Bleeding from the Bunghole

Old subthreads
free thoughtpolice
.
.
Posts: 11165
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:27 pm

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#18721

Post by free thoughtpolice »

Over at Ally Fogg's a great debate has broken out about enthusiastic consent. Raging Bee has been hurling accusations about people that disagree with hi spiel as being rapists, Ally is inferring they are.
I felt obligated to script out the the perfect society according To Raging BS and friends.
Act 1: Pillow talk at the Bee household-
R- "Queen, honey; May I touch, er rub your breast?"
Q- "Why yes Raging, you may, I would quite like that."
R-"Are you sure, I need to be sure you are enthusiastic about it"
Q-"Raging, I always like it when you touch my breast, I am absolutely enthusiastic about it, really!
R-"Swell. Would 5 minutes be OK?
Q-5 Minutes is great! Longer if you like!
R- Queen Bee I respect you totally, I promise to stop if you don't re-endorse consent every 30 seconds.
Q- Well let's get at it then! And Sweety would you mind taking off the surgical gloves, they feel a little sterile
R- OMG! Do you mean that for 30 years I have been raping you by touching you with sterile, creepy gloves!
Sorry honey Queen Bee... I have to leave now and turn myself in!!

welch
.
.
Posts: 9208
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:05 am

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#18722

Post by welch »

free thoughtpolice wrote:Over at Ally Fogg's a great debate has broken out about enthusiastic consent. Raging Bee has been hurling accusations about people that disagree with hi spiel as being rapists, Ally is inferring they are.
I felt obligated to script out the the perfect society according To Raging BS and friends.
Act 1: Pillow talk at the Bee household-
R- "Queen, honey; May I touch, er rub your breast?"
Q- "Why yes Raging, you may, I would quite like that."
R-"Are you sure, I need to be sure you are enthusiastic about it"
Q-"Raging, I always like it when you touch my breast, I am absolutely enthusiastic about it, really!
R-"Swell. Would 5 minutes be OK?
Q-5 Minutes is great! Longer if you like!
R- Queen Bee I respect you totally, I promise to stop if you don't re-endorse consent every 30 seconds.
Q- Well let's get at it then! And Sweety would you mind taking off the surgical gloves, they feel a little sterile
R- OMG! Do you mean that for 30 years I have been raping you by touching you with sterile, creepy gloves!
Sorry honey Queen Bee... I have to leave now and turn myself in!!
tl;dr

R- "Queen, honey; May I touch, er rub your breast?"
"no, because you're a pedantic creep who bores the shit out of me. I'd rather masturbate. ALONE. Now fuck off."

windy
.
.
Posts: 2140
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:41 am
Location: Tom of Finland-land

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#18723

Post by windy »

jimthepleb wrote:Oct 30 2013
Racist misogynist pathetic pedophiliac society loves to fuck white virgins.

Few things there taslima m'darlin'...

This cream only works on whites?
Women get no pleasure from a 'tighter' fit?
Desiring more sensation from sex is 'pathetic'?
Pedophiliac (not a word) and tight are not synonymous.
White. I refer you to my first question.
Tightness is not the preserve of virgins....
Where'd she get the "white" from anyway? She tagged her post "whitening", is it possible she has confused that with "tightening"?

And if the ad is aimed at pedophiles who want to fuck white virgins, why does it show Indian grandma and grandpa shopping for vaginal tightening cream?

[youtube]o-BdskNJ56c[/youtube]

James Caruthers
.
.
Posts: 6257
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2013 2:50 pm

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#18724

Post by James Caruthers »

The process on FTB for moral outrage is something like this:

1) See a product or ad
2) Look at the title
3) Become outraged
4) Make angry blog/video
5) Ignore anyone attempting to point out the context
6) Repeat

It was the same with the outrage over Victoria's Secret and the "bright young things." The assumption was made that these products were being sold to preteens and marketed at 10-year old girls. That assumption was false. But the moral outrage happened anyway. The moral outrage machine doesn't care about your patriarchal "facts" and "context." It seems bad, therefore it is bad.

