Laura inaugurates a trend (Laura Bush's Inaugural Dress to be "Ice Blue")

New York Daily News ^ | 12-21-04 | Rush/Mulloy

[tellw]

Laura Bush is getting another Oscar.

Designer Oscar de la Renta, who outfitted the First Lady for her big nights at the Republican convention and the Kennedy Center Honors, will dress her for the inauguration.

Her office confirms the incredibly important news that the gown will be ice blue.

Meanwhile, daughters Jenna and Barbara have chosen the younger, edgier design team of Badgely Mischka.

"They want slinky and sexy," a spy tells us. "The dresses are going to be figure-hugging with slits and sequins and decolletage."

All of the ladies will be equipped with matching coats - to protect them as they bounce around from ball to ball.

[Askel5]

=== Moral codes have been imposed in order to have a mechanism in place to accomplish that in a way that distinguishes us from "the animals".


Don't you think it's kinda weird the way the more we shed the "moral codes" the less we resemble the animals?

Sure ... we've got the rights to have sex when and however we please but we no longer reproduce and our sex is no longer truly liberated and wholly natural as in the animal kingdom but something more like a chicken farm where eggs are checked before they're incubated (some are just eaten), spayed SPCA style or concocted to order by Specialist Breeders of the finest pedigree genetic material.

When I read in the 1969 Congressional Record quotes by the new head of the Academy of Sciences talking abouit breeding us like cattle, I was about ready to call it day.

But instead ...

I was wounded but not yet slain
I lay me down to bleed a while ...
And I was back to fight again.

[Chad Fairbanks]

Sure ... we've got the rights to have sex when and however we please but we no longer reproduce and our sex is no longer truly liberated and wholly natural as in the animal kingdom but something more like a chicken farm where eggs are checked before they're incubated (some are just eaten), spayed SPCA style or concocted to order by Specialist Breeders of the finest pedigree genetic material.

I don't think we disagree on that, but it really has nothing to do with guys going ga-ga over a nice rack.

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

LOL

[cyncooper]

But I don't like contradictions any more than you do and I believe someone possessed of such ideas could never hold themselves up as a pro-lifer, conservative, "constitutionalist" or -- above all -- a man who respects the Creator.

Breathtaking.

As I've noted before, your conclusions are flawed because the tortuous premise you outline is flawed.

[Askel5]

=== because the tortuous premise you outline is flawed.

What premise is that?

You believe that a person possessed of such notions could possibly be "pro-life" constitutionalist conservative?

Having done my homework, I'd like to know on what you based your contention my premise is "flawed."

Please leave your personal feelings for the Bush Family out of it, natch.

[Askel5]

=== but it really has nothing to do with guys going ga-ga over a nice rack.

Well, it does, actually. "Sex sells" far more than fancy cars and hipster underwear. And the extent to which the sex sells message has been taken is rather horrifying if you're someone like me who rarely watches TV and sits down with her grandfather to watch the SuperBowl ... little realizing that it's no longer a family affair and that the commercials and promos alone (sans costume malfunction or nekkid Chrissshhtun chick wearing nothing but a Christian cross bear-hugging a player beforehand) are nothing but a sluice of sexual perversion that's supposed to be funny, of course.

Particularly in light of the current Revisionist paean to Kinsey, Father of the American Sex Therapy Industry (along with several of the architects of the Nazi blueprint for "applied biology" as national socialism on whom Government relied for "national defense" applications, domestic population control and biology textbooks), I think it's more critical than ever to pay attention to how our "natural instincts" are being manipulated by the State.

What sort of nation codifies "faked" cyber childsex pornography as especially protected for-profit "Free Speech" while removing Christ from Christmas?

The essence of liberty is self-governance ... just as the maximum in freedom is achieved through Restraint.

Given how consistent and increasingly perverse is the "Sexual Liberation" bent by which the State enshrines rights to utterly artificial and alternative realities the State is then charged with sustaining ... e.g., legalizing abortion so that a "right" to non-procreative sex may be maintained.

I'll let you in on a little secret, Chad. The reason I'm so wiggy on this subject is not because I've got hang-ups or I'm repressed or I'm Catholic or I'm not getting any ... the reason I harp so is that I believe it truly diabolical the way we're being dumbed down with all due technological sophistication so as to do the devil's work for him by preventing, culling and killing souls as we see fit such that they never have the chance to Choose of their own accord to know or love or serve the Lord.

