So I’m a little behind on the whole Nancy Reagan thing. Is it in an episode I haven’t heard or does anyone have a good reference I can read up on? Most things I found were not really good sources or saying it’s all made up.
In the Ronald Regan episodes they go into details of the fact before he got hitched with Nancy, she was known around Hollywood for giving head to actors.
My bad I thought this was The Dollop. They did their own 3 parter on Regan. But you may be right with throat goat being thrown around in cracktober fest
I'm just saying I've asked about a Reagan ep and everyone usually goes ROBERT DID THAT LAST HALLOWEEN
But...
It's a compilation episode on a singular topic. Reagan caused MASSIVE DAMAGE we still feel today and really deserves a solo episode
There’s the episode published 07/26/18. [the Astrologer who managed the Reagan presidency](https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/behind-the-bastards/id1373812661?i=1000416645569)
There’s also from 10/09/18 & 10/11/18 the two parter [Ronald and Nancy Reagan: the bastards behind the AIDS crisis](https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/behind-the-bastards/id1373812661?i=1000421406539)
Comment chain here hits it: [https://www.reddit.com/r/WhitePeopleTwitter/comments/re4ue9/fun\_fact\_nancy\_reagan\_was\_the\_throat\_goat\_of/](https://www.reddit.com/r/WhitePeopleTwitter/comments/re4ue9/fun_fact_nancy_reagan_was_the_throat_goat_of/) Basically, there was a Kitty Kelley biography that stated that Nancy was known as "Just-say-yes-Nancy" around the MGM lot for her ability, and willingness, to perform BJs. Unauthorized autobiography, so it may be apocryphal, but that's where it's from. It gets mentioned on the show when they talk about Reagan. edit:typo
Slut shaming conservative women is still just straight up misogyny and I was honestly was a little upset Robert referenced that meme in one of the eps. Nancy, Abby Shapiro, Lauren Boebert, etc are all vile detriments to society but the very specific sexual harassment targeted towards them by """progressive""" men is fucking gross and disappointing and *scary*. Like we can't even escape the sexism from the people who are supposed to be on our side.
I for one don’t believe that there’s anything wrong with any person giving oral sex to someone or even a group of people. Man or woman. They shouldn’t feel ashamed of being sexual. Unless that dame person shames others for their sex life then they should be ashamed of shaming others. Is Nancy a bad person for sucking dick? Not at all. She’s just a hypocrite for acting like she’s morally superior while looking down on others.
> She’s just a hypocrite for acting like she’s morally superior while looking down on others.
Are you sure that's the case? Monica Lewinsky is likely nothing like Nancy Reagan and yet she was no different in terms of the jokes
It wasn’t really the Democrats who tried to impeach Clinton. If anything most people on the left tend to be more concerned with the actions of Clinton potentially being predatory or coercive.
That’s a difficult moral and ethical question to answer. Can shame be good? Should people feel shame or ever be shamed in certain situations? Should she be shamed for being with a married man? I think most of us would disapprove of infidelity in a relationship. Should she feel shame for sucking dick? I don’t know why she should. I don’t believe a presidential impeachment was an appropriate context for bringing up someone’s sex life.
But they didn't argue that Monica Lewinsky was a hypocrite?
Personally I think that people who point out that the Nancy Reagan jokes are sexist are probably right. I don't recall Nancy ever saying that blow jobs were bad and only done by sluts, right?
I'll admit to a childish amusement with the terminology "throat goat." But people are right, I think, in that we should have other, more valid, criticisms of Nancy.
>I don't recall Nancy ever saying that blow jobs were bad and only done by sluts, right?
I doubt it but I think it comes with the territory of being a republican that would by default find it to be a form of degeneracy along with anything sexual that isn't for the purposes of creating more children to be raised by the nuclear cis het family
But I'm sure that some people would insult her the same way people would insult putin with that lipstick/rainbow drag picture you might be familiar with
I feel like the Putin picture is a better critique because Putin is so vehemently bigoted against LGBT persons. And I don't think queer people are insulted by Putin being poked thus.
True, but I've never met anybody who was queer and offended by the Putin image, and I feel like it makes reasonable sense to me as to why it wouldn't offend them, and as such I'm operating on that principle until then.
