« Thank You North Carolina | monkeywrench's Blog | Hillary's Primary Do-Over Or I Win No Matter What »
I'm No Monica
From Ben Smith's Blog at Politico:
An Ohio-based group of Democratic Hillary Clinton supporters say they’ll work actively against Sen. Barack Obama if he becomes the nominee, arguing that Clinton has been the subject of “intense sexism” by party leaders and the media.
Sexism, what a joke! How about acknowledging that the biggest sexist of the Clinton campaign is the one closest to Hillary, her husband Bill Clinton. How soon those boomer woman forget that the President they voted for in 1992 and 1996 had oral sex with a young intern in the White House! (I don't see how they could with all that Bill Clinton campaign finger wagging.)
Have they twisted history so much to believe that Bill just couldn't control himself against the femme fatal ways of Monica Lewinsky? I'm no boomer prude. I even thought impeachment was an over the top Republican stunt to humiliate both Bill and Hillary but I also admit I felt just as disgusted and betrayed by both of them. They sat for a Sixty Minutes interview in 92 and declared and then asked us to believe that Bill's "problems" were in the past.
So to all the women supporters singing "I Am Woman" for Hillary listen up. I'm not going to stand by and have Bill Clinton shoved down MY throat . You want Hillary Clinton elected based on her merits then you make your candidate understand that for some of us her being elected to the Presidency doesn't include Bill Clinton.
If we can make a candidate's past relationships deal breakers in getting the votes, as in the case of the Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers for Barack Obama, then we or someone better stop making the Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinsky affair off limits. As far as I'm concerned Bill Clinton doesn't deserve eight minutes let alone eight years back in the White House. He f*cked over a lot more than just Monica with that fiasco. He stopped the start of bipartisan Social Security reform with Newt Gingrich and the Republicans right in it's tracks. To read more: Steven Gillon's, In Monica's Shadow. Hillary may have gotten it tough from the media on some issues and some pidley stuff like Bosnia but she's gotten a free ride on dredging up a lot of her past. A past most women seem to have fogged over.
Remember our current President's quote, "Fool me once, we won't get fooled again"
I'm not sorry because I want a brand new bold candidate for President and not some 1990's hash. Barack Obama made some political mistakes in Chicago and may have some old political ways about doing some things, so "they" say, but how much can they find in 25 plus or minus years of a man's personal and political life. Maybe a lot but it hasn't happened yet. Hillary Clinton's vetted is just code for "keep moving, nothing new here". Well maybe not new but some of us are still choking and have had it up to here with the old.
Remember Scrooge's partner Marley's life was vetted in Charles Dicken's A Christmas Carol but he still had to wear that heavy, long, clanking chain for all of eternity.
An Ohio-based group of Democratic Hillary Clinton supporters say they’ll work actively against Sen. Barack Obama if he becomes the nominee, arguing that Clinton has been the subject of “intense sexism” by party leaders and the media.
Sexism, what a joke! How about acknowledging that the biggest sexist of the Clinton campaign is the one closest to Hillary, her husband Bill Clinton. How soon those boomer woman forget that the President they voted for in 1992 and 1996 had oral sex with a young intern in the White House! (I don't see how they could with all that Bill Clinton campaign finger wagging.)
Have they twisted history so much to believe that Bill just couldn't control himself against the femme fatal ways of Monica Lewinsky? I'm no boomer prude. I even thought impeachment was an over the top Republican stunt to humiliate both Bill and Hillary but I also admit I felt just as disgusted and betrayed by both of them. They sat for a Sixty Minutes interview in 92 and declared and then asked us to believe that Bill's "problems" were in the past.
So to all the women supporters singing "I Am Woman" for Hillary listen up. I'm not going to stand by and have Bill Clinton shoved down MY throat . You want Hillary Clinton elected based on her merits then you make your candidate understand that for some of us her being elected to the Presidency doesn't include Bill Clinton.
