Melania Trump would be the only First Lady to pose in the NUDE and talk about her ('incredible') sex

[hexola]

So much for the party of "Family Values"!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3201088/Melania-Trump-Lady-pose-NUDE-talk-incredible-sex-life-Donald-Howard-Stern-rival-Jackie-Kennedy-elegance-style-quiet-strength.html

Melania would be the only known first lady who once posed nude - for the British edition of GQ, on a bearskin rug on Trump's private jet before they were married in 2000,

She told Howard Stern that same year, 'We have incredible sex at least once a day. Sometimes even more.'

Trump bragged about Melania's hotness in a 'very small thong.'

[madaboutharry]

1. Ugh is all that's left to say.

[840high]

2. I don't care.

[hexola]

5. Its the hypocrisy of the Conservatives...

Not sure I care - but it's not great politics for a party that has championed "family values" or called themselves the "moral majority"

Are you considering voting for Trump?

[StevieM]

6. To Republicans, family values are defined by their hatred of liberals.

For example, if Josh Duggar sins...well, it wasn't really his fault. He was seduced by the liberal culture and liberal values.

If Donald Trump once supported a single payer health care system...it doesn't matter, because he does a great job of bashing the liberal enemy within, and assuring conservatives that they are the real Americans. So everything else will ultimately fall into place.

[foxface666]

20. trump

is not a social conservative.

[Bluenorthwest]

22. Of course he is, so is his Party. Racist, homophobic anti choice.

It's their stock in trade and has been for decades.

[foxface666]

46. no

he was pro choice for most of his life. I don't why you are conflating social conservatism with racism.

[foxface666]

47. no

he was pro choice for most of his life. I don't why you are conflating social conservatism with racism.

[Fred Sanders]

77. Folks not caring about hypocrisy is fundamental to the GOP's very existence...most folks do care.

[840high]

87. If Melanie runs for president - then

I'll care.

[SMC22307]

3. Ugh. The thought of Trump having sex...

makes me shudder.

Quick! Cute kittens! Puppies! Poldark!

[smirkymonkey]

17. That was my first reaction.

Kind of like how you just don't want to imagine your parents having sex. Ewww. Get out the brain bleach.

[Logical]

33. FFS, you think all the DU members are attractive? So only attractive people can have sex? nt

[SMC22307]

64. FFS, backatcha. Why are you assuming I'm basing my opinion solely on his looks?

The man disgusts me, inside and out. Feel better now?

[Fred Sanders]

78. Trump's permanent "I'll do you a half and half for a buck" mouth and persona is his main appeal to GOP voters.

The main appeal of 70 year old Trump for all his current immigrant and ex-immigrant wives is just as apparent.

[JI7]

4. big dog ?

[silverweb]

7. The cons will make excuses for her.

[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]They always do for their own.

But if she were a Democrats wife, we know exactly what would be all over the media!

Such hypocrites make me

[NBachers]

8. Now if Michelle Obama had posed like that on a fur rug . . .

they'd still be gigaventilating in outrage.

[Syzygy321]

57. Repubs would certainly do that.

And here are a lot of DU'ers doing that.

The hypocrisy is, these DU'ers are doing that while pretending *their* hyperventilation is of a pure and liberal kind.

Nothing at all like when Republicans do it!

[Efilroft Sul]

61. If Melania wanted to pose nude, it's her body, her choice.

I can almost hear some people breathing quickly into paper bags right now.

[Freddie]

59. They're still outraged about her sleeveless dresses

Bare arms are so unseemly, y'know.

[ecstatic]

82. Of course! Nt

[hexola]

9. It's the hypocrisy, stupids!

[GummyBearz]

63. If only she had sex with bill clinton

We could all come together and say it doesn't matter. Then no one would be a hypocrite. I suppose it isn't too late for that to happen... I'm sure bill wouldn't mind

[FreakinDJ]

10. I'm sure the Religious Right will support that

[ellisonz]

11. This post is useless without pictures.

[Elwood P Dowd]

12. Try this.

8 years old, but they think its her.

http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=116073.0

[ellisonz]

14. Whoah retro

You may want to delete that given the DU rules on such materials, I was joking!

[Syzygy321]

13. Confused. Is the point that we should look down

on her for her whorish scarlet ways?

Oh no, that's not what's going on here! - "we're just mocking the hypocrisy of the conservatives."

That's why someone's quoting Howard stern,

and why someone posted a cheesecake shot of her in a teeny bikini here recently,

and why yesterday on a Trump/misogyny thread someone randomly brought her up and called her a gold digger (complete with YouTube link to a song by that name).