With all the bitching feminists do about Viagra, I would think they would find the marketing of a vag tightening product to older women to be liberating.

ConcentratedH2O, OM
.
.
Posts: 6555
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2012 8:51 pm

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#18725

Post by ConcentratedH2O, OM »

He is so "delusional" (nice ableism there, Meyers) that I don't think he sees the Freudicity of this blog post title:

http://i.imgur.com/km1BPwu.png

ConcentratedH2O, OM
.
.
Posts: 6555
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2012 8:51 pm

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#18726

Post by ConcentratedH2O, OM »

welch wrote:
free thoughtpolice wrote:Over at Ally Fogg's a great debate has broken out about enthusiastic consent. Raging Bee has been hurling accusations about people that disagree with hi spiel as being rapists, Ally is inferring they are.
I felt obligated to script out the the perfect society according To Raging BS and friends.
Act 1: Pillow talk at the Bee household-
R- "Queen, honey; May I touch, er rub your breast?"
Q- "Why yes Raging, you may, I would quite like that."
R-"Are you sure, I need to be sure you are enthusiastic about it"
Q-"Raging, I always like it when you touch my breast, I am absolutely enthusiastic about it, really!
R-"Swell. Would 5 minutes be OK?
Q-5 Minutes is great! Longer if you like!
R- Queen Bee I respect you totally, I promise to stop if you don't re-endorse consent every 30 seconds.
Q- Well let's get at it then! And Sweety would you mind taking off the surgical gloves, they feel a little sterile
R- OMG! Do you mean that for 30 years I have been raping you by touching you with sterile, creepy gloves!
Sorry honey Queen Bee... I have to leave now and turn myself in!!
tl;dr

R- "Queen, honey; May I touch, er rub your breast?"
"no, because you're a pedantic creep who bores the shit out of me. I'd rather masturbate. ALONE. Now fuck off."
Well I liked it. And Welch clearly did "ri".

Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 17791
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#18727

Post by Brive1987 »

Morris MN street scene.

I have no idea what it means but I suspect Service Dog has applied an MRA stream of consciousness to a billboard there. Nice one.

http://i.imgur.com/FcrqJ3W.jpg

James Caruthers
.
.
Posts: 6257
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2013 2:50 pm

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#18728

Post by James Caruthers »

https://cruzan-locomotive.s3.amazonaws. ... ap-rum.png

BLACK STRAP rum? Holy shit! This product supports child whipping and assault! A black strap!? Just imagine, the patriarchs who market this product are implying that men should beat their wives and children with black straps after getting drunk on this rum!

Someone get Salon and Jezebel on the phone! In the mean time, I better go accuse the Cruzan CEO of misogyny on my blog, and tell my 200 followers who don't drink rum to boycott all Cruzan products!

free thoughtpolice
.
.
Posts: 11165
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:27 pm

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#18729

Post by free thoughtpolice »

For some reasons there haven't been a lot of replies to Taslima's post about vagina shrinking cream. Si I sent in the second? one in if it gets past moderation:
<blockquote>
The first ad is doubly disgusting. First and foremost for its sexism. Secondly, in the sad cases where someone would actually buy this product, I can see no physiological way that it could work. So it’s a sham and a scam.</blockquote>

I agree, also it violates the principle that true men need larger penises, as Taslima has expressed before that is more important that men have large penises than women needing more constricted vaginas.
As to the second point August, I agree totally. And good luck in your search for special penis cleaners.

Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 17791
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#18730

Post by Brive1987 »

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/ ... 2wfju.html

But who speaks for the light fitting?

free thoughtpolice
.
.
Posts: 11165
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:27 pm

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#18731

Post by free thoughtpolice »

I fucked up the quotes. The phrase between the blockquotes is by August Berkshire.
The second part in the quote balloon is my response.

windy
.
.
Posts: 2140
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:41 am
Location: Tom of Finland-land

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#18732

Post by windy »

free thoughtpolice wrote:Over at Ally Fogg's a great debate has broken out about enthusiastic consent. Raging Bee has been hurling accusations about people that disagree with hi spiel as being rapists, Ally is inferring they are.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/hetpat/2013 ... ment-13899
Something I’ve noticed about consent debates is that opposition to feminist positions only ever seems to come from men. With the possible exception of FeMRAs like GirlWritesWhat, who take an ideological anti-feminist line, I don’t think I can ever remember hearing or seeing anything by a woman saying “Enthusiastic consent? No, what a terrible idea, I don’t want that, I’d rather risk being raped thanks.” Opposition to ideas like enthusiastic consent seems to come exclusively from men.
How has Ally determined the gender of every commenter he has seen commenting on the issue?
Nobody, and I think I mean literally nobody, is holding up enthusiastic consent as a legal standard, something that would or could be defined in statute and demonstrated in a court of law.
Either naive or disingenuous. Why is it constantly brought up in relation to rape cases and lack of convictions, if nobody is advocating for it as a legal standard?

CaptainFluffyBunny
.
.
Posts: 7556
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 8:39 am
Location: Somewhere in the pipes

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#18733

Post by CaptainFluffyBunny »

welch wrote:
free thoughtpolice wrote:Over at Ally Fogg's a great debate has broken out about enthusiastic consent. Raging Bee has been hurling accusations about people that disagree with hi spiel as being rapists, Ally is inferring they are.
I felt obligated to script out the the perfect society according To Raging BS and friends.
Act 1: Pillow talk at the Bee household-
R- "Queen, honey; May I touch, er rub your breast?"
Q- "Why yes Raging, you may, I would quite like that."
R-"Are you sure, I need to be sure you are enthusiastic about it"
Q-"Raging, I always like it when you touch my breast, I am absolutely enthusiastic about it, really!
R-"Swell. Would 5 minutes be OK?
Q-5 Minutes is great! Longer if you like!
R- Queen Bee I respect you totally, I promise to stop if you don't re-endorse consent every 30 seconds.
Q- Well let's get at it then! And Sweety would you mind taking off the surgical gloves, they feel a little sterile
R- OMG! Do you mean that for 30 years I have been raping you by touching you with sterile, creepy gloves!
Sorry honey Queen Bee... I have to leave now and turn myself in!!
tl;dr

R- "Queen, honey; May I touch, er rub your breast?"
"no, because you're a pedantic creep who bores the shit out of me. I'd rather masturbate. ALONE. Now fuck off."
Even his 'nym is a typo. It was supposed to be RapingBee

acathode
.
.
Posts: 888
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 6:46 am

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#18734

Post by acathode »

windy wrote:
Nobody, and I think I mean literally nobody, is holding up enthusiastic consent as a legal standard, something that would or could be defined in statute and demonstrated in a court of law.
Either naive or disingenuous. Why is it constantly brought up in relation to rape cases and lack of convictions, if nobody is advocating for it as a legal standard?
It's also false. As I posted earlier, various feminists and feminists organizations in Sweden have been lobbying for enthusiastic consent. Even the analysts who wrote the government report in 2010, who suggesting changing the law, did discuss how consent would be defined, and opted for not allowing "silent" or "internal" consent.

