Free Republic

Hilarious interview of McPhee right here at DC's HOT 99.5.

For a virtual nobody, she sure takes herself seriously.

Katharine McPhee... what the Soviets used to refer to as a "Useful Idiot".

The dems have a loose definition of “woman”.

I mean, Barbara Mikulski is invited, so...

The dems have a loos edefinition of “woman”.

I mean, Barbara Mikulski is invited, so...

Awesome! Wish I could be there, to boo Katharine McPhee off the stage. I was a fan - no more.

In fairness to women, I dealt with one that had her own set of issue despite being a virgin, and we never had anything resembling sex. I don't want to portray a monolithic female attitude. However, it grows tiresome dealing with people who display little intellect, little emotional depth, empathy(except for furry animals), and a sense of the meaning of relationships--all things women are supposed to have in abundance. That is truly a myth, and I speak for all my male friends who are, as a rule, superior to the women they've dated.

Wow, that really blows me away. Doesn't that just re-inforce the notion that the movement of women toward casual sexuality has been bad for the (once) fairer sex? As they've striven to become more like men, they've thrown away that which made them truly valuable to men, those feminine attributes you list above as lacking. That might be OK for hardcore Steinem-ists, but your average girl/woman, wanting to one day get married, might find it easier going if she had those feminine wiles to deploy.

Such a tricky discussion. I've wanted to cut a path between the Wedding-night Virginals (even bad sex is good sex if you love someone) and the Casual Sex Practitioners (gotta hone those skills!) and make the case that sex in a stable relationship, even unmarried, is the better alternative to both.

Time for me to exit this quagmire. Thanks for the dialogue.

8^)

I apologize for being so cryptic and vague. I'll be less a pain in the ass and answer my own question.

What is a serious man, looking for a longterm relationship, to do about women 1, 2, & 3?

Keeping in mind the word serious, the answer is... avoid her if at all possible.

The standard men use vis-a-vis promiscuous women is a perfectly rational one.

I think men are just as likely as women to carry emotional baggage from severed relationships. It is human nature, not female nature, to cling to that which was good.

I agree.

What I'm talking about here is casual sex, not genuine relationships.

Especially if she retains the feminine approach(indeed inevitability oft-times) of combining sex and emotion, then there's a significant shot at her being damaged.

The question might be asked: What is preferable, a woman who compartmentalizes well, or one who has not, but has a similar history??

I am not including in the discussion any women/men who've moved beyond their past, and demonstrate this through their actions.

Compartmentalization - that was my second question:

If you make that assumption about a woman, that she can compartmentalize, can you assume that she is "normal", in the sense that, just as it is unusual for a man to cry after sex (show excessive emotion), it is unusual for a woman to have NO emotion attached to a sexual encounter?

My answer to that is that it is NOT normal for a woman to sever the emotional from the sexual.

So, in the context of casual sexuality, what is a guy interested in a serious, decent relationship to reasonably deduce about such a woman? There are a number of possibilities:

1. She doesn't compartmentalize well and may be carrying a fair amount of emotional baggage;
2. She compartmentalizes completely, in which case she places herself outside the normal distribution of feminine behavior vis-a-vis sex (and quite likely other areas of feminine behavior);
3. She handles only as much casual sex as she can effectively compartmentalize, knowing well her own limits, and limits the damage.

The relationship-centered man may conclude: woman #1 will saddle me with all the crap heaped on her by other jerks; woman #2 may never sincerely attach herself to me emotionally; woman #3 sounds good but how many #1's and #2's do I have to go through before I find her?

What is a serious man, looking for a longterm relationship, to do about women 1, 2, & 3? Answer that and you'll be halfway to understanding the origin of the supposed "double standard" that attaches to male and female promiscuity.

You're a level headed sort...

A question: if I know that a particular woman has engaged in numerous casual sexual encounters, what might I reasonably guess about her emotional state of mind?

Let's assume that she still retains something of a feminine attitude and mixes together sex and emotion. What are the chances she would be emotionally damaged?

Your option #2, plus your comments about sexual compatibility make good sense.

Sex is a huge part of human functioning - compatibility can make or break a marriage.

The trouble comes when sex is treated as recreation - not everyone has the same expectations going in and not everyone comes out emotionally intact. And the mentality that leads to casual encounters does not translate well to married life. Best not to develop that metality in the first place.

Better to save oneself for meaningful, long-term relationships. It's a good compromise, IMO.

