Homosexual scandals vs heterosexual scandals

[Estro Felino]

It's obvious that what happened one year ago or something didn't cause any reaction in the electorate of the Democratic Party.

I mean, the Senate Hearing Room, one of the most sacred places of democracy, has been turned into a squalid porn movie set. Homosexual porn, to be precise.

U.S. Capitol Police decline charges against Cardin staffer who filmed Senate sex video

The U.S. Capitol Police said Thursday that they will not bring charges against a former congressional staffer who was filmed having sex in the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing room in December.

www.washingtontimes.com

But I didn't see any puritans from the Democratic Party denounce that scandal...
and the problem was not, I guess, that it dealt with an intern of a congressperson...and not with a congressperson.

The problem is that homosexual sex is considered "locker room, comradely fun between hunks" and not something scandalous.

Every time a congressperson or a politician has a heterosexual intercourse (vaginal intercourse), the feminists have an inhumane reaction (you know similar to the reaction many had when Trump was elected)...

I think there is a serious psychiatric issue here...in the mind of those who consider heterosexual sex something scandalous. Because...if the persons in that Senate Hearing Room had been a man and a woman having sex, I am totally sure that an army of angry feminists would have beaten up that man.

Explain me this difference in reactions.

Warning: only serious answers please. If you elude questions, please, don't reply. Thank you for your cooperation.

 

[Revoltingest]

But I didn't see any puritans from the Democratic Party denounce that scandal...

Because who cares.
Oh wait...the Italians care about such things.

 

[Estro Felino]

Because who cares.
Oh wait...the Italians care about such things.

Didn't you read the OP?
Warning: only serious answers please. If you elude questions, please, don't reply. Thank you for your cooperation.

 

[McBell]

Didn't you read the OP?
Warning: only serious answers please. If you elude questions, please, don't reply. Thank you for your cooperation.

What question was eluded?

 

[Revoltingest]

Didn't you read the OP?

What do you think?

Warning: only serious answers please. If you elude questions, please, don't reply. Thank you for your cooperation.

This is a seriously insignificant issue.
And your starting out with the "puritan" insult
means that you'll endure some disrespect.
Try playing nice. Skip the insults.
Try real conversation.

 

[Revoltingest]

What question was eluded?

It's a bash thread.
No real question.

 

[McBell]

It's a bash thread.
No real question.

I know all that, I was wondering what question it is she thinks you eluded.

I mean it has to be that you eluded a question because it appears to me that your reply was in seriousness.
Am I wrong about the seriousness of your reply?

 

[Revoltingest]

I know all that, I was wondering what question it is she thinks you eluded.

I mean it has to be that you eluded a question because it appears to me that your reply was in seriousness.
Am I wrong about the seriousness of your reply?

I was serious.
It's all a teenie nothingburger.

 

[Estro Felino]

This is a seriously insignificant issue.
And your starting out with the "puritan" insult
means that you'll endure some disrespect.

Puritan was the kindest word I could find....honestly.

I mean...what do you call a person who has sex with their own spouse but becomes hysterical when they find out that politicians have sex too?
Freud would have said there is a psychiatric issue involved.
Having sex while not tolerating that other human beings have sex too.

Try playing nice. Skip the insults.
Try real conversation.

The question was eluded: why didn't the Democratic Party publicly condemned what happened in the Senate Hearing Room?

 

[Revoltingest]

Puritan was the kinder and softer word I could find....honestly.

Doubling down on the insult, eh.
Try addressing issues without name-calling.

 

[Estro Felino]

I know all that, I was wondering what question it is she thinks you eluded.

This question was eluded: why didn't the Democratic Party publicly condemn what happened in the Senate Hearing Room?
Why didn't any dem voter?

I mean it has to be that you eluded a question because it appears to me that your reply was in seriousness.
Am I wrong about the seriousness of your reply?

I am very serious.
I am mentioning that psychiatric issues are involved, here.

 

[Estro Felino]

Doubling down on the insult, eh.
Try addressing issues without name-calling.

No, sir.
Prude is an insult.

 

[Stevicus]

It's obvious that what happened one year ago or something didn't cause any reaction in the electorate of the Democratic Party.

I mean, the Senate Hearing Room, one of the most sacred places of democracy, has been turned into a squalid porn movie set. Homosexual porn, to be precise.

