HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Video & Multimedia (Forum) » Pic Of The Moment: Virgin...

Fri Jul 19, 2013, 10:56 AM

Pic Of The Moment: Virginia Is Not For Lovers



SEX POLICE - Virginia GOP's Would-Be Governor Would Ban Sodomy Between Married Couples

WATCH: MSNBC Anchor Asks 'Has Ken Cuccinelli Ever Had Oral Sex?' Gay or Straight must see video!


85 replies, 24075 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 85 replies Author Time Post
Reply Pic Of The Moment: Virginia Is Not For Lovers (Original post)
EarlG Jul 2013 OP
Scuba Jul 2013 #1
sinkingfeeling Jul 2013 #2
happyslug Jul 2013 #28
sinkingfeeling Jul 2013 #30
happyslug Jul 2013 #43
MADem Jul 2013 #46
happyslug Jul 2013 #55
MADem Jul 2013 #68
sinkingfeeling Jul 2013 #49
happyslug Jul 2013 #56
wordpix Jul 2013 #81
happyslug Jul 2013 #84
William769 Jul 2013 #3
dixiegrrrrl Jul 2013 #4
appal_jack Jul 2013 #11
longship Jul 2013 #5
truth2power Jul 2013 #17
longship Jul 2013 #21
Eleanors38 Jul 2013 #36
zbdent Jul 2013 #61
KansDem Jul 2013 #6
calimary Jul 2013 #32
niyad Jul 2013 #80
BrotherIvan Jul 2013 #7
L0oniX Jul 2013 #8
Eleanors38 Jul 2013 #38
madamesilverspurs Jul 2013 #9
SoapBox Jul 2013 #13
truth2power Jul 2013 #15
Triana Jul 2013 #10
Plucketeer Jul 2013 #12
SoapBox Jul 2013 #14
Plucketeer Jul 2013 #18
okwmember Jul 2013 #16
Plucketeer Jul 2013 #22
calimary Jul 2013 #33
Iliyah Jul 2013 #19
lark Jul 2013 #29
Kablooie Jul 2013 #57
Initech Jul 2013 #20
cynzke Jul 2013 #23
L0oniX Jul 2013 #25
AAO Jul 2013 #24
another_liberal Jul 2013 #26
mbperrin Jul 2013 #58
another_liberal Jul 2013 #71
mbperrin Jul 2013 #74
SunSeeker Jul 2013 #65
christx30 Jul 2013 #27
calimary Jul 2013 #31
Babel_17 Jul 2013 #34
cliffordu Jul 2013 #35
whopis01 Jul 2013 #73
AsahinaKimi Jul 2013 #37
47of74 Jul 2013 #59
EC Jul 2013 #76
JPZenger Jul 2013 #39
JPZenger Jul 2013 #40
JPZenger Jul 2013 #50
MadrasT Jul 2013 #41
onehandle Jul 2013 #42
Flashmann Jul 2013 #78
47of74 Jul 2013 #82
jtuck004 Jul 2013 #44
DebJ Jul 2013 #72
tclambert Jul 2013 #45
JPZenger Jul 2013 #47
pauliedangerously Jul 2013 #48
FiveGoodMen Jul 2013 #51
coljam Jul 2013 #52
47of74 Jul 2013 #85
Rosa Luxemburg Jul 2013 #53
SirRevolutionary Jul 2013 #54
zbdent Jul 2013 #60
tclambert Jul 2013 #69
crim son Jul 2013 #62
AlbertCat Jul 2013 #63
blkmusclmachine Jul 2013 #64
Blue Owl Jul 2013 #66
AtheistCrusader Jul 2013 #67
ehrnst Jul 2013 #70
EC Jul 2013 #75
gtar100 Jul 2013 #77
Cooley Hurd Jul 2013 #79
dairydog91 Jul 2013 #83

Response to EarlG (Original post)

Fri Jul 19, 2013, 10:57 AM

1. Is "I married a Cuccinelli" a legitimate cause for divorce?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EarlG (Original post)

Fri Jul 19, 2013, 11:05 AM

2. Does that mean Virginia is going to bring back bundling boards?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sinkingfeeling (Reply #2)

Fri Jul 19, 2013, 12:44 PM

28. Such beds and sacks were ENGLISH not American, and appears to be Victorian not Colonial

 

Sorry, in the US the reports that we do have do NOT have reports of such beds. The idea that such beds were used (and the alternative that the couple were sewed up in sacks) is from England, no such reports from the US. Couples were NOT to have sex, but were expected to talk and sleep together.

