Dependable Erection

Tuesday, July 01, 2008

Satanic rituals?

Oh, jeebus. Here's a few things i've learned over the past 5 decades.

Most people like sex. Lots of people like a little kink with their sex. Some people like a lot of kink with their sex. A few people only like the kink. Some people think they like the kink, but really don't. Some people who might like the kink have never tried it.

The amount of kink that you like shouldn't be the basis for making laws. Or setting morality. How much kink you like with your sex really shouldn't be anybody else's business, especially the government's.

Everybody who likes more kink than you is not a Satanist.

Or a Democrat, for that matter.

Labels: , ,


  • well said.

    By Blogger libby, at 10:58 AM  

  • So how do you reconcile this position with your support of the Democrats? Obama doesn't support gay marriage, ya know.

    One could make the same argument regarding other things you do with and/or put in your body, e.g., narcotics, but I won't go there. The Democrats have already caved enough.

    Wait, I know -- "he's better than McCain!" Do I win a prize?

    By Blogger dcrollins, at 11:55 AM  

  • What the fuck does kinky sex have to do with gay marriage?

    By Blogger Barry, at 12:07 PM  

  • Let's presume for argument's sake that the allegations of the matter involving Joseph Craig and Joy Johnson as reported by the police and in the newspaper are true or mostly true.

    If your kink includes locking people in cages, torturing and raping them then I think we can reasonably make laws preventing that particular practice. Or, "in the name of kink", are there no lines that can be crossed?

    I for one am eagerly waiting for the Trinity Park lefty Democrat crowd to march on their house with a "Castrate" banner. Oh wait, it's one of their own. Nevermind.

    When Vitter and Allen get to the point of involving unwilling partners then you might have a valid comparison.

    p.s. Since you can't figure it out on your own, gay marriage involves a particular sexual kink that many people consider to be, shall we say, highly unnatural or at least pretty unsanitary. It's certainly not "straight sex". (You should pardon the expression.)

    By Blogger An Engineer, at 3:10 PM  

  • In my book, nothing at all -- I don't consider gay sex to be kinky (as Kinsey liked to say, we're all a little gay).

    I mentioned it only because you threw in the reference to Democrats in a post about kinky sex preferences, and seemed to be giving a (well deserved) poke to Republicans and their sex practices. Had this been my blog, I probably would have made some wisecrack about Republicans liking no sex at all, but at least I would have smeared both sides ("fair and balanced").

    And now to get even further off the my reckoning I live within one block of four porno shops, two strip clubs, and three thai massage parlors (including one directly under my $3000/mo., 500 sq. ft. apt.). Who says the Swiss are all buttoned-down? I guess you can like Nazi gold and the glory hole as well.

    By Blogger dcrollins, at 3:57 PM  

  • engineer - you make more sense talking about nuclear power.

    rollins - it's pretty clear from reading the comments at, say, WRAL that the same wingnuts who made careers out of dissecting Crystal Mangum's accusations and flaying the Durham DA's office are the same ones who are now "assuming that the charges are true," (i'm pretty sure that's what a jury trial is all about, right?) and talking about how typical this is for "lefty Democrats."

    I linked to one sample story about a Republican who likes to wear diapers while he's having sex with prostitutes, just to demonstrate, by the way, that kink is not confined to any particular party.

    Oh, and Johnson has resigned her position with the Durham County Democratic party.

    David Vitter, last i checked, still represents Louisiana in the US Senate.

    By Blogger Barry, at 6:13 PM  

  • Color me naive, but this whole thing looks for all the world like a consensual S&M encounter gone awry.

    The charges have already been adjusted somewhat I believe.

    @an engineer -- sanitary sex, eh? Not if you're doing it right.

    By Blogger Durham Bull Pen, at 10:51 PM  

  • i hinted in my first post that the news stories invited more speculation than provided clarity.

    And a bad bondage session is certainly a reasonable speculation to make.

    I'm wondering if the identities of the complainants will ever be released. I think there's a whole cottage industry waiting to be built on dissecting and disproving their stories. I mean, if KC Johnson can write a book, why can't i?

    By Blogger Barry, at 11:18 PM  

  • I agree that this is likely a bondage session gone awry, but can we at least engage in clever speculation as to the nature of this encounter? Having read the website of "Indigo Dawn", I'm having trouble envisioning how the sex acts depicted can be reconciled with the fulfillment of "The indigo aura, [which is] indicative of the third-eye chakra, which controls intuition and psychic awareness."

    Unless the third-eye is, you know, da butt.

    By Blogger Allison Kort, at 1:06 AM  

  • And Barry doesn't make sense talking about either. If Obama disapproves of gay marriage then he may disapprove of gay "sex".