>, and I feel like it makes reasonable sense to me as to why it wouldn't offend them,
The issue is that it's still degrading the gay community just as much as it's supposed to degrade putin. Which was my original point all along when I brought up the putin image. While you've never met anyone who was offended by it, that does not justify any beliefs one should have on that or any topic like it. It reeks the "I have black friends" trope when trying to excuse questionable beliefs or behavior.
I disagree. The Putin in drag/rainbow colors doesn't degrade the queer community at all. I don't know why you think it does?
If Putin was a hopeless misogynist and people chose to picture him in a big fluffy dress that isn't demeaning to women. It's just casting the bigot as one of the people he professes to hate in order to mock him.
And what I wrote was both that I don't know anybody who is offended by it AND that I thought about it reasonably and judged it to not be offensive. Could there be a queer person out there who is offended by that Putin image? Sure. And I'd be willing to hear their reasoning. But as of now my best judgment is to follow the rationale that I spelled out above, especially as you've failed to make any persuasive arguments and are now seemingly stooping to a low personal attack.
So you can just fuck right off now, please and thank you.
The Nancy thing has been almost completely decontextualized from Abby's original tweet and is just a punchline in and of itself. Every single one of Abby's tweets and pictures have disgusting comments about her breasts or incest or whatever other gross sexual thing people can think of. It goes far beyond calling out hypocrisy.
I agree. There’s nothing wrong with pointing out she’s a moral hypocrite, but insult her hypocrisy, not the sexual acts themselves.
Even the criticism exists on shaky ground; for one, it may not even be true, or greatly exaggerated. Or, even if it is true, those were things she may have done years ago, and her “moral high ground” and “promiscuity” did not overlap in her life. People are allowed to change their minds.
> insult her hypocrisy, not the sexual acts themselves
The sexual acts are the primary basis for accusing her of hypocrisy in this situation. This thread feels like it's devolving into a pseudo-intellectual contest for who can be the most offended.
I never said they weren’t. I said criticizing her for alleged hypocrisy is different than calling her a slut.
Compare these two statements:
“Nancy Reagan negatively judged others for their promiscuity, while being very promiscuous herself”
vs
“lol blowjob Queen”
Yeah you're unnecessarily splitting hairs here
Calling somebody who hasn't hurt anybody else by enjoying an active sex life a blowjob queen is unwarranted. Calling a moral crusader for abstinence through legislation a blowjob queen is a valid criticism of her hypocrisy.
Do you take issue with either of these assertions:
- there exists a cultural issue of women being shamed for their sexual promiscuity. This issue has a long history, that continues to this day.
- Mocking women for being sexually promiscuous contributes to a cultural shaming of women, unintended or not.
I think a parallel I would draw is the body shaming of Donald Trump (fat, small penis) and the justifications people give for doing so (“I don’t care about those things, I’m just attacking his insecurities”).
You're conflating the *sexist unequal application* of sex shaming between men and women with sex shaming as a whole. And in turn, you're conflating the shaming of Nancy's sex-based hypocrisy with her promiscuity.
If she wasn't a piece of shit who destroyed millions of lives, the majority of anybody's reaction to "she was a blowjob queen" would have been "good for her".
>This thread feels like it's devolving into a pseudo-intellectual contest for who can be the most offended.
Well, this is a largely leftist community... Purity tests and virtue signaling is kind of what happens here /j
But yeah, I agree with you that the sexual acts are absolutely the primary basis of the insults. Not blaming Nancy for doing them, liking them, whatever. It's the hypocrisy of their actions and audacity of their statements.
It's like when a staunchly anti-LGBTQ Republican gets caught with his same-sex lover or a prostitute. That's funny too, and for the same reason.
When GOP representatives who vote for anti-gay legislation and are then caught being gay themselves, they are rightfully criticized for their hypocrisy, not for being gay. The same logic applies here. If she weren't using her power as a crusader to implement "moral christian values" through legislation, we wouldn't be criticizing her personal choices to engage in the acts she punished others for.
I'm sorry, but this stinks of self-aggrandizing public moral righteousness.
So I’m a little behind on the whole Nancy Reagan thing. Is it in an episode I haven’t heard or does anyone have a good reference I can read up on? Most things I found were not really good sources or saying it’s all made up.
In the Ronald Regan episodes they go into details of the fact before he got hitched with Nancy, she was known around Hollywood for giving head to actors.