If we can make a candidate's past relationships deal breakers in getting the votes, as in the case of the Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers for Barack Obama, then we or someone better stop making the Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinsky affair off limits. As far as I'm concerned Bill Clinton doesn't deserve eight minutes let alone eight years back in the White House. He f*cked over a lot more than just Monica with that fiasco. He stopped the start of bipartisan Social Security reform with Newt Gingrich and the Republicans right in it's tracks. To read more: Steven Gillon's, In Monica's Shadow. Hillary may have gotten it tough from the media on some issues and some pidley stuff like Bosnia but she's gotten a free ride on dredging up a lot of her past. A past most women seem to have fogged over.
Remember our current President's quote, "Fool me once, we won't get fooled again"
I'm not sorry because I want a brand new bold candidate for President and not some 1990's hash. Barack Obama made some political mistakes in Chicago and may have some old political ways about doing some things, so "they" say, but how much can they find in 25 plus or minus years of a man's personal and political life. Maybe a lot but it hasn't happened yet. Hillary Clinton's vetted is just code for "keep moving, nothing new here". Well maybe not new but some of us are still choking and have had it up to here with the old.
Remember Scrooge's partner Marley's life was vetted in Charles Dicken's A Christmas Carol but he still had to wear that heavy, long, clanking chain for all of eternity.
Advertisement
Damn skippy. Thanks Kathy.
May 15, 2008 8:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
No it's thank you coming from you fabooj. Love your site and the tips on what you read, like Jack and Jill and Booman Tribune. Josh does a great thing having the reader blogs but a lot of us still don't have a clue to how it's done. Keep teaching us and recommending the good stuff.
May 17, 2008 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I couldn't agree more; how any self-respecting feminist can look the other way while that sex addict walks free is beyond me.
May 15, 2008 9:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you have a problem with sex? Monica had oral sex with Bill Clinton 10 times over 5 months, or roughly twice a month.
Did you know that if you think sex twice a month is too much, you might be frigid? Did you know you can seek help for this condition? That's right, it's not as hopeless as once thought. If you leave your address, we can send a pamphlet explaining how.
May 16, 2008 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
yes, its comments from the obamakins like this that make us clinton supporters want to projectile hurl
you sanctimonious prig, you can dance your morality around with nobody to spend 40 million dollars to discover this overt, showy act of sex
you new politics folks may learn someday, but its gutter, lee atwater, karl rove tripe like this that makes me want to sit the campaign out
you people are riding your high horses, well that is nice, but anybody can pose as some paragon of rectitude on the internet and still be a crone and a creep.
May 15, 2008 9:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Downshift your bike a bit blackflag.
If you recall your history it was Bill Clinton's own signing of the Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act of 1994 and his own Attorney General Janet Reno's ongoing allowance of Ken Starr's investigation that let the whole country in on, at taxpayers expense, Bill Clinton's 40 million dollars worth of side office suck off.
Maybe I want the bending over to be done by Bill and Hillary this time around instead of the taxpayers.
Thanks for the compliment.
Paragon (a model of excellence or perfection) of Rectitude (n.), the formal, dignified demeanor assumed by a proctologist immediately before he examines you.
by the way that's a joke from Paragon Language Services http://www.paragonls.com/en/lighter.htm
May 16, 2008 12:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I hate to defend Hillary, but I don't think her gender, her husband, or her personal life should have any bearing on whether she's elected.
However, running the dumbest, most divisive, most incompetent campaign in modern history should be sufficient cause to send her packing.
May 15, 2008 10:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're right timba. None of those things should matter because it all goes back to the sexism issue, or ageism, or racism or whatever "ism" you want to tack on. I was born in NY and I never thought I would see Hillary as a NY Senator but I think she's done a great job for the state.I think the reason for that is she's been her own woman in the Senate.
"However, running the dumbest, most divisive, most incompetent campaign in modern history should be sufficient cause to send her packing".
Some of those divisive tactics just remind me of the "Clintonian" way of doing things. Secretive, financially questionable and slimy enough just to the edge without going over. That's how things get done when the two of them work together.