(Because that's not misogyny, no sir! The slut is fair game! Just look at her; she's beggin for it!)

The hypocrisy? Is not just in the republican party. It's in the mirror and it's ugly.

[Fumesucker]

15. +1

[MADem]

16. Why are you confused? Read the OP. It's quite plain that what the poster is talking about is

hypocrisy.

The "party of family values" has, as a candidate, a pig who has been married several times, who boasts about his sexual prowess, who encourages his spouses/girlfriends to comment on what a great sex partner he is, and who--while touting those "family values"--has family members who pose for salacious cheesecake shots.

It's not the act of posing for the shots or engaging in the conduct that is at issue here, it's the whole "touting of family values" play while so doing. It's the HYPOCRISY of THAT aspect that is being called out, here.

I think people can handle a few naked pictures. What's causing the disconnect is the GOP's apparent "Do as I say, not as I do" mentality.

You might not want to work so hard defending The Donald. He doesn't deserve it, and even less so given the context of the OP, which you overlooked. If you take issue with quotes from Howard Stern, address those at the source--don't throw that out here like it's apropos of anything, because it's not.

[smirkymonkey]

18. +1000

[Nuclear Unicorn]

21. We're supposed to be the ones who give women the freedom to be sexually expressive.

Forget that idiot racist, misogynist, power-mad Trump for a few seconds. Trump isn't GOP or Democratic or Liberal or Conservative. Trump is Trump and that is all his narcissistic ass is capable of being. If he's running under Party X it isn't because he shares their beliefs but only because Party X offers the most potential for his opportunistic impulses.

When people speak of women not being slut-shamed they are speaking to the ideal that a people shouldn't be "prosecuted" simply for sexually expressing themselves. The fact that Melania is with someone who purports to be with the "family-values" party (making that a pejorative carries its own risks) is irrelevant. We can point out their hypocrisy only at the expense of exposing our own.

Who, exactly, are we attempting to reach with the message that it is okay to be sexually expressive?

Those of us who are already sexually expressive? You don't have to tell me.

I would imagine we're trying to reach those who reject -- or simply have not had a chance to consider -- the idea. So, now we're in the position of presenting ourselves as the people who encourage free sexual expression -- unless you're with the wrong crowd, in which case we'll boo and jeer and fling rotten garbage to chase you back to your own tribe of sexually repressed imbeciles because that's where you belong, you wanton slut you.

Contrast this with how this place practically celebrated the fact French President Hollande had a mistress we should not be in the practice of employing sexuality as a political weapon. There are plenty of political opportunities to criticize Trump. There are more reasons to oppose him than the internet has space to catalog but this is not a good choice of battles.

Defeating Trump is a short-term goal, sexual equality ought to be the long-term objective. This will not be the issue that defeats Trump, nor will it even be a serious contributor; but we will suffer a long-term setback if we politicize women's sexuality.

[Bluenorthwest]

23. You straights should have been the people defending LGBT from Republican attack for decades

but you failed to do so. 'Now we are in a position' you say. We have been in that position for decades without straight Democrats doing the right thing.
Calling out the hypocrisy of Republicans and of the straight double dealers who let them bully us for years then rush forth to say 'Republicans have the right to free sexuality' is a public service. Among the Republicans that have trashed LGBT people savagely for years are Republican women, yes, the list of bigoted right wing women is long and strong. They do not get a pass on the hypocrisy, sorry.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

26. I normally appreciateive of your posts but if you're going to claim

1) no straights in general or this straight in particular failed to support LGBT equality

and/or

2) that someone negates what I said on any level

I'm going to throw the BS flag at you.

Unless you're suggesting the entire Progressive movement is comprised exclusively of the LGBT community devoid of any straights your claim that straights did not support LGBT rights is patently false. Did you vote for Obama before he had "evolved" on the issue of marriage equality?

And what's with the "you straights" verbiage? Why not just say, "you people"? Because that's pretty much how it reads.

[Bluenorthwest]

28. You say this:

"So, now we're in the position of presenting ourselves as the people who encourage free sexual expression..."

But we have been in that exact same position for decades, while straight people allowed their Popes, priests and politicians attack us endlessly. To claim that Mrs Trump is a fresh and new opportunity to stand up for sexual freedom is hypocritical, dishonest, self serving and insulting.
Every single day on DU people lavish praise on anti gay figures such as the Pope. Some 'support us' but most just stand aside and let the bullies have their way. The bullies who are mostly Republicans like Mr and Mrs Trump, for whom you rush forth with sermon flying. Decades LGBT have been trashed by the Straight Community, Republicans and the religious right, Democrats did not properly defend us and now some of you want to defend Straight Republicans when they are shown to be fully lacking in standing to moralize against LGBT people. You should be furious with Trump and his Party and his wife. They are lying hypocrites and selfish assholes.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

37. BS

You're never going to find a world where everyone agrees with you so just grow-up on that score. Seriously. I don't know what else to tell you.