Given the housing situation in the US at that time, it was easy to enforce, houses were small, often one room so you could hear the couple. In multi-room houses, every bedroom generally had more then one person assigned to it, thus unless the couple managed to get the room with the parent's bed in it, they really was no privacy for anything more then sleeping side by side and talking to each other.

In simple terms, hard to have sex with everyone is watching.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to sinkingfeeling (Reply #30)

Fri Jul 19, 2013, 02:07 PM

43. Questionable links

 

Your Second cite, just repeats what is often said of bundling, no first hand references to the practice. I have read of a Polish Nobleman who wrote of the practice on his visit to the States after the Revolutionary War, he liked the practiced and reported no sex was involved, you just slept with the daughter of the man whose house you were in. He does NOT report the condition of the bed, for his readers knew about such humble housing and thus he did not need to mention how many bedrooms or who slept where. The reader knew that from what was common practice even in the old world.

If you go to a Colonial era home of a Common Person (Not the mansions, the log cabins etc), you will see how small they were, and once you realize that in the colonial period 10-20 children were NOT uncommon, you have to ask where did they sleep? And the answer is any where they was space, with the parents having the only separate bedroom. Thus when you bundles with a daughter it as often in the same room as other children of the family, and thus no chance to have SEX without everyone knowing about it and reporting it as it occurred. Once you understand how full these homes were, you quickly see sex while bundling was almost impossible.

Your first site, goes into the increase number of out of wedlock births in the late 1700s compared to the late 1600, but that has to do more with SEX then with bundling. Now, while the homes were crowded, due to the fact the best way to get workers you work your farm was to have children, it does NOT mean the teenage children and any adult children did not have sex. Just like now, teens will have sex, and generally when the female is most likely to get pregnant (Studies have shown women are easier to seduce when they are ovulating, AND men and more attracted to women who are ovulating i.e. both sexes want sex when it is most likely the female will get pregnant). Given it is a report on SEX not bundling if is of almost no relevancy in this sub-thread. Women get pregnant today without having "bundled" with a man, and women became pregnant in the 1700 without have "bundled" with a man.

Please note, as the US frontier died out, so did bundling mostly due to the drop in the number of children farmers would have. By the mid 1800s, families of 10-20 started to become rare due to most farmers no longer needed the extra hands AND the ability in the mid 1800s to hire people to do the work that in the 1700s was left undone unless you had a child to do it.

Houses also became larger starting about 1830s, with most poor colonial homes being replaced by something much larger and more modern (or expanded into something larger, a common practice in higher end log cabins, common to see in my area of Pennsylvania). Thus children started to have their own rooms and with their own rooms no checks on them if they wanted to have sex with the person they bundled with. Given smaller families and larger homes, the above check on sex disappeared so that parents no longer were willing to permit their daughter to bundle so the practiced died out.

Sorry, what is needed are first hand accounts, and these are quite rare for we are discussing the poor of the Colonial Era not the Wealthy. The Polish Noble is one of the few I have read and he just praises bundling and mention no sex is permitted. I have seen the homes where this occurred and noted the size of the families in such homes, they is no place sex could occur without the parent's knowledge while the couple were bundled. People had sex then just like they do today, but like today sex is rare when they are a lot of people in the same room and that was also the norm when bundling was done.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to happyslug (Reply #43)

Fri Jul 19, 2013, 02:48 PM

46. First hand accounts--testimony, perhaps?

As late as the mid-19th century, there are indications that bundling was still practiced in New England, although its popularity was waning. The court case of Graham v. Smith, 1 Edm.Sel.Cas. 267 (N.Y. 1846), initially argued before Judge Edmunds in the Orange Circuit Court of New York, concerned the seduction of a 19-year-old woman. Testimony in the case established that bundling was a common practice in certain rural social circles at the time. By the 20th century, bundling as a practice seemed to have died out almost everywhere, with only isolated references to it occurring in Amish Pennsylvania.[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundling_(tradition)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #46)

Fri Jul 19, 2013, 05:10 PM

55. Again that quote is to Bundling not sex

 



