i'm not sure that being gay per se attracts the homosexual votes. i am not informed enough to comment on other countries, but where italy is concerned i suppose it's more about the kind of stance one has on gay rights. for example, there is this guy i used to work with who came of age politically in the radical party, very pro-rights, but is now the speaker for berlusconi's party. he's openly bisexual, but homosexual voters who identify with the gay rights movement don't give a toss about this, they shun him because he's in the conservative camp. i'd say that being gay attracts votes if you're in a left-wing party, it scares voters away if you're in a catholic party or in the populist right, and it's quite irrelevant if you are in berlusconi's ranks. but i may be wrong on that.
The new chat thread - now with bitter arguing
- Thread starter rahvin
- Start date
How about the bisexuals then?
I guess my perception comes from a more closeted environment (as i guess my country is). Off the top of my head i could name a politician (right-wing) who is exclusively homosexual and everyone knows this, but i don't recall him ever coming out and declaring it.
Of course i might be wrong in all this, but the scenario is that the crypto-gays (most of which really are bisexuals here, long story, we just call them gay, sorry for the confusion) are something like freemasons: they know each other and support each other, but not openly. So in this scenario they wouldn't be put off by the publicity stand since they supposedly know it's one and that it is necessary. I'm not sure parties have any relevance in this, since everyone in greece is gay anyway.
oh my - this time i'm seriously worried by the state of the media. i just read about the enthralling mr. berlusconi on a major paper.
La Rocque
I am that I am
A friend made an interesting comment on the recent Olympics
Now that the Olympics are over, the leaders in China can take off their masks of friendliness
and go back to being the political thugs they've always been.
Plus they'll throw the switches to get the pollution flowing again
and continue making products that are a danger to life and limb -
Now that the Olympics are over, the leaders in China can take off their masks of friendliness
and go back to being the political thugs they've always been.
Plus they'll throw the switches to get the pollution flowing again
and continue making products that are a danger to life and limb -
Puzzling article in the New York Times.
First, look at this ridiculous sentence: "Teenagers have sex. How often and how safely depends on how much knowledge and support they have." Oh rly? Knowledge = frequent sex? If I only knew when I was a teen.
The only sensible part of the article is the ending - if you don't want your teenage daughters to get pregnant, for heaven's sake tell them about safe sex. But the whole story about parents protesting for more sex education in schools: this is a serious shifting of the burden. My parents told me about human reproduction, condoms, other contraceptive methods etc when I was more or less 11 - well in time to ward off disasters if I had chosen to have sex at, say, 14. I guess that almost all parents have the ability to explain to their children what a condom is, barring cases of excessive cultural deprivation. Of course I am in favor of sexual education in schools, it's an important part of any science/biology curriculum. I seem to remember that sex ed classes where held when I was in middle school; a consultant from the local health department toured state schools to give 4 hours of facts on all relevant aspects to students aged 11-13. But this is not a substitute for parental guidance. The idea that teens fall pregnant because schools do not tell them not to is preposterous.
And then again, we're talking about the USA here, not a poor African country: besides having parents, people have the Internet. They should be able to look up "Condom" in Wikipedia (I just did and learnt a new fact: "Because condoms are waterproof, elastic, and durable, they are also used in a variety of secondary applications. These range from creating waterproof microphones to protecting rifle barrels from clogging." Who would have thought). The whole idea that a public scapegoat is needed for a high rate of teenage pregnancies is completely at odds with common sense.
First, look at this ridiculous sentence: "Teenagers have sex. How often and how safely depends on how much knowledge and support they have." Oh rly? Knowledge = frequent sex? If I only knew when I was a teen.
The only sensible part of the article is the ending - if you don't want your teenage daughters to get pregnant, for heaven's sake tell them about safe sex. But the whole story about parents protesting for more sex education in schools: this is a serious shifting of the burden. My parents told me about human reproduction, condoms, other contraceptive methods etc when I was more or less 11 - well in time to ward off disasters if I had chosen to have sex at, say, 14. I guess that almost all parents have the ability to explain to their children what a condom is, barring cases of excessive cultural deprivation. Of course I am in favor of sexual education in schools, it's an important part of any science/biology curriculum. I seem to remember that sex ed classes where held when I was in middle school; a consultant from the local health department toured state schools to give 4 hours of facts on all relevant aspects to students aged 11-13. But this is not a substitute for parental guidance. The idea that teens fall pregnant because schools do not tell them not to is preposterous.
And then again, we're talking about the USA here, not a poor African country: besides having parents, people have the Internet. They should be able to look up "Condom" in Wikipedia (I just did and learnt a new fact: "Because condoms are waterproof, elastic, and durable, they are also used in a variety of secondary applications. These range from creating waterproof microphones to protecting rifle barrels from clogging." Who would have thought). The whole idea that a public scapegoat is needed for a high rate of teenage pregnancies is completely at odds with common sense.