Run a great campaign on the issues, connect with the people and send Bill packing to Timbuktu and I could vote.
May 16, 2008 12:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary is the most sexist person involved with this cmpaign. She is the one saying people should vote based on gender. People who vote for her because of her gender are just as sexist as those who vote against her for the same reason.
May 16, 2008 12:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
And those 90%+ blocks of black voters choosing Obama are just choosing the best candidate, no focus on race whatsoever.
I may have been born at night, but it wasn't last night.
May 16, 2008 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was completely fascinated with this comment at first because I misread it as:
All this sex talk must have interfered with my vision.
Anyway, it's not sexist to identify your own gender. Hillary is not telling people to vote based on gender. Hillary is not the most sexist person in the whole campaign blah blah blah. I can't believe I have to dispute these things.
Since you don't know what sexism is, look it up in Wiki, for crap's sake. You obviously have a computer. Don't be so lazy.
May 16, 2008 10:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kathy, I agree with you on the sexism thing r/e Bill Clinton and his use of women.
The one exception I take with you is your criticism of Bill for stopping republican intervention of social security.
Republicans + touching our social security = bad ideas for us and fun money for investment firms.
I will never trust a republican near our Social Security.
But on everything else, I agree with you totally.
May 16, 2008 12:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree to that as well LauraRoslin. Throw in the thought of it being done with Newt Gingrich and it kind of sends a chill........
May 16, 2008 12:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
I like your style. And actually, although I've been perplexed at the free pass they've gotten from the MSM on all the past sludge - your deft wordplay really drove home exactly how free this ride has been.
To those who dismiss this as moral superiority - my answer is that for me it has little to do w/ my judgment of them and more to do w/ Clinton fatigue. We can't spend anymore precious Democratic time in their defense - whether the 'stuff' is new or recycled. The blood, sweat and tears I shed last go round are it - no more.
I'm also a NY'er - and I live in Harlem - not far from Bill's office. There's a lot floating around the neighborhood social establishments up here about certain things. My point about the rumors is not necessarily as to belief, but that when I hear them it evokes the same thorough exhaustion I had at the end of all the trials & tribs of his admin. Anyone who believes that he's behaved the last several years...well anyone can finish the thought.
And like you, I cast my vote for her as Senator - but Obama got me for the primary w/ his sheer excellence and b/c of my disillusionment w/ her. Since I live in Rangel's district that made me a rarity. She is unlikely to get another vote from me for Senate as a result of this campaign.
Thanks for your spirited post and comment replies!
May 16, 2008 1:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks courgood for the back-up.
"To those who dismiss this as moral superiority - my answer is that for me it has little to do w/ my judgment of them and more to do w/ Clinton fatigue."
When I see Bill and Hillary on the stump I just have to roll my eyes and say, "Here we go again". For some, this campaign - sixteen years later - is deja vu, for others it's Hillary getting her due.
The original post was really in response to the group of women (who then appeared, with all their demands, on Bill O'Reilly's show) who got their panties in a bunch because Obama is being glorified and their candidate just isn't that well liked, to put it nicely.
Using Bill Clinton as an example to rebut their foolish point regarding sexism may have been too much of a hot button choice as some of the comments indicate. When you mix fact with personal opinion that's when the train goes off the rails I guess.
May 16, 2008 10:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Although I acknowledge my bias, in this instance it doesn't negate my common sense - so I do not see your concerns as off-the-rails. What I find Twilight Zone-y is how there seems to be a gag-order re speaking of any of that history. To that, I say a resounding bullshit!
Clinton put it on the table when declaring herself 'fully vetted' vs. Obama's unknown. IF THEY COULD JUST BE REAL ABOUT ANYTHING! As if - the old stuff won't return or new stuff won't surface. Her campaign decided to use this 'Talking Point' which like all else was beyond hypocritical. This is what raises my ire. If, like the War Vote - they could have long ago acknowledged stuff and moved on - rather than projecting their weaknesses onto others - I'd have retained so much more respect.