All I can find on Graham vs Smith is a foot note in "Abbott's Cyclopedic Digest of All the Decisions of All the Courts ..., Volume 11" in regards to "Seduction"

http://books.google.com/books?id=smhJAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA1043&lpg=PA1043&dq=Graham+vs+Smith,+1+Edm.Sel.Cas.+267+(N.Y.+1846),&source=bl&ots=u8ygJwR5PT&sig=mxMz2AvXCEncsRBO8quEC_wQVAs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=NqHpUaeKF-XA4APusYGACw&ved=0CEcQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=Graham%20vs%20Smith%2C%201%20Edm.Sel.Cas.%20267%20(N.Y.%201846)%2C&f=false

The footnote cites Graham vs Smith but as a foot note to the following sentence:

"Connivance by a Parent is a bar, and his negligence may be considered in mitigation.

The Foot notes goes as follows:

"and his negligence respecting it. without actual asset, may be considered is estimating the damages"

I check Lexis, and the case is NOT in Lexis. Lexis has a lot of Cases of Seduction but there are all Court of Appeals cases, not trial cases. Graham vs Smith looks like a case no one ever filed an appeal on. It was still printed in Edmonds Selected Cases, but those are not on Lexis

This appeals to be a New York "Supreme Court" decision. In New York is what New York Calls its "Supreme Court" is what everyone else calls its "Court of Common Pleas" or "County Court" or if you from California "Superior Court", thus I can not read the actual opinion. Given that I can not say for certain what was discussed in that opinion, especially as to how bundling was done. Given the above comments from c1900 legal encyclopedia I suspect Bundling was mentioned, even discussed and if it lead to the seduction grounds to reduce any liability of the seducer to the father of the woman seduced. On the other hand, the decision could point out how bundling actually worked and was NOT a factor in that case (and the no appeal was taken, but it was a reported case, tends to make me think bundling was discussed but then held not to be a factor UNLESS it shows negligence by the father in permitting his daughter in being seduced.

Now, Lexis had several cases on Seduction and that a Father could recover from the Seducer for any lost of Service from his daughter due to the seduction (including the loss do to the daughter being pregnant). Those cases also found that the action of the Father for lost of Services of the daughter was independent of the daughter's right to file for support of the child from the seducer. The action was based on Master Servant law, i.e employment law, i.e. the harm incurred by the Father for loss of the ability of the Daughter to work. If the daughter was working for someone else, the Father could not recover, even if the employer was the seducer UNLESS the father loss some income due to the seduction (i.e. for example when the actual employer of the daughter, sent the daughter back to the father and refused to pay the father the contract wages he had promised, that lost of income the Father could recover from the seducer).

Reading those cases, make me thank that I live post WWII and those types of cases are no longer heard for most teenage women no longer contract with employers to pay part of their income to their parents.

Back to Graham vs Smith. From the above sentence and footnote I suspect the issue in Graham was that the father had left the seducer bundle with his daughter and the Seducer said that is when he had sex with her. The Daughter said yes she bundled with the seducer, but he talked her into sex LATER ON, outside the hearing of her father AFTER the bundling. Being a question of fact not law no appeal was possible (You can only appeal issues of law in the US, not issues of fact, which are reserved to the jury). Thus it was up to the Jury to decide which set of facts occurred and for that reason the Judge permitted in testimony of bundling and how it was done.

My problem is the sources I have seen mention the case, then mentioned that the case mentioned bundling but then does NOT cite the actual language of the case. It is clearly a case of Seduction, but how Bundling was involved is not reported in the cites I have seen. I suspect it was a factor as to WHEN the sex occurred the Seducer said he did it while bundled and thus the Father agreed to the sex, the Father saying, no sex was done while bundled for given the layout of the house and the location of the couple there was no way for them to have sex without him or someone else in the household knowing about it. As I said above, the above would be a finding of fact and once the Jury decided one way or another, that would end the case.

That bundling was an issue would support the argument that bundling in 1846 did NOT mean a board between the couple or that they were sewed in and could not touch, but that they laid together fully clothed, could talk and snuggle but no actual sex.

