Standard? When I worked the crowds there was no standard push. It was order them to leave or arrest them. There was no pushing, macing, or tazering. Just a good snatch and grab.

Just calmly walk up with a smile and hold your hand out, they will instinctively hold their hand out. Cuff them read them their rights and take them to a place where they an cool off.

Generally done with the baton at mid chest height? That's lethal force, targeting the heart. It is done when it needs to be, with the round edge of the baton(just like the officer did), never the point.

Simply should have just arrested her, do not mace. Just arrest, simple and easy.

>> ^McFarQue:
Protesters piss me off.
More so the confrontational ones that just have to be at the front of the line.
Also, that wasn't a head shot, it was a standard forward push used to force a crowd backwards. Generally however, it's done with the end of the baton at mid chest height. That was a little high, but still not in the head.
Oh and look, theres a megaphone on the ground beside her. Makes you wonder how long she'd been there playing the goody goody two shoes facade.



To erimus:

All the more reason to try and be a good cup, not a storm trooper. Why is that a stereotype? Because they never show when a cop is punished, they only show that he got his gun taken away and he is on a desk job. Or administrative leave.

Simple solution if you are a cop and in a situation like this do not act like an ass or a bad mamajama. Just smile and arrest them for disobeying an officer of the law. Simple and clean.

The less authority looks like gestapo the better.

Protesters piss me off.
More so the confrontational ones that just have to be at the front of the line.

Also, that wasn't a head shot, it was a standard forward push used to force a crowd backwards. Generally however, it's done with the end of the baton at mid chest height. That was a little high, but still not in the head.

Oh and look, theres a megaphone on the ground beside her. Makes you wonder how long she'd been there playing the goody goody two shoes facade.

ok, i wasn't going to say anything, but dotdude insisted.

so, zif, i hate to tear the facade away, but we know perfectly well why you're obsessed with red dragons.

how are grandma's dentures fitting, these days?

I don't believe our sexual orientation dictates our likeness towards forms, there are many male forms that males find appealing as well, in the creation of role models of physique especially.

I would disagree on pulling in classical art into this, what you are talking about is the classical view of the perfected man. The best example is Michelangelo's own statue of David. If you look at that piece you will find that it's entirely manipulated to create an appealing form. The head, arms and hands are enlarged, the physique is manipulated as well as the genitalia itself, the entire body follows golden ratio principles. It's basically a facade of reality.

Furthermore my response was mostly to do with adressing Pinky's question of why we don't see men exploited in this way. We do in the chip n' dale dancers but you will find their standards of form are more restrictive then say female strip clubs. Because as I said the base male form is not as appealing as the female form.

>> ^dag:
Farhad - sorry, but I disagree. Your and my sexual attraction to the female shape informs our conception of beauty. Michelangelo would also heartily disagree with you on the male form.
>> ^Farhad2000:
The reason we don't have men with sliver ding dongs attached to their penises dancing around is because the male body is ugly.
The female body on the other hand looks like it was designed by Italians, all curves and smooth lines. While the male body looks like it was stamp pressed in some oppressive Eastern European nation trying desperately to join the EU.

>> ^thepinky:
You've got a good point there, but I still think that any type of porn is ojectification. (I'm going to talk about men and porn designed to please men, although I know it goes both ways.) Women have to work harder and harder these days to please their partners because men jack off to porn so much that sex is becoming less and less an act of love and intimacy. When discussing porn, I have had two of my guyfriends tell me that porn made them look at women differently. The more porn they watched, the less they cared about the minds and opinions of the women they were interested in and the more they cared about their bodies and how good they were in bed. I've seen porn tear marriages apart because it can be seen as a type of infidelity. A girlfriend of mine told me that her husband "had sex" more often and "made love" less often the more addicted he got to porn. But many men argue that porn ISN'T infidelity because women in porn mean nothing to them emotionally. In other words, they are just OBJECTS. Thus, objectification. Yes, the women are exploiting something they shouldn't be exploiting.
To say "enjoy your bodies while you can" is a hedonistic principle, in my opinion. We ought to be very careful with our bodies lest we allow our appetites to get out of hand and we do something immoral (molestation, rape, infidelity, etc.). I know you agree with that. We're really just arguing about the degree to which we control our bodies.
I'm neither sexually repressed nor frustrated. I'm extremely happy with my sex life.


If you think this is porn, I think you really have issues.

The reason we don't have men with sliver ding dongs attached to their penises dancing around is because the male body is ugly.

The female body on the other hand looks like it was designed by Italians, all curves and smooth lines. While the male body looks like it was stamp pressed in some oppressive Eastern European nation trying desperately to join the EU. Both men and women enjoy seeing female form more then the male form, because the female form represents beauty in the arts, and in very essence it is beautiful.

A celebration of that form is not pornographic.

Burlesque is about fantasy, its art, its about the exploration of carnal desires not their fulfillment. Pornography on the other hand is not, its literally about the physical act of sex, its the act more then the fantasy itself.

This feeds into the way carnal desires work on a psychological level.

We enjoy watching erotic films, romantic novels, romantic movies or stuff like this because there is a framework of fantasy at work, we create an emotional resonance that leads into the sexual act. Most of the people in that audience watch a show like this and go home and fuck like rabbits. Because it feeds that fantasy, we look at our partner and want to do all kinds of kinky things to them.

That's why Victoria Secret sales are so strong.

People get bored of making 'love' and intimacy, because it doesn't work like Disney in the real world. You need to create spice in your sex life, love and intimacy is about the first year or so of being in love, after that you need to work to have a good sex life, sexual fulfillment is just as much a issue of a relationship as communication.

Psychologically when we are with our partners we often have a very different view of them then the reality of them, in essence we desire them for a fantasy perspective we possess of them linked to created concept we have based on time spent together, desire, interests and that unquantifiable aspect of love. Psychologists assume this is necessary for monotony and the actual act of sex.