Do not feel your post was outside any boundary - it's just that subtle censorship thing I'm beginning to notice w/ respect to a certain part of the 90s that makes me apoplectic.
Keep writing fire! Fire it off and don't look back.
May 16, 2008 8:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
but I also admit I felt just as disgusted and betrayed by both of them
You would have made a good Free Republic poster back in the day. And they were disgusting. So maybe we've got some common ground after all. You're disgusted by the Clintons and I'm disgusted by you posting same.
May 16, 2008 2:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Indiex, so your point is if I'm afflicted with just a twinge of morality in regards to what goes on in the Oval Office of the White House, I'm a Freeper.
Bill's Summer Of Love Tour needed to stop after he left college when he set off on a career track that led straight to the White House. I've carried the water too long for a lot of liberal causes to have them hijacked by Republicans, a bunch of pseudo feminists, or boomers older than me still stuck in the "Go ahead and do it if no one gets hurt" sixties.
May 16, 2008 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
My point is, Gallup...
McCain (R) 47%, Obama (D) 45%
Clinton (D) 48% McCain (R) 45%
Read 'em and weep, Kathy.
May 16, 2008 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did you know that in the Summer of Love, people often had sex more than twice a month? Odd but true. The funny part is that people who talk about the Summer of Love a lot are often people who didn't participate. The sad part is they might have gotten over some of their sexual hangups, even though reponsibilities that go along with sex were sometimes ignored at that time. But then again, I'm sure Obama's grandparents weren't too thrilled at their daughter getting knocked up at 17, and that was a long time before Jefferson Airplane.
May 16, 2008 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's play a game everyone: how many straw men can you spot in Desidero's comment?
May 16, 2008 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
All of the straws make up one big Scarecrow - and we know what he needs.
May 16, 2008 8:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
A bigger Boogieman than 10 blowjobs?
Okay, let's play kiss-and-tell. How many times did Bill have extramarital sex (we'll even count bjs) in the last 30 years. I think Gennifer Flowers was once or twice about 30 years ago, and Monica was 13 years ago.
So that's 12 times with 2 women in 30 years. Anyone else?
While you're counting, you can tell us how many times Barack Obama has had extramarital sex in the last 18 years or so.
May 16, 2008 10:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Any feminists worth their salt ought to be disgusted with the Clintons for raising hundreds of thousands of dollars in Guam from sweathshop operators and enablers back in 1995 for Bill's re-election campaign. They ought to be incredibly angered that the infamous Tan family of the Jack Abramoff/Marianas Islands sweatshop/forced prostitution/abortions scandal has given more money to Hillary Clinton in the 2000s than any candidate for high office other than George Bush.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/4/27/33526/9800
Most of those indentured servants who were conned into going to the Marianas to be trapped making a pittance, in horrible living conditions, working 60 hour weeks, sewing "Made in America" labels
into Liz Claiborne clothing with no way off the island were women.
Just try posting this info at Taylor Marsh's site or TalkLeft. They don't want to hear it. Hillary may be their champion but for women around the world? She's already shown she'll sell them out for blood money.
May 16, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent comment and on point, markg8. Have you noticed that the Clintons have had their finger in the pie of every country that has come up in the campaign. Columbia, China, Khazackstan and I don't remember where else. They'll take their money from anywhere and anyone.
May 17, 2008 3:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great Blog! I too recall the disgust of that era! I never really liked the guy. Always thought the Slick Willy moniker was right on target.
Time to move on.
May 16, 2008 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
The mental health profession sounds like a perfect career for you.
May 16, 2008 10:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dear Monkeywrench, Monica was 22 1/3 years old and a full-time employee when she had oral sex with Bill Clinton. You've had ten years to get basic facts down, and you still can't do it. Convicted - too stupid to blog, and intent on repeating right wing chatter to beat up on your opponents. Go moralize elsewhere, you're worthless. And buy a book on human sexuality while you're at it - having sex is normal and it's rather unusual for any couple to make it from marriage to death without any infidelity.