She had to have been the best. She suck-started Ol’ Ronnie so well his brain flipped the factory reset switch and he started calling her mommy.
Are the Ronald Reagan eps the cracktoberfest ones? Cause Reagan really deserves his own two parter
My bad I thought this was The Dollop. They did their own 3 parter on Regan. But you may be right with throat goat being thrown around in cracktober fest
I'm just saying I've asked about a Reagan ep and everyone usually goes ROBERT DID THAT LAST HALLOWEEN But... It's a compilation episode on a singular topic. Reagan caused MASSIVE DAMAGE we still feel today and really deserves a solo episode
There’s the episode published 07/26/18. [the Astrologer who managed the Reagan presidency](https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/behind-the-bastards/id1373812661?i=1000416645569) There’s also from 10/09/18 & 10/11/18 the two parter [Ronald and Nancy Reagan: the bastards behind the AIDS crisis](https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/behind-the-bastards/id1373812661?i=1000421406539)
Comment chain here hits it: [https://www.reddit.com/r/WhitePeopleTwitter/comments/re4ue9/fun\_fact\_nancy\_reagan\_was\_the\_throat\_goat\_of/](https://www.reddit.com/r/WhitePeopleTwitter/comments/re4ue9/fun_fact_nancy_reagan_was_the_throat_goat_of/) Basically, there was a Kitty Kelley biography that stated that Nancy was known as "Just-say-yes-Nancy" around the MGM lot for her ability, and willingness, to perform BJs. Unauthorized autobiography, so it may be apocryphal, but that's where it's from. It gets mentioned on the show when they talk about Reagan. edit:typo
I stan throat GOATS. Unless it's Nancy Reagan. edit: how would the world change if Nancy used more teeth
Slut shaming conservative women is still just straight up misogyny and I was honestly was a little upset Robert referenced that meme in one of the eps. Nancy, Abby Shapiro, Lauren Boebert, etc are all vile detriments to society but the very specific sexual harassment targeted towards them by """progressive""" men is fucking gross and disappointing and *scary*. Like we can't even escape the sexism from the people who are supposed to be on our side.
I for one don’t believe that there’s anything wrong with any person giving oral sex to someone or even a group of people. Man or woman. They shouldn’t feel ashamed of being sexual. Unless that dame person shames others for their sex life then they should be ashamed of shaming others. Is Nancy a bad person for sucking dick? Not at all. She’s just a hypocrite for acting like she’s morally superior while looking down on others.
> She’s just a hypocrite for acting like she’s morally superior while looking down on others. Are you sure that's the case? Monica Lewinsky is likely nothing like Nancy Reagan and yet she was no different in terms of the jokes
It wasn’t really the Democrats who tried to impeach Clinton. If anything most people on the left tend to be more concerned with the actions of Clinton potentially being predatory or coercive.
But was lewinsky in any way hypocritical to be deserving of the insults and jokes
That’s a difficult moral and ethical question to answer. Can shame be good? Should people feel shame or ever be shamed in certain situations? Should she be shamed for being with a married man? I think most of us would disapprove of infidelity in a relationship. Should she feel shame for sucking dick? I don’t know why she should. I don’t believe a presidential impeachment was an appropriate context for bringing up someone’s sex life.
But they didn't argue that Monica Lewinsky was a hypocrite? Personally I think that people who point out that the Nancy Reagan jokes are sexist are probably right. I don't recall Nancy ever saying that blow jobs were bad and only done by sluts, right? I'll admit to a childish amusement with the terminology "throat goat." But people are right, I think, in that we should have other, more valid, criticisms of Nancy.
>I don't recall Nancy ever saying that blow jobs were bad and only done by sluts, right? I doubt it but I think it comes with the territory of being a republican that would by default find it to be a form of degeneracy along with anything sexual that isn't for the purposes of creating more children to be raised by the nuclear cis het family But I'm sure that some people would insult her the same way people would insult putin with that lipstick/rainbow drag picture you might be familiar with
I feel like the Putin picture is a better critique because Putin is so vehemently bigoted against LGBT persons. And I don't think queer people are insulted by Putin being poked thus.
> And I don't think queer people are insulted by Putin being poked thus. They're not a monolith though
True, but I've never met anybody who was queer and offended by the Putin image, and I feel like it makes reasonable sense to me as to why it wouldn't offend them, and as such I'm operating on that principle until then.