    One person's kink is another person's depravity. Duke Park, where men are men and sheep are scared. Or does THAT go too far?

    Bad bondage session. Bad stripper party. The difference is what, exactly?

    By Blogger An Engineer, at 8:11 AM  

  • OK moron - show me where Obama "disapproves" of gay marriage. His official position is that it's a matter for the states.

    And really, what difference does it make what his position on it is. Fifteen years from now it will no longer be a matter of controversy, just as miscegenation laws have dropped by the wayside as well.

    Come November, either John McCain or Barack Obama will be elected the next president of the US. It's pretty clear which one will be better for the country. I don't have to have every policy position i favor enacted in the first 90 days of the new administration to be a supporter.

    As to your homophobia, let me put you on notice. That shit is not welcome here. Next time, you're gone. If you don't like it, start your own fucking blog.

    By Blogger Barry, at 8:19 AM  

  • Allison - there are many paths to enlightenment. Who can say whether or not the door that opens to any of them is the back door?

    By Blogger Barry, at 8:20 AM  

  • I don't think the "Satanic" comes from the kinky sex. My guess is that it comes from the Indigo Dawn stuff. It would be quite possible, if not entirely accurate, for someone to read that stuff and associate the word "cult" with it. Well, some people can't hear the word "cult" without moving right on to "Satanic." My guess is that it comes from within DPD (I can't imagine Gronberg making up that word), which is either pretty fucking stupid on the part of DPD, or there's more to the story we don't know about.

    As to "an engineer," here's how I draw the line between good sex and bad sex. Good sex is safe, sane, and consensual. It sounds like the Johnson/Craig episode may have failed the last criterion there.

    By Blogger Michael Bacon, at 8:37 AM  

  • Perhaps Michael it was safe, sane, and consensual and someone freaked out after the fact. Throw in a few references to Satanic rituals and you get the DPD interested.

    I really want to find the CL ad that started it all.

    By Blogger Natalie&Harris, at 8:58 AM  

  • My guess is that some DPD officer saw a pentagram on something in the house and freaked, not understanding anything about the symbolism of it. Immediately thought, "Satan."

    If so, that's going to end up making them look pretty foolish.

    By Blogger Durham Bull Pen, at 10:04 AM  

  • As to your homophobia...

    Next time, you're gone.

    Apparently Barry can't bring up a topic and have a discussion without labeling people. Or threatening to shut them up because they have the "wrong" opinion. A practice I suspect he also professes to deplore.

    You missed the point. As a hypothetical, if Obama (or anyone else for that matter) disapproves of gay marriage (as posited by dcollins but not proven) then that's often based the sexual activities of gays. But not always. IOW, they go past "kinky sex" into the unacceptable. That's the line for some people.

    Your post apparently asks us to believe that what these two were alleged to be into was just some "normal" but "kinky" behavior and that there is no "line". If that's the case, what's unacceptable to you? Anything?

    Michael Bacon has one good answer. natalie&harris says "Perhaps Michael it was safe, sane, and consensual and someone freaked out after the fact." Which BTW is a perfect description of the Duke lax stripper party and its aftermath.

    Are there differing standards for what's "over the line" depending on whether it's lacrosse players, Duke students, and Durham Democrat apparatchiks?

    By Blogger An Engineer, at 11:37 AM  

  • You misunderstand my purpose in creating this blog, which is not to have a conversation with you.

    If you don't think there's a difference between the lacrosse case and this case, then good for you.

    I don't either.

    but apparently the right wing morons all over the intertubes, who have already convicted Johnson and Craig, do:
    Ms Johnson has just proved my theory that far left wing liberal democrats equals Satanic Devil Worshippers. That far left elite group basically have no morals.

    As far as i can tell, you're one of them. And i don't have enough time in my life to have to put up with that bullshit on my blog. You don't like it? i don't give a fuck. Start your own blog if you care enough.

    By Blogger Barry, at 11:45 AM  

  • I don't want to start splitting hairs, but Obama's position is that he's in favor of "civil union" and not "gay marriage". I'm not going to prove it further -- Google is your friend.

    But hey, there's new charges in the sex case! I also don't think there's anything different (at this speculative juncture) between the lax frameup and this case, but obviously the conservative right doesn't cream in their jeans about self-righteous potbanging the way the left does.

    Not that there's anything wrong with that -- potbanging was okay in my book (other than the fact that it woke me up, as I lived on Markham at the time). It was the "Group of 88" faculty statement that got my ire up.

    Michael makes an excellent point about "new age" = "satanic". The stupidity of the DPD knows no bounds.

    For the record, the path to enlightment definitely leads through the back door. Read "Even Cowgirls Get The Blues".