May 16, 2008 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Move beyond desire.
May 16, 2008 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Listen up Desilu and I'mreadytoblowyourgasket:
"Go moralize elsewhere, you're worthless. And buy a book on human sexuality while you're at it - having sex is normal and it's rather unusual for any couple to make it from marriage to death without any infidelity."
"Here's my question: Is it sexist to receive a blow job? Is that the problem?"
This isn't about sex and morality. It's about what constitutes being a grownup and responsibility.
If Bill Clinton wants to whip his dick out with a young intern (and I consider 22 young) then let him do it on his own time and his own dime. He opened up his little office in Harlem and I don't care if he held open ho night every weekend at the Apollo.
I don't get hired as an Administrative Assistant, fuck the CEO in the men's room and don't expect to get fired if it's found out. So grow up, because there are rules in the real world where the big boys and girls play.
Don't think that your anarchist attitude cuts it with me.
I got married at 19 and stayed married to the same great guy for over thirty years. Getting it on he side didn't cost anyone a penny and wasn't splashed all over the place to the humiliation of friends, family, co-workers...you get my drift. Funny how I kind of think that it's more fun that way.
That's not my point. It's about these foolish women defending Hillary against sexism and turning over their vote to John McCain. Hillary doesn't need them coming to her defense. By now she she's grown a shiney set of her own brass balls just by being married to Bill Clinton.
sexist: behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex
The sexist part isn't the blow job unless that's all you want to focus on. It's that his demeaning behavior towards Hillary and what she was expected to put up with in her role as wife and political partner.
Thanks to some of you for proving my little thesis that you can't see the forest for the trees when it comes to the Clinton's White House years and I think that's just the way they like it.
May 17, 2008 3:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
You still have to throw in the lie that she was an "intern". She was a full-time employee at that point. To use a crude phrase "free, white and 22". You may think that's young, but it's not your business, it's her body, she was over 4 years past the age of consent.
The relationship would not have been splashed all over the place had it not been for the viciousness of Ken Starr and other conservatives. Bill Clinton was reasonably discrete, if you consider this was secret for a year and a half before Linda Tripp did her recording and Starr had her testify. Did Hillary know? Her business. Men and women deal with sexual intrigue in their marriages in different ways, and it's only one aspect of the great institution of marriage, and only one reason for a couple to stick together. If you support marriage for gays, you better lower your hypocrisy and self-righteousness a tad, because there will be a significantly higher rate of infidelity amongst gays in marriage than heteros. But then again, the French didn't seem to mind a President who had a second family, nor a First Lady who was every bit as strong and controlling as her husband.
May 17, 2008 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
"ho night" at the Apollo.
Wow! Racist too!
May 17, 2008 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
You all just don't get it. Let me be clear for the last time then this thread should close (doesn't have to be on my last word).
It's not about the sexual act. I don't care if Monica was 22 or a horny granny. I don't care if it was between Bill and Bob or Bill and Jill. I don't care if it was under the desk or on the front lawn. I don't even care if it was two consenting adults or she tied him up. The thought, the idea, the flirt started somewhere and then responsibility and accountability were thrown right out the window.
After he was caught all we heard is waaa, waaa, waaa. It's only our business, if only Ken Starr wasn't allowed to go on a witch hunt from two investigations ago, the French do it and so does every species on the planet. How many excuses do you want to give him Desi. Maybe I am being self-righteous. I've read enough history to know that it taints your legacy. People look differently at what JFK accomplished. Should they? Not for me to change the moral compass. I don't role over and play dead either to the mores of the world. I just make strategic choices. You know like save that hill for another day or pick your battles. Bill didn't. He went full frontal up against Starr, Congress and everyone else who thought his private Oval Office whoring wasn't appropriate.
That's it Bill's the whore. What a twist, makes for a great campaign slogan like "Bringing Dignity and Ethics Back To The White House" for Repubs.