There is no conveying, really, the metanoia which landed me where I am today. But just understand that during the late '99, early 2000 fight against the NIH's human experimentation protocols (all of which were dropped once Bush's decision on ESCR opened a new window of Non-Personhood rendering the "human" experimentation protocoals moot) I finally understood at the very core of my being exactly what was at stake here and the nature of the Opposition as represented by their Clean Hands Vivisectionists engaging in surreal "humanitarian" research.

Ignorance lost is never regained. Sometimes I wish I could undo my understanding and go back to a more blythe perception of the world but I suspect life would lose a great deal of the intensity and (often tragic) beauty it now holds thanks to even the smallest detail's being pregnant with Purpose and Meaning.

[Chad Fairbanks]

I still don't see the connection - If I enjoy the sight of a nice set of hooters, appreciate the beauty of cleavage, and like the feel of a nipple in my mouth doesn't mean that I am just as bad as vivisectionists, abortionists, kinsey, people who kick puppies, and the like.

You're making these long-winded philisophical posts, which rarely address the actual questions asked, and quite frankly, you're making it much more complicated than necessary.

The bottom line is simple - I, like a majority of men, like Boobies. The State, POlitics, ReLigion, nor any other Dogma is Responsible for my love of Bazongas.

[Chad Fairbanks]

We are well-accustomed to the ideas of the prudish, sexually-repressed Victorians, who cautiously guarded themselves against any temptation, no matter how slight. Critics and reader have largely and successfully questioned this conception and proven it inaccurate. For during this period, even in seeking any man or woman's ultimate goal in achieving the apparently conservative happy ending of marriage, Victorians were inevitably led to the consummation of their love and the creation one's own home and family. Sex and sexuality, then, were unavoidable issues for the Victorians.

As Jill Conway reminds her readers, that since it wasn't until the early 1900's that scientists connected sex chromosomes to sex-linked characteristics or that they discovered the workings of hormones -- "we [begin] to see why for some forty years the exact nature of sex-differentiation and its psychic accompaniment was a subject of intense, though inconclusive debate."

What exactly differentiated men from women and why the species evolved into the two sexes, then, unsurprisingly confounded Victorian theorists such as Herbert Spencer and Patrick Geddes. Thus, they and other specialists constructed a stereotypical dyadic model. Other than the different sex organs and physical differences, men were considered the active agents, who expended energy while women were sedentary, storing and conserving energy. Victorian theories of evolution believed that these feminine and masculine attributes traced back to the lowest forms of life. A dichotomy of temperaments defined feminine and masculine: an anabolic nature which nurtured versus a katabolic nature which released energy respectively.

Such beliefs laid the groundwork for, or rather arose from, the separation of spheres for men and women. According to the model, since men only concerned themselves with fertilization, they could also spend energies in other arenas, allowing as Spencer says "the male capacity for abstract reason... along with an attachment to the idea of abstract justice...[which] was a sign of highly-evolved life." On the other hand, woman's heavy role in pregnancy, menstruation (considered a time of illness, debilitation, and temporary insanity), and child-rearing left very little energy left for other pursuits. As a result, women's position in society came from biological evolution -- she had to stay at home in order to conserve her energy, while the man could and needed to go out and hunt or forage.

Moreover, this evolutionary reasoning provided justification for the emotional and mental differences between men and women. Conway shows how the logic led Geddes to believe that Male intelligence was greater than female, men had greater independence and courage than women, and men were able to expend energy in sustained bursts of physical or cerebral activity... Women on the other hand... were superior to men in constancy of affection and sympathetic imagination... [they had] 'greater patience, more open-mindedness, greater appreciation of subtle details, and consequently what we call more rapid intuition.'"