I would like to read the actual case for it would be a good source, but these comments about the case shows nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to happyslug (Reply #55)

Sat Jul 20, 2013, 01:43 AM

68. I was confused, thought that's where you interest lay--the bundling, not the sex. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to happyslug (Reply #43)

Fri Jul 19, 2013, 03:25 PM

49. Why is this important to you? I don't really care, but do know that my great

grandmother had a bundling board that was passed down to my grandmother. After that, I don't know what happened to it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sinkingfeeling (Reply #49)

Fri Jul 19, 2013, 05:37 PM

56. I like history.

 

My Grandparents were born in the late 1800s. Bundling seems to have been over by then, mostly do to the decision to adopt nails as the way to build a home as opposed to the earlier tongue and groove method of building homes (this occurred around 1850). This permitted cheaper, better and larger homes then in previous decades.

In the Victorian period a lot of changes as to sex occurred (for example prior to Queen Victoria women did NOT wear white when they married, they worn they best dress, it is only with Queen Victoria and her decision to wear a white dress on her wedding day that women started to buy and wean "Wedding Dresses". At the same time Victoria was re writing what women wore to weddings, you had the first women rights groups forming up. One of the reason for such formation was the Railroads, you finally had a way to get a lot of people together to talk about things they have in common, when it was NOT something popular in your immediate area (i.e. Woman's rights).

A lot of History has been re-written several times (and often by the winners). I am also amazed at how little we do know of what the lower classes lived (i.e. 90% of the people) prior to about 1850. For example did you know that the greatest objection to Corporal Punishment in Schools in the early 1800s (when Schools became mandatory) was from the lower classes? The Upper classes accepted corporal punishment for that is how schools had operated since the time of Ancient Greece, the poor who appears NOT to have used Corporal Punishment on their own children objected to it (Please note I am discussing 1800 here, but 1900 most people had accepted corporal punishment).

You should also see the Log Cabins that have survived and understand these were THE LARGER LOG CABINS. In the South the tendency was NOT to a single Log Cabin (which is the most common in Pennsylvania) but a dual set of small cabins with a porch in between (so the breeze would flow on hot summer nights).

Bundling is one of those things that 90% of the people did and was NOT reported for it did not affect that the top 1% did. Our historical record is prejudiced in favor of the 1% and at time we need to correct that and my love for history leads me to try to see how the 90% lived back then,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to happyslug (Reply #28)

Sun Jul 21, 2013, 11:07 AM

81. not so according to a friend who does historical research

He said that often the visiting young man was put in bed in the girl's room as there was nowhere else to put him, but with the bundling board in between.

Many pregnancies resulted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wordpix (Reply #81)

Sun Jul 21, 2013, 04:10 PM

84. Have you seen the houses of Colonial Lower classes?????

 

In simple terms, no one but the parents had their own room. Every child shared it with his or her siblings. I have been to Daniel Boone's birthplace, it is still standing. It is a LARGE house for the time period. His parents had their own room, BUT NO ONE ELSE DID including any hired hands.

Remember in Colonial America large families were the norm, now parents did NOT get married till the early to mid 20s, but then went on to have 10-20 kids. I come from a large family that had access to larger rooms in the larger homes of today, and I never had a room to my self till I left home, simply because they was NO ROOM.

Thus in Colonial America, with they ever smaller homes and larger families, it was imposable for a unmarried daughter to have her own room. Thus when bundling occurred it was in the presence of other siblings. Even if the siblings kept quite, that the siblings was in the same room would have been enough to make sure wither participate did not go beyond what was expected.

You have to understand how people lived in Colonial America and the affect of that life style. Bundling seems to have died out as family size declined after about 1820 AND people moved into larger homes. In the situations of the post 1850 era, the privacy most people want when they have sex was possible and since parents of young women did not want their daughter to get pregnant before they were married, bundling seems to have died out by the 1850s.

My point was bundling was tied in with the large families of the colonial and revolutionary ear, when such families cease to the the norm, bundling died out (or survived with the sewing and boards mentioned during Victorian stories of bundling).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EarlG (Original post)

Fri Jul 19, 2013, 11:06 AM

3. Kick & highly recommended.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EarlG (Original post)

Fri Jul 19, 2013, 11:14 AM

4. Another poor guy with obvious s-e-x problems.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dixiegrrrrl (Reply #4)

Fri Jul 19, 2013, 11:38 AM

11. I would expect better of someone with the last name "Cooch..." but he's a Repub. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EarlG (Original post)

Fri Jul 19, 2013, 11:19 AM

5. Next: Foreplay leads to homosexuality.

And don't get me started about self abuse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to longship (Reply #5)

Fri Jul 19, 2013, 12:00 PM

17. "Self abuse"?...I hafta say

I saw Craig Ferguson (Late, Late Show) tell one of his guests that he masturbates when, and I quote, "the woman is elsewhere". (Well, it is late night TV, after all).