Try to stay on the grounds for a couple nights in a Colonial House or Tavern - my wife and I did our honeymoon at the Market Square Tavern. You are immersed in the experience - you wake up there and can stay late, wandering the near-empty streets. And you can hit Chowning's Tavern for gambols, which are colonial style games.

These accomodations are cheaper than the Inn, but you get to enjoy a number of amenities offered by the Inn, including their lawn bowling and croquet, plus afternoon tea and cookies, which is a nice way to rest up.

Try to catch one of the "Jefferson Talks" behind the Capitol, where the Jefferson interpreter interacts with the visitors, giving as good as he gets.

Oh, you should know that a weekly schedule is available for the colonial area building tours and other special events. Try to get this ASAP, perhaps before you go (it might be on the internet site).

Eat almost anywhere - The Trellis is a nice 21st century restaurant in Market Square (adjacent to the Colonial grounds). We enjoyed a nice lunch on the veranda overlooking the Gold Golf Course. Dining at taverns other than Chownings requires a reservation made early in the day.

Unless it's your "thing", I would skip the two museums.

You will be impressed by the gardens and the overall meticulous upkeep of the grounds. Most of the buildings have gardens in the rear and you can simply walk right back and stroll through them. Nothing like a well trimmed hedge.

Needless to say, my wife and I had a great time. Good luck and have fun...!

They can be used as a standoff platform, "under" the horizon, with proper ground support targeting. That neutralizes the Stinger threat, the bearer of such weapon having no way of knowing where to aim and shoot - there is no visible target.

If private companies are contracted to do it, and proper standards are set, it will be cheaper and more efficient.

Sounds right.

Unionization would not provide any measure of safety above that which would be provided by more stringent oversight of private security companies.

It might, in fact, provide less secure skies, if the experience of the Israelis is any guide.

In regards to all of us becoming more aware of possible terrorist threats and attacks, it looks like there's still a lot of work to do.

Not to judge the pro-America boosters at this rally too harshly, but they really didn't react too well to this low-grade terrorist act of flag burning.

They should not have been surprised that it happened - they should have been expecting it and planned for it. Had they done so, their senses would have been on high alert and they would have sprung into action. Instead, caught unawares, they were stunned into inaction. Too bad. Lesson learned by these young patriots, I hope.

This situation is incredibly tragic. But I know that Rush will find a way to overcome this loss. Somehow.

Rush's thinking will not be affected. His speech abilities can be maintained. There are ways of communicating with callers. And maybe the cochlear implant will, in the end, prove to be the solution.

What's most important, however, is whether Rush continues to have fun, because that is what makes his show uniquely enjoyable in the universe of conservative talk radio.

If he can't hear the Shanklin parodies, if he can't wail along to "Una Poloma Blanca", if he can't share his passion for music (such as at Christmas when he features Mannhein Steamroller), if he can't enjoy the environmental wacko updates with the falling timber and the automatic weapon fire, or the SUV "In A Yugo" song, I wonder if he will truely enjoy his work.

Knowing Rush, he'll find a way to the humor and the fun. And I'm confident that decent people, those who listen to his show and appreciate the high quality of production and craftsmanship, will provide him with plenty of support and running room as he embarks upon what appears to be a terribly difficult artistic transformation.

Ann Coulter filled in for Michael Medved last week and was great. Talk radio is a natural for her take-no-prisoners approach.

As an example - she was pushing for repeal of the amendment that gave women the right to vote. How's that for red meat?

The First Lady is ever the librarian...

In a TV interview, she was asked what she says to her husband, to help him get through. She replied:

"He'll get pretty worked up about things right now and I have to tell him, 'Bushie, back off'."

(They make a perfect team, perfectly complementary.)

When President Bush (then Governor Bush) in a primary debate cited Jesus Christ as his favorite "philosopher", I knew he was someone special.

The media thought it was a pander to religious voters, but I knew that in incuring the wrath of the media for little gain (he was the front runner, surely not a place in the race that called for taking risks) he was demonstrating great courage and authenticity.

The good man simply could not contain himself - he just had to share his love of Christ with all that were listening.

(As an aside - I never enjoyed Candidate Bush more than when he was talking about education and not leaving one child behind. The love really flowed through him. You knew he meant it.)

It was said that, with the Pope touring through the Tadjikistan/Uzbekistan neighborhood until 9/25, promises were made to him that no attacks would begin until he had left the war zone. He's gone now, so look for action soon.