The roles of men and women understood as thus, the Victorians still had to deal with the actual sexual act, wherein the bipolar model still held. Earlier on in the century, women were considered the weaker, more innocent sex. She had little to no sexual appetite, often capturing all the sympathy and none of the blame over indiscretions. Men represented the fallen, sinful, and lustful creatures, wrongfully taking advantage of the fragility of women. However, this situation switched in the later half of the period; women had to be held accountable, while the men, slaves to their katabolic purposes and sexual appetites, could not really be blamed. Therefore, women were portrayed either frigid or else insatiable. A young lady was only worth as much as her chastity and appearance of complete innocence, for women were time bombs just waiting to be set off. Once led astray, she was the fallen woman, and nothing could reconcile that till she died.

Many artists and writers of the period did not accept such strict roles for men and women in either their sexualities or their contributions to sexual intercourse. The dyadic model set up for men and women permeated the age, but only served to try to encourage an ideal. In real situations and in fictional agendas, Victorians could recognize the complexities and areas of gray.

[Askel5]

Do you know that the separation of labor between men and women is written in the very first cell of every human being? The Male DNA written to address questions of infrastructure, nourishment and protection and the Female DNA responsible for organizing and forming the being itself. In the first cell you see the male and female separation of tasks that is natural throughout life.

I find that fascinating.



I appreciate the article. Indeed, therein lies a great part of the foundation for the way the carnies of the Sexual Liberation crowd have you by the short hairs whether you're coming ... loudly proclaiming your "morality" (modesty and virtue) all the way to the polling place ... or going ... only to be discussing a month later the sticky tape which everyone trusts will hold the Bazoogas of the the President's daughter's in place at the Inauguration.

I think one reason everyone's got to perpetually prove how hip and "normal" they are sexually is because that's the only Third Option between the so-called rigid Morality worn into the voting booth by the GOP and the widely condemned Immorality of those *who take non-procreative sex to its logical ends* or stand ready to proclaim pride in what is their "natural" same-sex attraction just as loudly as you beat your chest about Boobies.

I have no dearth of appreciation for human sexuality. Great stuff. But I see no reason there can't be a balance, that's all. Is there no perspective such that only whores like Rosa McGowan are ripe for sticky-tape conversations while the Bush Twins command the sort of respect one accords Young Ladies ... regardless how the publicists make them sound.

(That's one of the funniest things of all about this thread ... particularly having been called on the carpet for being catty or endlessly pigeonholed somehow as a Bush-Hater. It's I who am shocked at the way GOP discuss the young women or have shots of their costume malfunctions at the ready. For me, although it lacks the crudeness and cruelty of your average comment on Chelsea, it's the same basic disrespect.

I realize Britney & Co. have forever lowered the bar on what's acceptable discourse where Young Ladies are concerned, but where's the counter-culture going to come if not from the President's daughters themselves AND his supporters? Just curious.

I have the distinct feeling that anyone fitting that counter-cultural mold -- or, like me, arguing that it should exist at all -- will be subjected to the usual hooting and hollering and Cosmo-quality psychobabble speculation (Victorian shrink-style) of the hidden memories, tragic circumstances or repressed libido has resulted in my crusade for some semblance of female modesty and manly discretion.

Do you think it's a coincidence that Veronica & Friends "joke" about my masturbating with a crucifix over at Clown Posse? There's your endgame Victorian theorizers, right there, bud. They've got it all figured out. The more I harp on what is actually "natural" ... be it female modesty or the fact that female beauty is naturally a thing to be cherished, privately enjoyed and possessively protected by males ... the more I get blowback like that from those who are certain I must be a hypocrite with the worst sort of dark seething libido since I can't possibly be innocent as the driven snow.

They just take it to a deeper level than your holding up the alleged mirror of Victorianism or IwoJima's dogging me for being "religious" yet mentioning "f-mepumps" in context.

Perhaps, given the impression the faith of the fathers naturally makes, it comes "natural" to a protestant mind that the universe is neatly compartmentalized -- either faith or reason, etc etc etc. Either a prude OR a normal girl who naturally always to look "sexy" and attract sexual attention. What a boring world that must be ... checkers of red and black moving on all or nothing squares.

Perfectly preditable, though ...