    By Blogger Allison Kort, at 6:06 PM  

  • Obama is also not interested in having the federal government overturn the decisions of California and Massachusetts to allow same gender couple to marry, or of New York to recognize those marriages while not yet allowing them to take place in the state.

    By Blogger Barry, at 8:49 PM  

  • I think comparisons with the lacrosse case are premature. The "bondage gone wrong" scenario is easy enough to imagine, but none of us here (presumably) are privy to any details that confirm such speculation.

    Incidentally, another Democratic party official and Indigo Dawn partner has apparently been charged.

    By Blogger Jeremy T, at 9:55 PM  

  • Come on Barry, you need to grow a pair. Saying that Obama won't reverse the decisions of CA and MA is like saying that Ron Paul is pro-choice because he wants to overturn Roe v. Wade and return this issue to the states. It's a dodge worthy of Kerry.

    You're either for gay marriage or against it, with one exception -- if you don't think the government is entitled at all to give special privileges based on marital status (i.e., the libertarian position).

    Obama and his ilk (including that spooky preacher of his) are most emphatically NOT in favor of gay marriage, no matter how much they talk of civil unions and such. While I suspect that in his heart of hearts he is OK with it (or at least more so than the idiot McCain), he doesn't have the courage of his convictions to come out and say it during the campaign. This sucks.

    By Blogger dcrollins, at 4:54 AM  

  • Once upon a time i used to get all pissed off and upset when a candidate didn't act as though my vote was the only vote in the campaign, and tailor his or her position on every issue to match mine, to say exactly what it was that i wanted to hear to earn my vote.

    That was in 1980, and as a result, i voted for Barry Commoner for president.

    And although my vote didn't tip the scales, had enough of us said, you know, this Ronald Reagan guy is a fucking moron who absolutely cannot be allowed to be president, who knows what would have happened.

    I'm not the kind of person who makes the same mistake twice.

    Atrios wrote something the other day that made perfect sense to me:
    Mostly I just do whatever it is I do on this sucky blog without thinking too much about it. Still I try to distinguish between actions (what Obama does as a senator) and campaign rhetoric which doesn't matter nearly as much. Obama isn't trying to win my vote and the campaign isn't going to be aimed at me. There are ways a campaign approach can narrow options after victory, but mostly a campaign is about winning. Hope is not a plan, but let's hope they actually have a plan to do that.

    By Blogger Barry, at 7:58 AM  

  • You misunderstand my purpose in creating this blog, which is not to have a conversation with you.

    So the purpose of your blog is what, exactly? If you don't want to foster conversation with anyone, and have yours be the only voice here, then turn off comments. Or do you only want to hear from people who agree with you? Apparently that's the case. (Autoinsert BR retort: "Don't tell me how to run my blog. [stomps foot]")

    You said: As far as i can tell, you're one of them.

    I said: Let's presume for argument's sake...

    I said: As a hypothetical,...

    Show me a single post of mine that is NOT qualified by suggesting that the charges may not be true.

    Ms Johnson has just proved my theory that far left wing liberal democrats equals Satanic Devil Worshippers. That far left elite group basically have no morals.

    When I say something like that you can quote me. Otherwise, it's irrelevant.

    ...right wing morons all over the intertubes

    There are exactly two comments on that article. Here's the other one

    I'm reserving judgement on this one. The assault charges are extremely grave, and, if true, are a horrible crime. However, there is currently little information regarding evidence, and much is still to be learned between now and the time at which an informed verdict can be reached by a jury. I would simply caution people not to make overly much of the "Satanic" angle; most stories that I've read in my time that tout this end up being so much fluff. Anyone remember the Satanic abuse rampant in daycare centers around the country in the 1980s? Read everything but think before you believe it.

    By Blogger An Engineer, at 8:12 AM  

  • OK, you win. I just wanted to say mad props to Barry Commoner -- hard to imagine a no-nukes candidate in this day and age.

    Though I was too young to vote, I recall being enamored of John Anderson due to his comments on the Gulf of Tonkin resolution (when would a modern day candidate show such candor?). Back then I even thought the 50 cent gas tax was a good idea!

    All of which is to say, don't feel bad about letting Reagan in. Anderson got 7% of the vote and Reagan STILL won -- Jimmy Carter was just that awful.

    By Blogger dcrollins, at 8:42 AM  

  • Reagan was worse.

    No Reagan, no Taliban.

    although, i'll grant, it's easy to imagine an entirely different right-wing growing out of a second Carter term that could have eventually made things even more worse.

    Things happen the way they happen, Can't change the past. All you can do is learn from it, and most people don't even do that.

    By Blogger Barry, at 8:47 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home