Sadly the information is only available in Swedish, but for those who can read it, or want to put it through google translate or something:
SOU 2010:71, page 14 wrote:Det är vår bedömning att för samtycke på sexualbrottslag-stiftningens område, lika lite som för samtycke som allmän ansvars-frihetsgrund enligt 24 kapitlet brottsbalken, inte bör finnas något formkrav. Hur samtycket kommer till uttryck, för att tillåtas ha relevans i antingen en ren samtyckesreglering eller en medelsreglering, kan således variera stort och har ingen betydelse för dess giltighet. Vad gäller den särskilda frågan huruvida inre samtycken ska godtas ställer vi oss bakom uppfattningen att inre (eller tysta) samtycken inte ska beaktas. Med en frånvaro av ett formkrav för samtycket torde detta ställningstagande dock inte få någon särskilt stor praktisk betydelse. I stället är ställningstagandet av principiell natur. I en samtyckesreglering blir budskapet att sexuella handlingar som sker utan att samtycke har kommit till uttryck – genom handling eller underlåtenhet – inte är tillåtna. Vad gäller samtycken som enbart sker i det inre kan dock konstateras att även om de inte är relevanta straffrättsligt blir gärningarna förmodligen inte lagförda. Finns ingen part som uppfattar sig förorättad är sannolikheten för en anmälan närmast obefintlig.
Now, I admit that I might have misunderstood some things, I'm not a lawyer and might be reading things wrong. On the other hand, this was written by juridical experts and not feminists, as a suggestion on how to reform the law.

The actual feminists and feminist organizations I've seen in various ways express the sentiment that they want to police to stop asking the victim what she did to ensure that he understood that she didn't want, and instead start asking the perpetrator what he did to ensure that she did want. The feminist and leader of political party "Feminist iniative" Gudrun Schyman, in a response to a site lobbying for changing the law, put it like this: "If I'm not saying Yes Yes Yes - it's a No No No".

If that's not arguing for making "enthusiastic consent" into law, I don't know what is.

Trophy
.
.
Posts: 601
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 2:17 am

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#18735

Post by Trophy »

free thoughtpolice wrote:Taslima is pissed about ads trying to sell vagina tightening gel:

Oct 30 2013
Racist misogynist pathetic pedophiliac society loves to fuck white virgins.
Womyn do not need tighter vaginas!! Men need bigger penises!! :twisted:
LOL! Win!

Dick Strawkins
.
.
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:34 pm

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#18736

Post by Dick Strawkins »

acathode wrote:
windy wrote:
Nobody, and I think I mean literally nobody, is holding up enthusiastic consent as a legal standard, something that would or could be defined in statute and demonstrated in a court of law.
Either naive or disingenuous. Why is it constantly brought up in relation to rape cases and lack of convictions, if nobody is advocating for it as a legal standard?
It's also false. As I posted earlier, various feminists and feminists organizations in Sweden have been lobbying for enthusiastic consent. Even the analysts who wrote the government report in 2010, who suggesting changing the law, did discuss how consent would be defined, and opted for not allowing "silent" or "internal" consent.

Sadly the information is only available in Swedish, but for those who can read it, or want to put it through google translate or something:
SOU 2010:71, page 14 wrote:Det är vår bedömning att för samtycke på sexualbrottslag-stiftningens område, lika lite som för samtycke som allmän ansvars-frihetsgrund enligt 24 kapitlet brottsbalken, inte bör finnas något formkrav. Hur samtycket kommer till uttryck, för att tillåtas ha relevans i antingen en ren samtyckesreglering eller en medelsreglering, kan således variera stort och har ingen betydelse för dess giltighet. Vad gäller den särskilda frågan huruvida inre samtycken ska godtas ställer vi oss bakom uppfattningen att inre (eller tysta) samtycken inte ska beaktas. Med en frånvaro av ett formkrav för samtycket torde detta ställningstagande dock inte få någon särskilt stor praktisk betydelse. I stället är ställningstagandet av principiell natur. I en samtyckesreglering blir budskapet att sexuella handlingar som sker utan att samtycke har kommit till uttryck – genom handling eller underlåtenhet – inte är tillåtna. Vad gäller samtycken som enbart sker i det inre kan dock konstateras att även om de inte är relevanta straffrättsligt blir gärningarna förmodligen inte lagförda. Finns ingen part som uppfattar sig förorättad är sannolikheten för en anmälan närmast obefintlig.
Now, I admit that I might have misunderstood some things, I'm not a lawyer and might be reading things wrong. On the other hand, this was written by juridical experts and not feminists, as a suggestion on how to reform the law.