LGBT rights are advancing. They never should have been suppressed in the first place and progress should have been faster but it is what it is and claiming we cannot champion other rights and confront other wrongs as they present themselves is just ridiculous. There is no hypocrisy.

Perhaps you feel the sting of LGBT repression more acutely as a member of the LGBT community. Maybe I feel the sting of slut-shaming more acutely as a straight, sexually-expressive woman. Would you rather fight for each other or against each other? I'm cool either way.

[MADem]

39. I don't think anyone should be "giving" women anything. They can help themselves on that score

without any grants.


This isn't about what WE are giving, or doing, or saying. It's not even about politicizing anyone's sexuality. It's not even overly much about the concept that people should conduct themselves in a fashion that's appropriate to the way in which they wish to be perceived (though that IS a good idea for people in public life). The truth about sexual expression is this--as one gets older and wiser, one feels less of a need to be so obvious, strident, and in-yer-face about that kind of thing...UNLESS one is suffering from arrrested development--as apparently Trump is. One didn't see Clinton bragging about what hot stuff he was, or paying women to praise his skills--that poor horndog just couldn't catch a break, because, apparently, he chose his dalliances poorly. He has a reputation as a charmer, but he's not the one stoking it.



The point being made here, rather succinctly, is that the "Do as I say" "Family Values" "Bill Clinton's PEEEENIS, oh, the HORROR, let's spend forty four million on it!!!" crowd are the ones suddenly looking the other way, ignoring the multi-married, 'naked spouse' Trump, when we know full well that if that had been Martin O'Malley's wife nekkid on a bearskin rug, they wouldn't be able to shut up about it.

It's not about "sexuality as a weapon." The nudity of his wife isn't the problem--it's a source of amusement at best. Trump's naked ambition and brute stupidity are much bigger concerns.

It's about hypocrisy, and nothing more.

As for Hollande, he looked like a fool, sneaking around on a motorbike and sending his security guy in for croissants. That made him look less presidential, not more. No.... savior faire. He comes off like a cad, --- someone who dumped the mother of his children as soon as she lost her election, took up with a new and younger paramour, and then dumped her--and had her booted from the Presidential palace--for someone younger still...he came off like an ass.

Yep, no savoir faire. Probably the greatest crime of all...!

All that said, it is still a mystery to many how a guy with so few apparent charms could do so well in the Ladies' Department! But at least he's not a hypocrite--he'd been a dog for quite awhile, so with him, it was simply more of the same...

[Nuclear Unicorn]

42. The point being made here, rather succinctly, is --

the "Do as I say 'sexual equality' it's between the married couple, oh the horror mind your own business" crowd is suddenly coming off all puritanical about what is appropriate behavior for a wife.

There are better ways to attack the very temporary problem of Trump without burning down our core principles.

[MADem]

43. That's not what I am seeing. I am seeing Family Values Republicans going out of their way

to IGNORE the very thing they got exorcised at Democrats about.

It's not "normal married behavior" and it's not "between the married couple" to put your naked pictures in magazines. It's definitely attention-seeking behavior. I don't think anyone gives a shit about any moral component, at least from the perspective of the left. This isn't spouse-cheesecake we're talking about here, it's a publicity spread--and we're talking about it, the GOP is ignoring it...and therein lies the hypocrisy.

See, it's not OK if you are a Dem...it's totally OK if you're a member of the GOP. Apparently.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

45. "See, it's not OK if you are a Dem...it's totally OK if you're a member of the GOP. Apparently."

I want it to be OK for Dems and the GOP both. So I will conduct myself in that manner.

[MADem]

76. And the GOP will eat your lunch.

You can conduct yourself in any way you'd like, but you really need to spare the rest of us the sanctimony. The GOP have been complete asses and bullies on this playing field for far too long, with their finger wagging and scolding--to point out their hypocrisy is not simply appropriate, it is NECESSARY as an object lesson.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

84. Ah. I see. The ends-justifies-the-slut-shaming.

Just out of curiosity, is Trump running on a family values platform? Because, if he isn't, then FV has apparently fallen by the wayside as a central plank of the platform GOP voters are looking for. That would mean FV -- or rather, the overwrought social conservative distortion of it -- is no longer a deciding issue. That would be a win for social liberalism.