My personal opinion is that he probably has a healthier attitude toward sex than most. But I would love to see him get one of these RWers on as a guest and lay that on 'em.

I'd PAY to see that!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truth2power (Reply #17)

Fri Jul 19, 2013, 12:11 PM

21. Yup, "self abuse".

One has to appreciate the Orwellian vernacular that has been used to avoid saying "masterbation" and other such words. Remember the MI legislator censored for saying "vagina" on the floor of that body?

These GOP God people are positively insane. Unfortunately, they make up a huge portion of the Republican Party delegates at all levels.

But this lunacy exposes them as they don't seem to be able to stop it. That's good for us Dems.

Thanks for the response.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to longship (Reply #5)

Fri Jul 19, 2013, 01:31 PM

36. No, MARIJUANA leads to homosexuality.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to longship (Reply #5)

Fri Jul 19, 2013, 08:15 PM

61. I was going to reply, but

I went blind ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EarlG (Original post)

Fri Jul 19, 2013, 11:27 AM

6. From the "Party of Less Government"


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KansDem (Reply #6)

Fri Jul 19, 2013, 01:15 PM

32. Yeah. Isn't that rich?



I thought they were the ones whining and yowling about getting the government off our backs and out of our private lives. So where does this one fit in, then?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to calimary (Reply #32)

Sat Jul 20, 2013, 07:39 PM

80. no, they only meant that govt should leave corporations alone. our private lives, especially

women's, is fair game.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EarlG (Original post)

Fri Jul 19, 2013, 11:28 AM

7. How on earth is this a winning campaign strategy??

Democrats should just run on good sex.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EarlG (Original post)

Fri Jul 19, 2013, 11:30 AM

8. When you get married you will be registered as a sex offender.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to L0oniX (Reply #8)

Fri Jul 19, 2013, 01:37 PM

38. I have been offended and given offense many times, but still haven't married...

 

I'm a free-lancer!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EarlG (Original post)

Fri Jul 19, 2013, 11:30 AM

9. Cover your keyholes!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madamesilverspurs (Reply #9)

Fri Jul 19, 2013, 11:45 AM

13. ROFLMAO!

OMG...that is hilarious.

And this clown would not be saying this if he got a "to die for" blow job.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madamesilverspurs (Reply #9)

Fri Jul 19, 2013, 11:47 AM

15. No 69's ....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EarlG (Original post)

Fri Jul 19, 2013, 11:33 AM

10. It amazes me that these A-holes grouse about "big government"

 

And then institute shit like this. The absolute irony completely escapes them.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Triana (Reply #10)

Fri Jul 19, 2013, 11:43 AM

12. Yeah butt....

 

all bets are off when they're doing God's work. They'll likely promote the missionary position as it's the best engagement technique to prevent a slip-up (or slip-down as it were).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Plucketeer (Reply #12)

Fri Jul 19, 2013, 11:46 AM

14. I thought

it was a slip-out.

Just had to say it...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SoapBox (Reply #14)

Fri Jul 19, 2013, 12:02 PM

18. LOL

 

Let us count the ways.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EarlG (Original post)

Fri Jul 19, 2013, 11:49 AM

16. Putting aside the fact that the law is unconstitutional and beyond stupid,

why do these assholes fight so hard for laws that are almost impossible to enforce?

Assuming all parties to an act are consenting adults, how do you even go about looking for the scofflaws? Do you spy on the ladies who lunch and perhaps discuss their sex lives or the men at the gym comparing their dates? And in the case of a married couple, couldn't they just refuse to testify against each other?

Part of me just laughs, but I really am bemused by the stubbornness of these people. I just can't wrap my head around the psychology of people who find this shit important. Who gets to be the one to explain to Ken the percentage of VA residents (adults and minors) who should be doing time according to this law?

