Kind of gives a whole new spin to "the Lenin Cult," no?
DC
On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 4:18 PM, andie nachgeborenen < andie_nachgeborenen at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Just speaking personally:
>
> Hillary as a sex object is personally difficult for me to get a grip on.
> It's not that she's unattractive, but IMHO sexy has never been her forte. I
> think quite deliberately as well as by character. I think it was in
> Clinton's mom's book there was a story that when he brought Hillary home,
> mom said, Bill, she's different from the others, and he said, Mom, I need
> someone I can talk to. Hillary is from that generation of women that had to
> avoid being sexy (while still looking good) as the price of professional
> success.
>
> Palin doesn't do anything for me, but I never went for the cute perky
> overly cheerful type. I can see how them as finds that type appealing might
> see here as a sex object. For all the cuteness and perkiness, she's
> definitely not, er, soft and feminine. In term of hotness, Rice is another
> story. She can be quite hot in a domme-fetish sort of way.
>
> As for men as sex objects, well, there's an asymmetry, duh. Women get
> treated more as sex object than men by a long chalk. If a woman politician
> were even as ordinary looking as Biden, her supposed lack of attractiveness
> would be the subject of much comment and probably would be a fatal
> disqualification. Even women of Hillary's generation had to look pretty
> good, though not sexy. It's different in other countries, when, e.g., no one
> would ever accuse Golda Meier or Margaret Thatcher of even looking good.
> France might be more like the US. Royale is pretty.
>
> Considering the sex-objectification of major male politicians the only
> presidential candidate (male) that I can think of in recent years who might
> qualify in BHO himself, who is actually very attractive. It's part of his
> attempt, quite successful, to blend Kennedy and Reagan. (Reagan was once
> handsome but by 1980, that wasn't his persona.)
>
> Brian? Other same sex guys, what do you think?
>
> Gore wasn't bad looking but oozed a standoffish sort of rectitude, no sex
> appeal at all. Bill Clinton was apparently very attractive to women, at
> least to lots of women, but less, I think, because of his appearance than
> his personality/charm and position. I can see it but don't find it
> attractive. Going back Dan Quayle was a pretty boy with an empty head,
> smarter than he seemed, but basically not very bright, and Not My Type any
> more than, and for similar reasons as, Palin, although he is/was both nicer
> and more qualified. BHO is definitely cute, though, hot if you like 'em
> skinny and classy.
>
> By, I'm with Doug on hoping to see Palin take on McCain with a strapon,
> even virtually in porn movie proxy. Or, failing McCain, a moose. Jesus, I'm
> such a low life. I shouldn't wish that on a moose, even a virtual moose. The
> Palin part, I mean.
>
> --- On Sun, 10/5/08, Dorene Cornwell <dorenefc at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > From: Dorene Cornwell <dorenefc at gmail.com>
> > Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] no anal required
> > To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> > Date: Sunday, October 5, 2008, 4:57 PM
> > This morning I was thinking of the Palin as wank-off object
> > subtext and
> > wondering whether SOMEWHERE in the vast porn zeitgeist
> > there were people who
> > like to wank to, say images of Dan Quayle. I am NOT sure I
> > would want to
> > meet these folks, but it occurs to me to wonder.
> >
> > I am quite relieved to hear that the porn biz is going all
> > equal
> > oppportunity with Sarah, Hillary AND Condi. Oh heavens! It
> > should certainly
> > add a certain je ne sais quoi to election year. It
> > should be especially
> > fun to watch a bunch of anti-porn feminists fond of
> > shrieking about
> > "unsustainable" large families try to wrap their
> > brains around all the
> > sacred cows in collision with Palin's candidacy.
> >
> > As for myself, sometimes the subject lines of email is all
> > I have time for.
> > This address gets mail from 3 lists, 2 devoted to geekery
> > and one state org.
> > Yesterday, the subject lines said "Blindness,
> > Blindness, Blinder." Today
> > "positioning controls" is right next to "No
> > Anal required.
> > Go figure.
> >
> > DC
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 12:47 PM, John Adams
> > <jadams01 at sprynet.com> wrote:
> >
> > > >From: Wendy Lyon <wendy.lyon at gmail.com>
> > >
> > > >Obama's a good-looking guy. Has the gay adult
> > industry taken him on
> > > >(so to speak)?
> > >
> > > I don't know. But:
> > http://www.flickr.com/photos/puppyboysukk/2897332127/
> > > ___________________________________
> > > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> > >
> > ___________________________________
> > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>