perfidy

Seriously!

To think that a man, who is married to a woman, would want to have sex with her in this day and age....

I'll have to go find one of my religious friends, to see if they've got the cross-referenced bible, so I can look for all the sections referring to clubsex.

But I'm still trying to figure out what enjoyment you're obtaining from his troubles.

From a PR standpoint, this wasn't a plus for Ryan or the GOP in Illinois, but he was getting creamed in the opinion polls anyway, by 20+ points. So he was going down anyway, and I have trouble understanding the rush to dump him, or the glee at his dumping.

He was married at the time, and the actions he allegedly suggested were a bit out there, for middle America, but were probably legal in context and really none of the public's business. If they even happened, that is.

Sorry, I just don't grasp the occasion for a schadenfreude attack.

I guess it's just that his "defense of marriage" text is such boilerplate, used by every "family values" suckup out there. Sex clubs are generally thought to be somewhat more than "out there" for middle America. Every hole that we can poke in "family values" robot life-system is a victory for freedom in America. I think this is a decent size hole.

As far as "none of the public's business", there are several planks of the GOP platform that fall into that category.

Ryan has admitted that he took his wife to these clubs; there's no allegedly about it. Somebody please explain to me why taking your wife to have public sex in a sex club is compatible with "traditional values" and requires "defense", while a private consensual same-sex relationship isn't and doesn't.

Wow. Sounds rather more judgmental than I'd expect from you, Ross. You're becoming quite conservative as you age. One might even get the impression you disapproved of Ryan's exercise of free will.

I agree, by the way, that there might be several planks in the GOP platform with which I'd disagree on freedom grounds (the current platform's not yet written). But Ryan is free to have sex with his wife, or to attempt to, in any venue he chooses and where it's acceptable to others in that venue, including most importantly his wife.

The difference here, you see, is that it was his wife. And sex with one's wife is quite traditional. He didn't attempt to extract "special rights based on {his} sexual behavior". And, as noted in the quote in your original post, he also spoke strongly about the rights of homosexuals, including, presumably, their right to private consensual sex of their choosing. He balked only at what he considered a redefinition of marriage. This doesn't make him a fascist, and doesn't make him a family values "suckup". It just makes him a guy with an opinion; one that's not inconsistent with his actions.

I think Jack Ryan's sex life is between him and his wife. What we're getting at here is the rank hypocrisy of the "family values" movement; boilerplate, bumper-sticker politics that appeal to the lowest common denominator.

His campaign statement is loaded with "see red" codewords, like "special rights". He declares homosexuality to be a root of "criminal activity, illegitimacy, and the cyclical nature of poverty".

Is attending a public sex club with your wife "traditional"? Most people would say no. If that is a common interpretation of traditional, why would Ryan campaign on the word?

Pandering, and hypocrisy: It's simple do as I say, not as I do.

Tax cuts for me, and not for you.

Would club sex be amoral according to scriptures? First, it did incur the wrath of G-d when the Isrealites danced naked around the golden calf (and the philology of the words suggests that there was an orgy). Second, voyeurism is literally forbidden in the Christian Bible:

Everyone who looks on a woman to lust for her has committed adultery with her already in his hear. (Matthew chapter 5)

I believe I understand your stance now, Ross. While looking for the basis for schadenfreude, I was trying to find a direct connection between his marital situation and his past statements on traditional marriage. While clubsex is nowhere near the norm, I'm more focused on the fact that it was, after all, his wife than you are, and perhaps I'm even more focused on that than I should be. It hadn't even occurred to me to condemn him for his actions within his marriage, or to claim that those actions changed his marriage from traditional to something else so you and I started from different bases here. Traditional marriage, in all cases looked at in the present day, is a man and a woman. On that, surely we can agree. Your underlying argument might best be summed up as "Traditional" <> "clearly the only way it can be done", and you might be shocked to find that we agree on that as well.

You've completely misread Ryan's allusion to societal ills. That you've done so is his fault for sloppy combination of topics in a press screed (talking like a politician), not yours. Illegitimacy, for instance, is clearly not one of the likely outcomes of homosexual marriage, and neither, I'd argue, is poverty. But the fact that you find "see red" codewords is your problem, not his. "See red" codewords are declared as such by dint of political correctness, which I deplore, not because there's anything particularly wrong with their use. They're the words that people use to take umbrage, which may well be easier than just arguing the alternative. He doesn't want to confer special rights to homosexuals, and he's within his rights to state that. If he'd said that while on a date with Elton John, I, too, would raise an eyebrow.

You're within your rights to disagree with him and even to wish him ill, after the fact. But I've figured it out - the connection between his statements and your joy at his downfall is indirect. This, too, is your right. In fact, you'd be within your rights to dislike him for no reason, and to then be glad his political career had come to an end.

By the way - all of this may give the impression I have an opinion on Ryan's race, politics in Illinois, or clubsex. I have no opinion on any of them. I just enjoy the debate.

NDR: Thanks for the reference, even though I was just kidding about my search for the bible's take on matters; I don't consider the bible to be a definitive guide for specific actions. Its wisdom certainly doesn't play into my opinions of Mr. Ryan's actions.

I'd like to note here that voyeurism is the sin, or really looking at any woman with lust, be it a swimsuit model in a magazine or your neighbor's wife.

But apparently it's perfectly okay for Jeri Ryan to have sex with her husband in front of others. It's the others who should not look.

Here's what cheeses me off about 'rescuing marriage' and all the crappy language politicians use to describe it. The main thing that has caused the 'breakdown' of marriage is the no-fault divorce. People realized they weren't capable of making lifelong commitments and got out of them. The government made it easy and therefore people took their outs.

There's also the icky fact that a good portion of the US before no-fault divorce were living in 'non-traditional' families. Perhaps it was a lot less, but we're also not talking zero either. Marriage has not ever been a perfect institution. If it was, the Bible and other 'how to live' tracts wouldn't have mentioned the need to be faithful, etc.

It's hooey that people want to amend the constitution over gay marriage. What they really out to do is have an exam for raising kids. Because believe me, as I learned the hard way last week, it's easier to acquire a child than it is to get your motorcycle license.

From what I read in the New York Times, he not only took her to sex clubs, but tricked her into going - so nix on the "consensual" part of the story, and he wanted to watch her have sex with someone else - so nix on the "within the confines of marriage" part of the story.

Mapgirl,

Actually, biblical scriptures place as much of the blame on the person who appears nude as the person who watches. Public nudity is considered an abomination in many contexts (although it is not expressly forbidden). And certainly early Christian thinkers railed endlessly about similar sex-fests that took place among the Romans.

You raise an excellent point about divorce. It has become too easy to back out, and marriage has become an arrangement that is common rather than exceptional.

This is just too good not to pass on. Enjoy, kids!

"Sex Pros Get Ready for Party"

With thousands of Republicans set to invade the city this summer, high-priced escorts and strippers are preparing for one grand old party.

Agencies are flying in extra call girls from around the globe to meet the expected demand during the Aug. 30-Sept. 2 gathering at Madison Square Garden.

Gitcher Schadenfreude and read the rest of the article: [url=http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/story/206962p-178564c.html]htt…]

Anyone who thinks it is too easy to get out of a marriage needs an awakening. It's dreadfully difficult and horrifically expensive. And when your marriage is so fucking bad you willingly choose the path of horror and dread it is impossible to have any patience whatosoever with the notion that it is too easy to get a divorce.

The problem is NOT that divorce is too easy. The problem is that marriage is too easy. I just wish the gumbint would get the heck out of the human contract business and let us choose our own partner(s). The gubmint should refocus on child support instead because that's legit in my book.