The White House - Presidential Whore Free Zone.
The Oval Office - No Man-Hos Allowed
On a non-personal note, did you know your avatar can give someone epileptic fits? You put up a good debate. Try leaving out some of the nasty.
blowngasket: Urban Dictionary http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ho
ho
Prostitute, Whore, Hooker, Tramp, Slut
Doesn't say what color or flavor they come in.
And quit trying to be Desi's wing man you're out ranked.
You two have been much fun!!! chow
May 17, 2008 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was the cover up stupid. That is always the worst way to handle a crisis. He lied under Oath, just like Scooter Libby.
Bill Clinton is not bigger than the law. We can not have one set of laws that we enforce just against Republicans, and allow Bill Clinton to break the same Laws with impunity.
May 16, 2008 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lying under oath is not illegal if they have no good reason for asking the question. We have a Constitution to protect us from intrusion. The questions in Clinton's case had already been ruled immaterial. Several times.
May 16, 2008 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL!!!!!
O really? I can't wait to see that raised as a defense to perjury.
That's a good one - there was no good reason to ask the question so my perjury doesn't count: King's X!!!!!!!!
May 16, 2008 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tena -
I've read elsewhere on this blog that you're an attorney - I am also - an ex-prosecutor - and I would have loved for Desidero to walk in w/ that defense. They asked 'bad' questions - so it was OK for me to lie.
Shhh - keep it a secret - hopefully Desi will try this at some point.
HAAA! Your posts and comments always make me pay attention. A little lawyer-love - since no one else does. :)
C
May 16, 2008 8:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
My God, your poor clients. How much other bad advice did you give them in your careers?
18 U.S.C. § 1621 defines perjury this way:
Whoever having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath
to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true ... is guilty of perjury and shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by law, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. (Emphasis added.)
Go ahead, Google "Clinton perjury immaterial". There are numerous articles saying the same thing, including Clinton's lawyers. That Clinton gave up his Arkansas law license for 5 years says nothing - he wasn't going back to Arkansas to practice, so why should he care - better to get a 20-year witch hunt behind him. Same for his $100K fine - that's a half a speech.
Here's a good snippet from David Mills, a licensed attorney in Texas and Tennessee: Furthermore, what can be asked in a deposition is often far broader than what can be asked during trial. Any question “ which could lead to admissible evidence” can be asked during a deposition. Many a lawyer has sat through a several hour deposition of a witness, only to have the witness testify for 15 minutes at the trial. Much of what is asked during a deposition is irrelevant and immaterial. Thus, in my view, it is likely that had Clinton’s sexual harassment case gone to trial, the jury would have never have heard anything about Monica Lewinsky because the entire matter would have been inadmissible. Therefore, the lie could not have been material.
May 16, 2008 10:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
If he lied under oath he would have been convicted. Was he? No.
May 16, 2008 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ahhhh- Dude - he was suspended from the Bar for that - so dial it back.
You're on thin ice.
May 16, 2008 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
He did not have to lie under Oath. Apparently many of his defenders never heard of The Fifth Amendment.
May 16, 2008 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
And I'm supposed to be the chimp here.
It was a DEPOSITION IN A CIVIL SUIT. It was not connected to a criminal action. You can't say, "I don't want to tell you the truth so I'll give you the 5th instead".
The whole point of the Paula Jones questioning was to get as much embarrassing info about Clinton's sex life into the newspapers. It worked beautifully - 10 years later, foolish Democrats are wrapped around each other beating up on their own politicians while the Republicans are off drinking Tanqueray. Congrats. With this level of stupidity we should regain political control in the year 2060.
May 16, 2008 10:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Desi, you're the smartest person on the planet.
But they're never going to understand the legal part. What's more, they don't want to.
Let's change the subject back to sex in the White House. That's the sticking point, so to speak.
May 16, 2008 11:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's my question: Is it sexist to receive a blow job? Is that the problem?
May 16, 2008 10:39 PM | Reply | Permalink