While I know many are advocating he be asked if he's ever had oral sex, and I can't imagine he has not, my followup is certainly "Did you enjoy it?" Maybe that's the key to understanding why these assholes care if others are enjoying themselves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okwmember (Reply #16)

Fri Jul 19, 2013, 12:12 PM

22. It's NOT that it's right, wrong or somewhere in between

 

It's not even a matter of whether or not this rube does any of this in the privacy of his own bedroom. The OVERARCHING point is he's championing what's written in the REAL constitution - the Bible. Whether or not it's for votes or his own, imagined redemption - he's crowing Gods directives. Witnessing, if you will.
Of course, the truly laughable facet of this is that there's SO MANY other directives in the good book that these dolts choose to ignore. Cause if you direct the citizens of your arena to liquidate all the possess and go give the procededs to the poor - how long before you're stoned to death???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Plucketeer (Reply #22)

Fri Jul 19, 2013, 01:16 PM

33. And they better not be football fans...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EarlG (Original post)

Fri Jul 19, 2013, 12:06 PM

19. Besides that they want to ban oral sex,

isn't that something. How in the world would Virginia know if you have having sex?????? And oral sex to boot??????

NSA in every household???? I remember a SyFy movie called Eyeborgs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Iliyah (Reply #19)

Fri Jul 19, 2013, 01:01 PM

29. Stupid homophobe, power hungry bastard

He's so hot to get rid of all homosexuals in his state that he wants to make any method of sex by them illegal and is willing to have straight people caught in the same net.

In truth, I doubt he gives a fig about how anyone has sex, this is just pandering to the religious right and that's all he really cares about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Iliyah (Reply #19)

Fri Jul 19, 2013, 06:02 PM

57. They might monitor Chaturbate.com I guess.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EarlG (Original post)

Fri Jul 19, 2013, 12:08 PM

20. Really makes you wonder what he's hiding in his basement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EarlG (Original post)

Fri Jul 19, 2013, 12:15 PM

23. This will bring about the first

televised political debate with an R rating.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cynzke (Reply #23)

Fri Jul 19, 2013, 12:29 PM

25. Well congress is already sucking corporate &$%#.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EarlG (Original post)

Fri Jul 19, 2013, 12:20 PM

24. humina humina! This needs to be discussed with my buddy Edward "Ed" Lillywhite Norton.

 

Whoa, that's some sick shit - are they going to bug our houses? How will they tell whether we had a blowjob or gave life-giving cunnilingus? This is some nasty shit. I'm glad I live in Wisconsin, in spite of all the bad things we all know about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EarlG (Original post)

Fri Jul 19, 2013, 12:40 PM

26. Any sex act which does not have the potential of producing children . . .

 

If any sex act which does not have the potential of producing children will become illegal does that mean masturbation is soon to be a crime in the "Old Dominion?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to another_liberal (Reply #26)

Fri Jul 19, 2013, 06:47 PM

58. Also sex with any man who has had a vasectomy and any woman who has had

her tubes tied, or has undergone menopause as well under that definition.

NO MORE granny and grampa sex!

In fact, I would suggest that if a sex act did NOT result in a pregnancy, that would be illegal as well. Oops, and no sex with women who are already pregnant!

Good Lord! Even our nutty Governor Perry isn't promoting this!!!!


That means that this is TOTALLY NUTZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mbperrin (Reply #58)

Sat Jul 20, 2013, 07:10 AM

71. I am surprised Perry hasn't jumped into this one yet.

 

Trying to take Texas back to the sexual mores of the 1950s would seem to be such a good fit for him.

Seriously though, can you believe that in 2013 we are actually seeing a State-wide effort to reestablish sodomy laws? Who do they think is served by this nonsense?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to another_liberal (Reply #71)

Sat Jul 20, 2013, 10:13 AM

74. I think they are confusing a few psychotic billionaires who hand out dollars

with actual numbers of people.

They get lots of bucks, so lots of people must support them, they think.

It's a pathology of some kind, because there is no commercial angle to making sodomy illegal that I can think of.

I mean, they lobby for huge tax breaks to relocate overseas. I disagree, but I see the $$. They lobby to be excused from environmental common sense. Disagree, but $$$ are involved. And so on.

But this craziness? The only $$$ I see are campaign dollars from mentally ill people with lots of money.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to another_liberal (Reply #26)

Fri Jul 19, 2013, 10:29 PM

65. Figures. He only wants you to have the least enjoyable type of sex...

As anyone over 30 who has had sex for the explicit purpose of trying to get pregnant can tell you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EarlG (Original post)

Fri Jul 19, 2013, 12:41 PM

27. There's that good ol'

small, less intrusive government Republican thinking.

