" section....oh, that's right, sorry...you libs inherently lack a sense of humor and take everything seriously. Sorry, my bad.

Really, so when I ask you, as another human being, about something you are promoting that doesn't match up with the ideology that you so staunchly touted, I am "you libs" and I have no sense of humor.

I'm asking you a sincere question, and instead of answering me, you are insulting me.

Also, the wife and I were just HAVING FUN and KIDDING with each other. The odds of any of those people actually coming to our door and wanting to have sex with either of us are astronomically against us, obviously. It's called "playful banter"...try it sometime.

Doesn't promoting infidelity and multiple partner sex in your blog (regardless of what it's listed under) undermine your previous points that you so strongly pushed? You wrote this blog presumably hoping for attaboys and hoping that other bloggers would join in by stating who they lust after and who they would be unfaithful for...and this certainly does not match up with the cause you were championing.

Besides, I am allowed to think a certain person is hot or attractive, you know, without looking at dirty pictures of them. I do want people to be respectful, but I'm not dead.

While the means is different, the result is the same. Discussing imaginary infidelity and group sex on a blog is still disrespectful of marriage and family. You can't blame society for a loose moral climate when you are openly doing the very things you condemn.

It's not playful or sexual banter that I have a problem with here. It's hypocrisy.

Tex, I really would have expected more tolerance from you. You frequently show a hopeful glimmer of moderation. Not here. Yes, in this case, you are "you libs". You're showing your lack of humor with everything you type here.
Not everything one says has to be taken straight at face value and with utter seriousness. My wife, whom I love dearly and would not EVER cheat on---which she knows very well, by the way---knew I was kidding, as I knew she was.
I wasn't hoping for "attaboys"; I was relating what I saw as a humorous anecdote....that's all. Cut me a little slack.

As I said, it IS possible to find a person attractive and sexy without looking at dirty pictures of them....I'm not a hypocrite, Tex; I just have a sense of humor. Quit trying so hard.

And by the way...my reply, the one which you took to be an attack, was meant to be good-natured. Once again thwarted by the absence of Little Whip's "sarcasm font"..sorry that you took it to be so harsh. It was not intended that way.

Rightwinger:

Tex, I really would have expected more tolerance from you.

No, I'm tolerating your comments just fine. I'm not demanding that you take down this article or opposing your right to say these things. I don't have to approve of your choices in order to tolerate them. You of all people should know this.

You frequently show a hopeful glimmer of moderation. Not here.

This has nothing to do with moderation. Political labels and buzzwords really have no bearing on this discussion.

Not everything one says has to be taken straight at face value and with utter seriousness. My wife, whom I love dearly and would not EVER cheat on---which she knows very well, by the way---knew I was kidding, as I knew she was.

That's fine. Your relationship with your wife is your business.

As I said, it IS possible to find a person attractive and sexy without looking at dirty pictures of them....I'm not a hypocrite, Tex; I just have a sense of humor. Quit trying so hard.

What does this have to do with "trying so hard"? Look, we're all hypocrites in one way or another. The better of us try to eliminate hypocrisy in our own lives when we become aware of it.

Are you trying to tell me that we may abandon our moral beliefs when it comes to humor? If that's what you're saying, fine, just say it. Although, if that's the case, what's the harm with the sitcom portrayal of the bumbling, childish father figure? I mean, it's just humor.

And by the way...my reply, the one which you took to be an attack, was meant to be good-natured.

Attack? Where did you attack me?

In case you're wondering, I'm not upset or trying to be hostile. I'm not angry with you. I'm just curious about how you justify writing a blog like this after condemning others for the same behaviors in your American morality blog.

Had you not written that blog, I would not have taken you to task over this, because it's typical male behavior, and the conversation you had with your wife is what I would consider normal playfulness between friends or partners. However, when you condemn other males for similar behavior, it makes me wonder why it would be OK for you, but not for them, and why is it OK to abandon your beliefs under the guise of humor?

Are you trying to tell me that we may abandon our moral beliefs when it comes to humor?

It's one thing to say something, it's quite another to act on that saying which is when moral belief would come in. Not everyone is that straight laced that everything they say must be taken literally. And just an FYI he has taken NO ONE to task for what they've said along these lines! He HAS however taken them to task for "acting" on their talk.

It's one thing to say something, it's quite another to act on that saying which is when moral belief would come in. Not everyone is that straight laced that everything they say must be taken literally. And just an FYI he has taken NO ONE to task for what they've said along these lines! He HAS however taken them to task for "acting" on their talk.

Thanks, drm...this reply comes a little late, for obvious reasons, but I'm glad to see I'm understood by someone, at least.

Tex: There's no way to put it to you, I guess, that will make you get it. As long as I'm married, I wouldn't actually "HAVE" sex with either of them, even if I had the opportunity, which I of course obviously never will. And with the addition of the rule that they would BOTH have to come to the door at the exact same time...well....the odds are decreased even more.
Just because I feel one way about something doesn't mean I can't jokingly act as if I feel another. That's all.

I'm gonna come to bat for Texas on this one (not that she NEEDS my assistance).

While you feel that your comments about Ms. Jolie and Ms. Bullock fall under the category of humor, the fact that you don't say the same about, say, Roseanne Barr or Camryn Mannheim suggests that there is some basis in lust for your decisions. And while lustful thoughts are certainly quite natural, presenting them as acceptable, even in jest, definitely falls under the category of hypocrisy when you present yourself as an arbiter of the nation's morals. While I don't begrudge you your fantasy (hey, I'm a Libertarian and strongly opposed to laws against consensual crimes where all parties involved are adults), I do think that if you're going to push for a more moral America, you might want to start by not making jokes about infidelity a basis of your "humour".

That's just my two cents, though. Take it for what you will.

Camryn Mannheim

Actually, I've always found Camryn Manhein to be quite attractive, as well, but on a different level. She's no Angelina or Sandra, of course, but she's very pretty; to me, anyway. Roseanne, on the other hand, is a fat pig with an annoying, whiny voice who deserves to be exiled from American shores for her mangling of the nation anthem.
Size has nothing to do with it, though. My wife is "plus-size", and I love her very much.

I never sought to be the "arbiter of morality"...I only tried to point out that liberalism has eroded our moral standards to the point that virtually nothing is shameful, taboo or engenders outrage anymore. We used to know indecency and immorality when we saw it. Now, we have a semantic argument: "define indecency" and "define immorality".
Hey; call it immoral, but I love naked women as much as the next guy. I know, though, that if I should want to look at (or sell) that kind of stuff, I should keep it in the back room, and not flaunt it all over the place. That's decency; that's consideration for others. That's what we're lacking in today's culture.