U.S. Capitol Police decline charges against Cardin staffer who filmed Senate sex video

The U.S. Capitol Police said Thursday that they will not bring charges against a former congressional staffer who was filmed having sex in the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing room in December.

www.washingtontimes.com

But I didn't see any puritans from the Democratic Party denounce that scandal...
and the problem was not, I guess, that it dealt with an intern of a congressperson...and not with a congressperson.

The problem is that homosexual sex is considered "locker room, comradely fun between hunks" and not something scandalous.

Every time a congressperson or a politician has a heterosexual intercourse (vaginal intercourse), the feminists have an inhumane reaction (you know similar to the reaction many had when Trump was elected)...

I think there is a serious psychiatric issue here...in the mind of those who consider heterosexual sex something scandalous. Because...if the persons in that Senate Hearing Room had been a man and a woman having sex, I am totally sure that an army of angry feminists would have beaten up that man.

Explain me this difference in reactions.

Warning: only serious answers please. If you elude questions, please, don't reply. Thank you for your cooperation.

I think public reaction (and possible outrage) over such things might rest on whether the act was consensual or non-consensual.

 

[Revoltingest]

No, sir.
Prude is an insult.

So is stupid.
Should I replace my reference to "Italians" with "stupid Italians"?
Yeah....that would really enhance the discussion.

 

[Estro Felino]

I think public reaction (and possible outrage) over such things might rest on whether the act was consensual or non-consensual.

It's not true.
If the consensual act in the Senate Hearing Room had been between man and a woman (let's say senator and intern), I guess there would have been an inhumane reaction among the feminists.

Do you really think there would have been no reaction at all?

 

[Estro Felino]

So is stupid.
Should I replace my reference to "Italians" with "stupid Italians"?
Yeah....that would really enhance the discussion.

I asked a question about a real fact that took place in the Senate Hearing Room.

Are you okay with that fact?

 

[Revoltingest]

I asked a question about a real fact that took place in the Senate Hearing Room.

Are you okay with that fact?

You didn't just ask a question.
You embedded an insult.
The latter became the enduring issue.

 

[Stevicus]

It's not true.
If the consensual act in the Senate Hearing Room had been between man and a woman (let's say senator and intern), I guess there would have been an inhumane reaction among the feminists.

Do you really think there would have been no reaction at all?

There would have been a reaction, but probably not much different from the reaction we saw with this incident. As I recall, the staffers involved were fired, which would likely happen to a man and woman couple caught doing the same thing.

Compare this other story I found:

Brazen couple has sex romp in packed NYC park in full view of kids: ‘Society is so f—king gross’

“I want to see them be hit with sex offender charges for having sex in front of children,” one outraged viewer raged.

nypost.com

This case is different since it was in a public park where there were kids present.

Public sex is illegal in New York City, and is charged as “public lewdness.”

But my point is not about the legality, but about the public reaction, which seemed to be mixed:

Shocked viewers of the viral video railed against the couple’s conduct, with one writing: “I want to see those blanket people in NYC be hit with sex offender charges for having sex in front of children I am so serious. Our society is so f–king gross.”

“How did no one call the cops?” a second pundit asked.

“What happened to shame?” an additional viewer wondered.

Meanwhile, others took the opportunity to crack jokes over the public sexcapade, with one quipping: “I don’t remember this part of ‘Sunday in the Park With George.'”

Here's another older article which outlines similar events:

Sex in public: Churches, court rooms and a clock tower - strangest places lovers were caught romping

You'll never believe some of the places these overly amorous couples have beenpictured with their pants down

www.mirror.co.uk

One couple even got caught having sex on the Queen's lawn back in 2009. I don't get the impression that very many people were particularly outraged over these things, but maybe just slightly amused and perhaps even titillated by these somewhat humorous events. Most people are just giggling teenagers at heart when it comes to stories like this.

 

[Estro Felino]

You didn't just ask a question.
You embedded an insult.
The latter became the enduring issue.

The dictionary doesn't say it's an insult.

puritan

1. someone who believes that it is important to work hard and control yourself…

dictionary.cambridge.org

That is deflecting. Pleading the fifth.

 

[Revoltingest]

The dictionary doesn't say it's an insult.

Well then, that makes it OK.
It also doesn't say that "poopy" is an insult.
Your thread is poopy.