"What are you in for, dude?"
"I got a blow job from my wife. You?"
"I'm gay."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EarlG (Original post)

Fri Jul 19, 2013, 01:13 PM

31. Since when are you politicians entitled to patrol our bedrooms, sir?

Who died and made you God? And how long will you expect YOUR wife to give YOU blowjobs while you think you're entitled to deny them to everyone else. Or will you just go to some girlfriend on the side? What IS IT with these latter-day Puritans?

Virginia, if you vote for this cretin, you deserve what you get! You're already a laughing-stock state, even for putting this crackpot up for consideration of high office!!! Of course, many of you made sure he got as far as the job he was elected to most recently. WTF?

Sure glad I live in California!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EarlG (Original post)

Fri Jul 19, 2013, 01:25 PM

34. No touching!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EarlG (Original post)

Fri Jul 19, 2013, 01:29 PM

35. Pftthhhh. They can pry my GF's cooter off of my cold dead mouth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cliffordu (Reply #35)

Sat Jul 20, 2013, 09:47 AM

73. I didn't see anything in that law about necrophilia.... n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EarlG (Original post)

Fri Jul 19, 2013, 01:34 PM

37. Why is it so important to him this law be passed?

He clearly has issues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AsahinaKimi (Reply #37)

Fri Jul 19, 2013, 07:47 PM

59. He can use it against his political enemies

This fuckstick can make up all sorts of charges against his enemies, using total bullshit as evidence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AsahinaKimi (Reply #37)

Sat Jul 20, 2013, 10:33 AM

76. Because they use this law

to arrest gay people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EarlG (Original post)

Fri Jul 19, 2013, 01:38 PM

39. First they came after the people having anal sex, and I did not protest because....

First, they came after the people having anal sex, and I did not protest because it did not affect me.

But then they came after the people having oral sex, .... and everyone was left to protest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EarlG (Original post)

Fri Jul 19, 2013, 01:39 PM

40. Here's more on this story, including Video from O'Donnell on MSNBC

Last edited Fri Jul 19, 2013, 02:59 PM - Edit history (3)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1081950



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JPZenger (Reply #40)

Fri Jul 19, 2013, 03:48 PM

50. The only legal sex in Virginia

Years ago, the running joke in Virginia was that all sex was illegal... unless it involved a married husband and wife... only in the missionary position... in a bed ... without birth control... in the dark.

Or sex between a man and his goat, that was legal too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EarlG (Original post)

Fri Jul 19, 2013, 01:46 PM

41. I just can't fathom why anybody cares what other consenting adults do in bed.

Seriously, who the hell cares?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EarlG (Original post)

Fri Jul 19, 2013, 01:58 PM

42. No blowjobs? Then what will elected Republicans do in airport men's rooms? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Reply #42)

Sat Jul 20, 2013, 11:36 AM

78. Then what will elected Republicans do in airport men's rooms?

Saw this while taking a cool down break from mowing...

Thanks for the belly laugh!!...


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Reply #42)

Sun Jul 21, 2013, 11:35 AM

82. Yell out that they love their wives.

Right at the moment of climax.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EarlG (Original post)

Fri Jul 19, 2013, 02:11 PM

44. He heard someone say "Virginia Sucks!" and felt he had to respond...

 

Just didn't realize they were talking about his job performance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jtuck004 (Reply #44)

Sat Jul 20, 2013, 07:19 AM

72. ROFL

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EarlG (Original post)

Fri Jul 19, 2013, 02:46 PM

45. Cuccinelli says "Keep your tongue off my Virginia!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EarlG (Original post)

Fri Jul 19, 2013, 03:14 PM

47. 1976 SNL Skit - US Supreme Court looks under the sheets to check for illegal sex

http://snltranscripts.jt.org/75/75qcourt.phtml

1976 SNL skit with Aykroyd and Beluchi.

A group of men in black robes enter a couple's bedroom while they are having sex. The bright lights are turned on, and the men look under the sheets.

Judges: We're the Supreme Court! On behalf of the highest court in the land I feel it is only fair to warn you that you can get five to ten years for where your hand is right now! According to the recent Supreme Court ruling, the government can claim certain unorthodox sexual acts as crimes against nature and the state.

Dwayne: Wait, wait a minute, we're consenting adults.

...Judge #2: Don't take it personally, just look upon it as a random spot check.