Others enjoy pornography because its the fulfillment of that fantasy being fast forward devoid of emotion to the act of sex itself. However without a level of fantasy the act of sex degrades to one of physical perversion. How many times have you seen porn or been fucking and had a Epiphany of oh my god this looks horrid. Because it does. Its a very animalistic base act of fulfillment. We dress it up alot with all kinds of concepts but at the end of the day it's as raw as watching two dogs humping. This is why porn has to create some basic level of fantasy, even if its crude and stupid, the girl next door, the frisky teacher, the plumber and so on and so forth. You will find that the best porn actually is more erotica then porn.

With regards to your idea that porn tears apart marriages.

Its a ridiculous concept. I personally believe in our modern, fast paced, everything at your finger tips, your needs met by company X world both men and women have unrealistic expectations of their partners.

Women desire heroic characters with a soft inner shell that can make chicken soup for you. Men desire a slave worker cook whose a harlot in the bedroom.

Pornography is not infidelity, its the release of sexual desire that is persistent in the man nature, by nature we are built to fuck as many things as possible to seed our DNA code. That's nature and God designed. I seen alot of couples deal with this in the long term by fantasizing or spicing up their sex lives, they love one another but that initial spark and heat is gone, something they need to work at to get back. Going to burlesque shows or strip clubs together or watching soft core or filming themselves or dressing up or kinky things and eventually exploring their own sexuality. There is reason swingers clubs and the such exist, because people sometimes love to be together but seek to explore themselves sexually or other people with their partners.

At the same time I have seen many people being paralyzed by sex, being utterly frighted of it, because of some silly indoctrination they received when they were younger. Unable to satisfy themselves and eventually their partners because they were essentially sexually suppressed.

I could go on and on but I really think your concepts of what is porn and sexuality is based around misjudged postulations of a religious framework. We lived in several cycles of religious control of sexuality all of them showed it is a facade that tried to suppress what is essentially our nature. While sex and or booze isn't so much an issue now, its more about homosexuality which is basically love.

Remember Alfred Kinsey's research and work changed the way we looked at sexuality in the 1930s enabling the 60s sexual revolution, which was connected with free love, female empowerment, and the coming of the pill.

In 1935, Kinsey delivered a lecture to a faculty discussion group at Indiana University, his first public discussion of the topic, wherein he attacked the "widespread ignorance of sexual structure and physiology" and promoted his view that "delayed marriage" (that is, delayed sexual experience) was psychologically harmful.

Why Times Square has no soul anymore. Empty offices, it's a facade through and through now.

If you read the first sentence of my post, you realize it's "just for the sake of argument", i.e. i'm being facetious.

If the coffee tastes awful anybody drinking it should say so, regardless of who made it. And yes, that new dress does make you look fat.

And by the way, as a housewife, she's voluntarily entered into a symbiotic relationship in which the woman cooks/cleans and the man makes money 9 to 5. If there are kids around her job is harder, but otherwise her job is probably easier. If we assume they're empty nesters, it's the least she could do to make coffee that doesn't make you want to spit it out.

And while we're on the subject of sexism, modern makeup and clothes advertizements geared toward selling a phony frivolous facade are just as bad. Smart women know they don't have to smear poisonous chemicals all over their face to get people to like them.

The bullshit facade is starting to get old. Colbert is more interesting when he slips out of character.

His Christianity is all a facade. If he's elected president the first thing he's going to do is slap a towel on his head and scream BOOGABOOGABOOOGA while making a horrible face at everyone.

He is dead wrong about thinking an atheist could be elected president of the US, unless he didn't mean right now. I hope that day might come in my lifetime, but I doubt it.

I'm not too sure, I know Hillary has expressed her faith publicly, but I suspect she doesnt really hold any religious views. Infact, I think McCains Christianity is pretty much a facade as well. I kinda hope the same is true for Obama (that he is really a non-believer) but he seems to be the most honest of the three (on any subject) So when he says he believes, I tend to believe him.

What is certain is that if any candidate SAYS they are non-believers they are out of the race, pretty much..

The good news in any case is than none of the 3 (or 2) possible candidates at this point can be considered die-hard believers IMO.

^Yea, I don't like when kids try to talk and act like real people. They're not. They're social embryos mimicking how to make shitty small talk and a facial facade. I prefer the candid rigmarole of a socially unconscious child.

I joined for the top 15 and the funny comments. I stayed for the impressive coverage of obscure topics (not to mention every meme known to the net.)

...oh, who am I kidding, I can't keep up the facade any more. I signed up the same way everyone else did: by responding to a work at home classified ad for DLJ & Co. VideoSift is all an elaborate undertaking to boost your self-confidence, kronosposeidon. After a while it became apparent that voting for your videos wasn't doing the trick, so we added comment voting to give recognition to your, um, witticisms. I apologize to everyone for being the one to let the news slip. If you're all up for it I propose that we continue this grand experiment and never speak of this incident.

Maybe because a lot of religious people have secret doubts. Like Mother Teresa, who wrote in her diary things contrary to her public facade.

The rhetorical facade of these sorts of things always bugs me: the interviewer here is addressing the stereotypical jockish everyman when it's clear her audience is actually the same Geeks she's talking up. This is not a PSA designed to help anyone, its a verbal handjob that perpetuates the same geek vs. Jock stereotypes that haven't been insightful since Revenge of the Nerds.

does voting for this convey that you are secure? Or is it kind of like a facade of security to cover up the insecurity you have about your insecurities?

Neh, just not a fan of ice-skating. I thought it was balls that made me that way, you know the same reason why I'm somehow drawn to the Home Depot and comedy involving chimps or the 3 stooges.