Teenagers, no matter the of the level of education and how affluent they are, will do stupid shit. Especially things they want to do. If you don't go out and tell them, say, they can get STDs from blowjobs, they'll assume you can't get one from "just" a blowjob (as you might guess, I've encountered this before).
I understand the constant arguments for personal responsibility coming from people who believe in the central role of the individual in American society, but when certain issues become a large problem in the state in general (re: U.S. teen pregnancy rate), the state is remiss in its duties if it does not take steps to address them.
It's also not just a function of educating children; misinforming them is another problem. Teen abstinence programs are the opposite of sex ed; they tell you the only effective way to prevent these problems is to not have sex, and informing teenagers how to have safe sex undermines abstinence programs because it teaches them to have sex without ruining their lives. So American teenagers are not just NOT taught how to have safe sex, but they're also in some cases encouraged by adults to be ignorant about it.
I understand the constant arguments for personal responsibility coming from people who believe in the central role of the individual in American society, but when certain issues become a large problem in the state in general (re: U.S. teen pregnancy rate), the state is remiss in its duties if it does not take steps to address them.
It's also not just a function of educating children; misinforming them is another problem. Teen abstinence programs are the opposite of sex ed; they tell you the only effective way to prevent these problems is to not have sex, and informing teenagers how to have safe sex undermines abstinence programs because it teaches them to have sex without ruining their lives. So American teenagers are not just NOT taught how to have safe sex, but they're also in some cases encouraged by adults to be ignorant about it.
Not all parents are knowledgeable enough to educate their children, so sex ed should exist. Of course it's still a dream in this country.
That said, i have encountered a person in his 20s who had never heard of AIDS and had absolutely no idea what it is. He came from some Eastern European country, i think either Georgia or Russia, and his education level was quite low (i suppose due to changing countries and family issues and so on). My point is, ignorant people do exist, and in no way should sex education be left in their hands.. Actually, they should be sex educated too.
That said, i have encountered a person in his 20s who had never heard of AIDS and had absolutely no idea what it is. He came from some Eastern European country, i think either Georgia or Russia, and his education level was quite low (i suppose due to changing countries and family issues and so on). My point is, ignorant people do exist, and in no way should sex education be left in their hands.. Actually, they should be sex educated too.
suwat666
Byah!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/7598549.stm
"Musical tastes and personality type are closely related, according to a study of more than 36,000 people from around the world."
"Musical tastes and personality type are closely related, according to a study of more than 36,000 people from around the world."
"Heavy metal aficionados were gentle and at ease with themselves"
"But they are quite delicate things"
"But they are quite delicate things"
stardrowned
The doctor is in...
Rock/Heavy Metal: "Low self-esteem, creative, not hard-working, not outgoing, gentle, at ease."
there's in another one in some other paper. i don't remember all the characteristics but it did mention that punk fans are aggressive. also, in that article low-self esteem for metalheads was replaced with high self-esteem.
DisplayofCharacter
Are You Scared Enough?
La Rocque
I am that I am
Asked about the use of METALLICA's music to torture Guantanamo Bay, Cuba prisoner James Hetfield replied "Part of me is proud is because they chose METALLICA," Hetfield said about the reports that the band's song "Enter Sandman" was used during the interrogation of Mohammed al-Qahtani known as the 20th hijacker on Sept. 11 and that listening to the track brought al-Qahtani to tears "because he thought he was hearing the sound of Satan." James added, "It's strong; it's music that's powerful. It represents something that they don't like maybe freedom, aggression
I don't know
freedom of speech. And then part of me is kind of bummed about it that people worry about us being attached to some political statement because of that. We've got nothing to do with this and we're trying to be as apolitical as possible, 'cause I think politics and music, at least for us, don't mix. It separates people, [and] we wanna bring people together. So, so be it. I can't say 'Stop.' I can't say 'Do it.' It is just a thing it's not good or bad."
I never cared for Metallica's tunes, now I dislike them personally, what a fuckn' jackass -
I never cared for Metallica's tunes, now I dislike them personally, what a fuckn' jackass -
Yeah, Ulrich personally asked if they could torture inmates with Enter Sandman, and Hammet wrote that riff with that in mind (as far as I remember it was Ulrich's idea to play the intro the way it is).
I say they better use Metallica than plain torture. Doesn't go with one's taste in music, - oh well, I get harassed with hip-hop every morning.
there's no information about fans of punk in that article. i guess we have no personality.
Sounds like my MSN personal message:
I have no personality, so I have no message
Similar threads
- Peter Day
- Saxon