The actual feminists and feminist organizations I've seen in various ways express the sentiment that they want to police to stop asking the victim what she did to ensure that he understood that she didn't want, and instead start asking the perpetrator what he did to ensure that she did want. The feminist and leader of political party "Feminist iniative" Gudrun Schyman, in a response to a site lobbying for changing the law, put it like this: "If I'm not saying Yes Yes Yes - it's a No No No".

If that's not arguing for making "enthusiastic consent" into law, I don't know what is.
That pretty much blows Ally Fogg's case out of the water.
I always find it silly in these kinds of debates to claim that "nobody is asking for that". If you have any experience of the 'gender wars', as Fogg undoubtedly does, then you will know that no matter what loopy position you can come up with someone will be advocating it. Now that person may be loopy, or even disingenuously trolling, but they will be advocating the position, making the claim of "literally nobody" easily debunked.
In the current scenario - enthusiastic consent, yes, it is clear that the Swedish example falsifies his point. I would be surprised that someone involved with gender issues and laws has not been following the Swedish situation. I can only assume it is either incompetence on his part or cynical dishonesty.

Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 17791
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#18737

Post by Brive1987 »

free thoughtpolice wrote:I fucked up the quotes. The phrase between the blockquotes is by August Berkshire.
The second part in the quote balloon is my response.
It's up now :lol:

Taslima is worried your great search for penis cleaners may meet with disappointment.

Jan Steen
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 3061
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2012 3:18 am

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#18738

Post by Jan Steen »

Caine lets the Horde know that her pet rat Chester died. Amid commenters saying they're sorry and offering hugs (safe ones, presumably), one goes into full drama mode, showing off the results of following a Creative Writing course:
Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden wrote:
@Caine:

I’m always crappy at this, b/c my instinct is always to try to make an explicit connection by saying that I remember something similar that happened to me. Somehow, it just seems to make many people think I’m trying to make it all about me. Yet when I don’t say that, I feel like I’ve left something out. I can offer you a hug without any understanding of what you’re going through, without any real empathy. But I have more to offer than that, something deeper and more meaningful. And so consider random story from my past inserted here, but only for the purpose of saying this: I’m not merely offering digitized sympathies. I’m offering to be right there with you, in the yucky place. I won’t avoid it. Neither am I only willing to jump down into the ugly because of naive ignorance of what it will really be like. I’ve been right there, and I have to tell you that I’ve been there because I want you to know the measure of my friendship when I offer, voluntarily, to clamber right back into the muck I’ve escaped so that you can have a friend meet you where you are.

This is me, eyes wide open, choosing consciously to drop these crippled feet into the sucking mud so as to get within shoulder distance. And if you don’t need me, if Mister’s enough. That’s okay. I’m here for friendship’s sake, and if I required anything back for the gesture, well, that wouldn’t be friendly at all.
"I'm not making this all about me. Not at all. Allow me to explain." :lol:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... 7/#respond

Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 17791
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#18739

Post by Brive1987 »

free thoughtpolice wrote:For some reasons there haven't been a lot of replies to Taslima's post about vagina shrinking cream. Si I sent in the second? one in if it gets past moderation:
<blockquote>
The first ad is doubly disgusting. First and foremost for its sexism. Secondly, in the sad cases where someone would actually buy this product, I can see no physiological way that it could work. So it’s a sham and a scam.</blockquote>

I agree, also it violates the principle that true men need larger penises, as Taslima has expressed before that is more important that men have large penises than women needing more constricted vaginas.
As to the second point August, I agree totally. And good luck in your search for special penis cleaners.
I added a "little something" to her comment roll as well. Hopefully whatever gravitas her original post had will now be well and truly eroded away.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/taslima/201 ... ent-177623

Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 17791
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#18740

Post by Brive1987 »

Jan Steen wrote:Caine lets the Horde know that her pet rat Chester died. Amid commenters saying they're sorry and offering hugs (safe ones, presumably), one goes into full drama mode, showing off the results of following a Creative Writing course:
Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden wrote:
@Caine:

I’m always crappy at this, b/c my instinct is always to try to make an explicit connection by saying that I remember something similar that happened to me. Somehow, it just seems to make many people think I’m trying to make it all about me. Yet when I don’t say that, I feel like I’ve left something out. I can offer you a hug without any understanding of what you’re going through, without any real empathy. But I have more to offer than that, something deeper and more meaningful. And so consider random story from my past inserted here, but only for the purpose of saying this: I’m not merely offering digitized sympathies. I’m offering to be right there with you, in the yucky place. I won’t avoid it. Neither am I only willing to jump down into the ugly because of naive ignorance of what it will really be like. I’ve been right there, and I have to tell you that I’ve been there because I want you to know the measure of my friendship when I offer, voluntarily, to clamber right back into the muck I’ve escaped so that you can have a friend meet you where you are.

This is me, eyes wide open, choosing consciously to drop these crippled feet into the sucking mud so as to get within shoulder distance. And if you don’t need me, if Mister’s enough. That’s okay. I’m here for friendship’s sake, and if I required anything back for the gesture, well, that wouldn’t be friendly at all.
"I'm not making this all about me. Not at all. Allow me to explain." :lol:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... 7/#respond

http://i.imgur.com/pDnEst7.jpg

1 down. 19 to go.

Caine, does that help?

Phil_Giordana_FCD
That's All Folks
That's All Folks
Posts: 11875
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:56 pm
Location: Nice, France
Contact:

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#18741

Post by Phil_Giordana_FCD »

Sorry to hear about Caine's loss. My sympathies.

German LurkBoatsman

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#18742

Post by German LurkBoatsman »

I don't get the hate for enthusiastic consent. I find it an ideal fit for random hook-ups up to the point where I find it a waste of time to deal with elaborate mind games what the woman really wants or whatever. Either it clicks and she participates in the flirting and then the escalating (and she better do it enthusiastically) or I'm not really interested. Life's too short and in some situations I actually don't wanna spend time with women who have hang-ups about sex or expect gender-appropriate wooing or crap. IMO it also sorts out a lot of crazy bitches who are just conflicted about sex and relationsships.
I'm also perfectly fine if some random flirt doesn't end with a one-night stand, can still be very fun. So I found if the woman enjoys herself and is a grown-up, she is perfectly able to express her wishes as how she'd like the night to end and will actually do so.

Of course, LTR and marriages are different and couples should be able to define for themselves how they define and communicate consent.
And I'm speaking about enthusiastic consent, i.e. willingly and joyfully flirting, participating, initiating etc. I don't speak about 'crystal-clear consent with notarized statements of intent within previously agreed time intervalls under the assupmtion that penis means rape'. That one is just sexless feminist fantasy nonsense. Or maybe a d/S kink I don't care for.
acathode wrote:instead start asking the perpetrator what he did to ensure that she did want.
Again, I find that perfectly reasonable. Shouldn't anyone be able to answer that?

Dick Strawkins
.
.
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:34 pm

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#18743

Post by Dick Strawkins »

German LurkBoatsman wrote:I don't get the hate for enthusiastic consent. I find it an ideal fit for random hook-ups up to the point where I find it a waste of time to deal with elaborate mind games what the woman really wants or whatever. Either it clicks and she participates in the flirting and then the escalating (and she better do it enthusiastically) or I'm not really interested. Life's too short and in some situations I actually don't wanna spend time with women who have hang-ups about sex or expect gender-appropriate wooing or crap. IMO it also sorts out a lot of crazy bitches who are just conflicted about sex and relationsships.
I'm also perfectly fine if some random flirt doesn't end with a one-night stand, can still be very fun. So I found if the woman enjoys herself and is a grown-up, she is perfectly able to express her wishes as how she'd like the night to end and will actually do so.