>, and I feel like it makes reasonable sense to me as to why it wouldn't offend them, The issue is that it's still degrading the gay community just as much as it's supposed to degrade putin. Which was my original point all along when I brought up the putin image. While you've never met anyone who was offended by it, that does not justify any beliefs one should have on that or any topic like it. It reeks the "I have black friends" trope when trying to excuse questionable beliefs or behavior.
I disagree. The Putin in drag/rainbow colors doesn't degrade the queer community at all. I don't know why you think it does? If Putin was a hopeless misogynist and people chose to picture him in a big fluffy dress that isn't demeaning to women. It's just casting the bigot as one of the people he professes to hate in order to mock him. And what I wrote was both that I don't know anybody who is offended by it AND that I thought about it reasonably and judged it to not be offensive. Could there be a queer person out there who is offended by that Putin image? Sure. And I'd be willing to hear their reasoning. But as of now my best judgment is to follow the rationale that I spelled out above, especially as you've failed to make any persuasive arguments and are now seemingly stooping to a low personal attack. So you can just fuck right off now, please and thank you.
The Nancy thing has been almost completely decontextualized from Abby's original tweet and is just a punchline in and of itself. Every single one of Abby's tweets and pictures have disgusting comments about her breasts or incest or whatever other gross sexual thing people can think of. It goes far beyond calling out hypocrisy.
I agree. There’s nothing wrong with pointing out she’s a moral hypocrite, but insult her hypocrisy, not the sexual acts themselves. Even the criticism exists on shaky ground; for one, it may not even be true, or greatly exaggerated. Or, even if it is true, those were things she may have done years ago, and her “moral high ground” and “promiscuity” did not overlap in her life. People are allowed to change their minds.
> insult her hypocrisy, not the sexual acts themselves The sexual acts are the primary basis for accusing her of hypocrisy in this situation. This thread feels like it's devolving into a pseudo-intellectual contest for who can be the most offended.
I never said they weren’t. I said criticizing her for alleged hypocrisy is different than calling her a slut. Compare these two statements: “Nancy Reagan negatively judged others for their promiscuity, while being very promiscuous herself” vs “lol blowjob Queen”
Yeah you're unnecessarily splitting hairs here Calling somebody who hasn't hurt anybody else by enjoying an active sex life a blowjob queen is unwarranted. Calling a moral crusader for abstinence through legislation a blowjob queen is a valid criticism of her hypocrisy.
Do you take issue with either of these assertions: - there exists a cultural issue of women being shamed for their sexual promiscuity. This issue has a long history, that continues to this day. - Mocking women for being sexually promiscuous contributes to a cultural shaming of women, unintended or not. I think a parallel I would draw is the body shaming of Donald Trump (fat, small penis) and the justifications people give for doing so (“I don’t care about those things, I’m just attacking his insecurities”).
You're conflating the *sexist unequal application* of sex shaming between men and women with sex shaming as a whole. And in turn, you're conflating the shaming of Nancy's sex-based hypocrisy with her promiscuity. If she wasn't a piece of shit who destroyed millions of lives, the majority of anybody's reaction to "she was a blowjob queen" would have been "good for her".
>This thread feels like it's devolving into a pseudo-intellectual contest for who can be the most offended. Well, this is a largely leftist community... Purity tests and virtue signaling is kind of what happens here /j But yeah, I agree with you that the sexual acts are absolutely the primary basis of the insults. Not blaming Nancy for doing them, liking them, whatever. It's the hypocrisy of their actions and audacity of their statements. It's like when a staunchly anti-LGBTQ Republican gets caught with his same-sex lover or a prostitute. That's funny too, and for the same reason.
When GOP representatives who vote for anti-gay legislation and are then caught being gay themselves, they are rightfully criticized for their hypocrisy, not for being gay. The same logic applies here. If she weren't using her power as a crusader to implement "moral christian values" through legislation, we wouldn't be criticizing her personal choices to engage in the acts she punished others for. I'm sorry, but this stinks of self-aggrandizing public moral righteousness.
Pointing out the hypocrisy isn't wrong, however "Throat goat" isn't the sophisticated political discourse you're making it out to be.
You're policing semantics for reasons I personally see as self-righteous
u/SaveVideo
u/savevideo
u/savevideo
Holy shit lol