Which leads me BACK to the fact that the more you insist on pride of the Unthinking Instinct, the more delighted they are with your evolutionary progress to a perfectly predictable and utterly malleable willing slave to the most base of passions! See how simple it all is? =)

[Chad Fairbanks]

What's this Clown Posse of which you speak? Are you talking about ICP? Cuz, I'm down with ICP. Gnome sayin'? :0)

But, whatever. I just think the real reason why people give you a hard time (and I'm going to be bluntly honest here, so don't expect any sugar-coating. If it offends you, I apologize in advance, but someone's got to say what most are thinking) is not because of your Morality, or your Victorian Prudishness, or any other traits like that... I think the reason is simply because you are Nuts. I probably agree with you vis a vis morality, and declining values in Society more than I disagree, but frankly, you go waaaaaaaaay overboard.

Your Egoistc self-lauditory "I wish I wasn't so incredibly intelligent" crap is, quite frankly, nauseating, and makes you a target for mockery. A little less condescension, a little less holier-than-thou, and maybe just smidgen of a sense of proportion with regards to topics might go a long way...

But what do I know? I'm just some schmuck on an internet board, and my opinion about you doesn't, and shouldn't, matter in any way, so take my criticisms and comments for what they are actually worth - absolutely nothing :0)

[Askel5]

== I think the reason is simply because you are Nuts.

Fair enough.


=== Your Egoistc self-lauditory "I wish I wasn't so incredibly intelligent" crap is, quite frankly, nauseating, and makes you a target for mockery.

I think you're confused here.

Intelligence has nothing to do with my wishing I were still ignorant. Were I truly intelligent, I'd have comprehended what was at stake BEFORE I stumbled onto the truth ... be it in the profoundly personal realization of which I spoke earlier or in the way that the Congressional Record, of all sources, spells out in stark, unequivocal terms the fact that anyone who yet believes abortion is not a GOP policy is being played for a Sucker.

And if I were truly intelligent, I'd have figured out a way to get folks to read even a few of my links or at least figured out a way to distill and convey even a fraction of the ugly truths therein.

It happens sometimes. Often enough, I suppose, that I keep trying. Ever hopeful, if not optimistic.


Clown Posse is the name of a site where some FReepers get to hang with the Anti-FReeper crowd without being stigmatized in the least as "AF-ers". I'm sure there's some rhyme or reason to the way that works though I've yet to figure it out myself.

If only I were more intelligent ... =)

Goodnight, Chad.

[Chad Fairbanks]

Intelligence has nothing to do with my wishing I were still ignorant. Were I truly intelligent, I'd have comprehended what was at stake BEFORE I stumbled onto the truth ... be it in the profoundly personal realization of which I spoke earlier or in the way that the Congressional Record, of all sources, spells out in stark, unequivocal terms the fact that anyone who yet believes abortion is not a GOP policy is being played for a Sucker.

If that's a fancy way of saying "I know the truth, and you suckers don't, and won't until you open your eyes" then that is a perfect example of what I was talking about...

And if I were truly intelligent, I'd have figured out a way to get folks to read even a few of my links or at least figured out a way to distill and convey even a fraction of the ugly truths therein.

Well, I can't speak for Others, but I tend to pretty much ignore links when given to me by people who look down their nose at me - covering their mouth and nose with a lace-trimmed hanky, hoping and Praying they don't catch a case of Blinding Stupidity from Me... ;0)

Clown Posse is the name of a site where some FReepers get to hang with the Anti-FReeper crowd without being stigmatized in the least as "AF-ers". I'm sure there's some rhyme or reason to the way that works though I've yet to figure it out myself.

Sounds like fun - I'll have to look it up...

Goodnight, Chad.

Good night! (Would it be out of line if I ask, "What are you wearing?"? ) ;)

[bonfire]

"(Would it be out of line if I ask, "What are you wearing?"? ) ;)"


Well, we know it's not blue. :)

[Chad Fairbanks]

Ooh. That was cooooooold. Ice Blue cold, in fact ;0)

[bonfire]

I was just trying to get back on topic. :)

[Vision]

Did anyone else notice she is wearing a wedding ring?

[Chad Fairbanks]

Well, we've come full circle...

[Hillary's Lovely Legs]

I think that Laura will look lovely in ice blue.

[Chad Fairbanks]

I have no opinion either way. She's a hottie in general.

[Chad Fairbanks]

That, and she reminds me of my mom. I'd like her to use her spit on a napkin to wipe my battered dirty face... while I smoke a cigarette...