I'm curious as to what is the value in resurrecting this and making them adhere to something we have long wished they would abandon?

It's like that scene in From Dusk Til Dawn where Seth (George Clooney) is agitated for having been confronted by the bar staff. He's stewing in his anger he's ramping up to restart the fight when Jacob (Harvey Keitel) asks him --

Jacob: Are you so much a fucking loser, you can't tell when you've won?

Seth: What did you call me?

Jacob: Nothing. I didn't make a statement. I asked a question. Would you like me to ask it again?

Seth: Umm-hmm.

Jacob: Are you such a loser you can't tell when you've won? The entire state of Texas, along with the F.B.I., is looking for you. Did they find you? No. They couldn't. You've won, Seth, enjoy it.

[MADem]

85. You continue to miss the point, AND toss the word "slut" with what seems like gleeful abandon.

Family Values is ALWAYS a tool in the GOP toolbox. They'll yank that one out whenever there's an opportunity. Jindal was waving it around just the other day.

The "slut" in this equation is that pig eyed asshole who takes advantage of young women for his own purposes, marrying, then discarding them, after they've gotten "too old" for him, but never mind that. Your emphasis on the "slut" being female here is part of your problem in seeing the Big Picture. Put the chivalry away--the women don't need it. They aren't the sluts-- Dough-Nald The Vulgarian, the assclown with the bad weave on his head is.

You keep telling people to "make nice" and ignore the fact that the GOP has engaged in using "sex as a weapon" for years, and then, when they are hoisted upon their own petard, you tut-tut and tell us to not notice, to be "high minded" or something. Because....??? Not sure why, but it seems like your argument is "Think of the poor defenseless women" or something. I don't think the women are defenseless and I don't think they need help taking care of themselves on this particular issue.

Sorry--what goes around, comes around.

It looks like you're working for the other team when you do that kind of thing. I know you're not, but that's how it comes across--that you want to tamp down any notice of the GOP -- and Trump, specifically--behaving like a sexist pig/boor, acting in a "non-famiy values" way, or having family who behave in an "unseemly" fashion because that kind of low-rent "obviousness" is right up his alley, and always has been.

This has nothing to do with your little "you won" scene. This has to do with calling those assholes out on what is ONGOING hypocrisy on their part. Do you seriously think they'll stop if you act nice to the Trumps? Please! They'll just call you a sucker and keep on doing what they're doing, which is mostly rehashing old Big Dawg stories.

If you cannot see this, I cannot help you.

I think you might want to take onboard that not everyone thinks the way that you do--you're plainly in the minority here, and there's a reason for that.

No one needs you to defend or shield them from the big bad slut-shaming meanies, so stop "protecting" them. This IS, like it or not, a valid discussion topic.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

86. "Sorry--what goes around, comes around."

Everything you post seems to reinforce the conclusion that this isn't about principles.

[treestar]

62. Yeah but the Republicans are not OK with being

sexually expressive and that is the point. If this were a Democrat, they'd be doing the slut shaming thing. But they are hypocrites. They should be called out on that.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

68. Congratulation on repeating the exact same argument I've already responded to.

[treestar]

69. you seem to ignore the point

so maybe hearing it phrased another way will help?

we are not saying they can't do it. We are saying as how they say no one should. They are not holding themselves to the standards to which they hold others.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

73. I haven't ignored the point. I've directly addressed why the point is not a point.

[treestar]

75. It is a point. We are not dumb enough to fall for your failure to see any difference.

People saying others should not do a thing should not do it themselves, or they are hypocrites.

Which Republicans generally are.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

81. I don't worry about GOP hypocrisy, I worry about ours. I take GOP hypocrisy as a given.

What I worry about are the Independents, unaffiliateds and wavering-GOP types who look at this display and say, "They claim to be against slut-shaming until it's politically expedient and then they're no different than Pat Robertson's congregation."

[Bluenorthwest]

25. This article is from the Daily Mail which sucks, but it does not quote Howard Stern even once.

It quotes Mrs Trump from the Stern show. The poster who complains that is 'quotes Howard Stern' is being dishonest, Stern is not quoted at all in the text. She says he is quoted but he is not in fact quoted.

[MADem]

31. I think that post may have been a stream-of-consciousness rant about things previously seen

on other DU pages. Regardless, it's not terribly on point, in any event.

[Syzygy321]

32. Trump is a pig. I just don't like to see the GF

or wife brought up repeatedly. I think that, behind a thin veneer of pretending the target is Republican "values", these posts are motivated by the same vulgarity and misogyny that motivated the crude sex stuff RW radio said about Sandra Fluke and Bill Clinton's intern.

If she were the actual candidate, mocking her sexy Playboy past might be fair game.

On second thought: not even then.

Hello? We're democrats.

[MADem]

40. I think the hypocrisy point is very fair game.

I've gone down into the weeds on that here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7123842

[treestar]

70. It's amazing how they don't want the Republicans to suffer

for their hypocrisy. Apparently we should say nothing and let it go.

[MADem]

74. Yep. Makes me wonder. nt

[Major Nikon]

50. When Trump calls someone else a "perv", he deserves his own scrutiny

[Syzygy321]

54. Yes - I am fine with trump-bashing.

But that doesn't excuse this. People aiming for Trump are spraying sexist bullets toward an innocent bystander's supposed "whorishness", to insult him.

I was disgusted when the right made misogynist statements about Hilary Clinton's characteristics as part of their assaut on Bill's values. And I am disgusted by this too.

[Major Nikon]

56. I agree to a point

The insults should be limited to Trump himself. I could care less what his wife does.

[hexola]

60. Nor do I, but we're not Conservative Republicans...

Who have typically used morality to define/vet their candidates...and tear down others.

[spinbaby]

79. What this says about Trump

He thinks of women as decorative objects.

[840high]

88. ,..That^

[Cal33]

19. What are the Televangelists going to say about this -- kick Trump out of the Republican Party?

If so, Trump may fight back and succeed in evicting the Televangelists? This might be
interesting to watch.

[Ex Lurker]

24. Slut shaming on DU? NT

[Bluenorthwest]

27. How often on DU do you read articles about Republicans attacking LGBT people or women's rights?

"He believes in traditional marriage, despite the fact that he has been married three times," Takei on Trump.

[Syzygy321]

38. So attack Trump. Don't act like Limbaugh.

[MADem]

44. I think the one being shamed is the pig-eyed guy with the weird hair. nt

[Lizzie Poppet]

48. Agreed. This is fucking embarrassing.

The bullshit rationalizations that it's somehow an attack on Donald and not Melania are no less so.

[Syzygy321]

55. A-friggn-men

[lumberjack_jeff]

58. Of course not. The sluttiness of the impending first lady should be a point of pride.

The fact that her husband tells Howard Stern that she looks hot in a tiny thong and gets banged like a screen door in a hurricane is something that's so... Go 'Murica!

[treestar]

71. No. It's that the Republicans would do it

to a Democrat in a similar position and may not do it here. Because they have a double standard. They set out to say what others should do, and judge them for it, all why doing it themselves.

The weird thing to see on DU is attempts to defend the Republicans from the discussion of their hypocrisy.

[Fred Sanders]

80. Not reading or comprehending the point of a post on DU? The Family Values party is chock-full of hypocrites.

[RKP5637]

29. Frankly, I would rather hear R's talk about Melania Trump than their stupid Family Values crap.

schlick

[hootinholler]

30. That would be fucking awesome!

Almost worth supporting Rump.

Almost.

[INdemo]

34. Could you just imagine her at State Dinners

...." Where's Melania"

[reddread]

35. looking forward to the sextape scandal

Jebs hole card.

[MoonRiver]

36. Clown car comes to the White House!

[hexola]

41. Is Howard Stern considered a champion of LGBT rights/Sexual freedom?

Genuinely curious...?

[hexola]

49. Fake Obama vs. Real Trump

Here's an Obama impersonator on the Stern radio show calling to wish Robin a happy birthday.

Compare that to Trumps real comments...not that different from some of Trumps comments when on the Stern show.

So people would be ok with Obama talking like this...or consider it example of Obama's embrace of sexual freedom?

[Agnosticsherbet]

51. If that is her choice, it's fine with me. I Criticize Trump

Not his wife.

[840high]

65. ....x10+

[TransitJohn]

52. She's, "Very, very classy." n/t

eom

[olddots]

53. Donald should change his last name to Tumor

N.T.

[nolabear]

66. Don't get in bed with Donald and the GOP. This is their thing.

Smear Hillary through Bill, Huma through Anthony, Obama through Michelle... If you believe that a woman is her own person then you have to accept what she does as long as it doesn't harm anyone.

[KamaAina]

67. A reality show waiting to happen.

[hifiguy]

72. "Vulgarian" is the only word for Trump

and anything he is associated with.

[snooper2]

83. I thought the first First Lady to do that was Marilyn Monroe?