Rhonda: ...how will we know if we're doing anything unnatural?

Judge #2: We'll let you know. Just pretend we're not here, relax...

Judge #1: Oh, I'm a little nervous about where that mouth is heading.

Judge #3: Would your Honors deliberate with me on how low Rhonda's teeth may go on Dwayne's trunk? Rhonda, place a moratorium on the butterfly flick and stay out of the slammer, OK? What do you say?

Judge #5: Hey, believe me it wasn't unanimous. It was the Nixon appointees. I think you're both beautiful."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EarlG (Original post)

Fri Jul 19, 2013, 03:23 PM

48. How does the Republican part even still exist?

Every time I hear something this over the top I think they're going to become extinct, but the envelope gets pushed further and further and further......REALLY? It's mind boggling...how does this party still exist in this century??????

I feel as though reality is a farce, that my sanity is being constantly tested, that the world is a comedy show.

UGH. Like really...UGH. Time for a beer and a double shot of rat poison.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pauliedangerously (Reply #48)

Fri Jul 19, 2013, 03:54 PM

51. Preachers.

"Jesus died so you can hate all the people having fun..." or something like that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EarlG (Original post)

Fri Jul 19, 2013, 04:20 PM

52. Only biters

 

Only biting should be illegal...and thats because they do it wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to coljam (Reply #52)

Sun Jul 21, 2013, 09:28 PM

85. Unless they're into that sort of thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EarlG (Original post)

Fri Jul 19, 2013, 04:23 PM

53. Crutchinelli has penus envy

Why else would he make our lives miserable!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EarlG (Original post)

Fri Jul 19, 2013, 05:09 PM

54. There's so much work to do on real issues in this country

and all these freak fundies concentrate on is what people are doing in their bedrooms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EarlG (Original post)

Fri Jul 19, 2013, 08:14 PM

60. Wouldn't that make what the Republicans and CONSERVATIVE DEMOCRATS do for their

corporate donors illegal?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zbdent (Reply #60)

Sat Jul 20, 2013, 06:08 AM

69. They will of course make exceptions for corporations. While corporations are people, my friend,

they are in fact "super" people, with more and better rights than 99% of human people. (1% of people, and you can guess which 1%, also have secret "super" rights, based on how much they donate to the politicians currently in charge. Hell, the 1% can have sex parties that make Roman orgies look tame, and Cuccinelli would hold their coats, or anything else they wanted him to hold.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EarlG (Original post)

Fri Jul 19, 2013, 08:17 PM

62. Try and stop me, a**h***!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EarlG (Original post)

Fri Jul 19, 2013, 09:49 PM

63. Jesus H Christ!

 

Look, just because you guys are scared to have sex and think it's "icky", doesn't mean the rest of us have to.

What, are they 12?

Control freaks.... wasting our time and money.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EarlG (Original post)

Fri Jul 19, 2013, 10:10 PM

64. This affects straight people, too.

 

So much for "small government" !!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EarlG (Original post)

Sat Jul 20, 2013, 12:06 AM

66. Sounds like Cuccinelli has issues with Santorum

n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EarlG (Original post)

Sat Jul 20, 2013, 12:58 AM

67. "Hey Ken, hold this for me, willya?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EarlG (Original post)

Sat Jul 20, 2013, 06:30 AM

70. Paging Dan Savage... (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EarlG (Original post)

Sat Jul 20, 2013, 10:25 AM

75. If there is good constant advertising

to the fact that Cuccinelli wants to ban oral sex...he'd lose in a landslide. I doubt the Dems will go there...they'll use the phrase "sodomy laws" and most people won't think oral sex, they'll think anal sex and just don't care about that as much. If they knew he wants to BAN ORAL SEX he'd lose. So I hope someone advertises this fact continually...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EarlG (Original post)

Sat Jul 20, 2013, 11:06 AM

77. Not jobs, not health, not welfare, not environment... but *this* is what they find important.

Can it be made any clearer that these teabag republicans have absolutely no interest in running this country in a mature, responsible manner?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EarlG (Original post)

Sat Jul 20, 2013, 04:03 PM

79. An inspired graphic, EarlG!

 

Awesome job!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EarlG (Original post)

Sun Jul 21, 2013, 01:50 PM

83. Virginia is for awkward, 1 minute, missionary sex between a man and woman of the same race.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread