Quote:
Originally Posted by phenweigh
Are you or have you ever been interested in women's shoes?
|
If I was, I would have gone with Imelda over Eva Peron.
You know, that's the sort of question where the answer is predictable in advance because it would be no either way. I would either have no actual interest, or if I did, I would lie about it rather than open up my private fetish world for the board. I mention all this by way of introducing another cause of mine....I am very much in favor of everyone minding their own sexual business to whatever degree is possible. I would prefer a world where we keep private sexual practices....private. We didn't need to know about Bill and Monica and the semen stained dress, what did any of that have to do with running the nation? The governor of NY just got run out of his job, not for anything having to do with his leadership of the state, but because of his private sexual life. Why are we so absorbed by this stuff? Why are we making it part of our test of leadership? JFK was a serial womanizer, Adolph Hitler...if he ever even had sex with that dull as dirt commoner Eva Braun, no one seems to know, but there was no one else, he was a model of fidelity. Stalin and Mao were both appparently something of the sexual pig, but had they been pure in that area, would that have redeemed them in the eyes of history? Was Jefferson any less of a statesman for his affair with one of his slaves? John Adams had a marvelous relationship with his wife Abigail, but do we wish to judge him on that or on his failed presidency?
Public disinterest in the sex lives of our politicians would have another great benefit.....it would put all of the sexual blackmailers out of business. If no one gave a damn about politician's sexual lives, then none would have to go to great lengths to conceal their practices, none could be blackmailed.