Of course, LTR and marriages are different and couples should be able to define for themselves how they define and communicate consent.
And I'm speaking about enthusiastic consent, i.e. willingly and joyfully flirting, participating, initiating etc. I don't speak about 'crystal-clear consent with notarized statements of intent within previously agreed time intervalls under the assupmtion that penis means rape'. That one is just sexless feminist fantasy nonsense. Or maybe a d/S kink I don't care for.
acathode wrote:instead start asking the perpetrator what he did to ensure that she did want.
Again, I find that perfectly reasonable. Shouldn't anyone be able to answer that?
I don't think anyone is saying that giving 'enthusiastic consent' is a bad idea, or that they hate the notion. They problem is that, whether it is through societal conditioning or other reasons, we live in a world where it is often seen as bad (and often by women themselves) to be seen as initiating sexual sexual activity - at least in situations where the couple are doing it for the first time.
What this results in, is the use of a set of non-verbal signals that imply consent (usually by means of body language, enthusiastic kissing, removal of clothes, touching etc.)
I don't think most men would object to the woman saying "Yes, Yes, Yes, lets have sex now!" but that is not what usually happens, even though the other person is giving signals to that effect.
The issue here, therefore, is whether to make 'enthusiastic consent' a legal requirement, as the Swedish feminists seem to want, and what effect this would have in the real world if it was legislated.
I'm guessing that sexual encounters would occur as before - but that the law as it would then stand would potentially make many of these encounters illegal.
It seems to me that we need to work towards encouraging people to use 'enthusiastic consent' in the encounters they want, without making it a legal requirement, but also encourage them to use explicit non-consent (saying "No") to encounters that they don't want, but making that (or the fact that someone ignores the other persons "No") a legal point that may be used to charge someone for rape.

Aneris
.
.
Posts: 3198
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2013 5:36 am
Location: /°\

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#18744

Post by Aneris »

More stuff that might be up your ally. It has feminism and gender roles, evolution and Steven Pinker in it. What could possible go wrong?

The Darwin Debate Steven Pinker, Jonathan Miller, Steve Jones and Meredith Small

[youtube]hjJAwbc5IaE[/youtube]

Out of interest, does anyone actually watch the stuff I shared? (i.e. should I bother? No hard feelings, just curious :))

Aneris
.
.
Posts: 3198
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2013 5:36 am
Location: /°\

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#18745

Post by Aneris »

Jan Steen wrote:Caine lets the Horde know that her pet rat Chester died. Amid commenters saying they're sorry and offering hugs (safe ones, presumably), one goes into full drama mode, showing off the results of following a Creative Writing course:
Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden wrote:
@Caine:

I’m always crappy at this, b/c my instinct is always to try to make an explicit connection by saying that I remember something similar that happened to me. Somehow, it just seems to make many people think I’m trying to make it all about me. Yet when I don’t say that, I feel like I’ve left something out. I can offer you a hug without any understanding of what you’re going through, without any real empathy. But I have more to offer than that, something deeper and more meaningful. And so consider random story from my past inserted here, but only for the purpose of saying this: I’m not merely offering digitized sympathies. I’m offering to be right there with you, in the yucky place. I won’t avoid it. Neither am I only willing to jump down into the ugly because of naive ignorance of what it will really be like. I’ve been right there, and I have to tell you that I’ve been there because I want you to know the measure of my friendship when I offer, voluntarily, to clamber right back into the muck I’ve escaped so that you can have a friend meet you where you are.

This is me, eyes wide open, choosing consciously to drop these crippled feet into the sucking mud so as to get within shoulder distance. And if you don’t need me, if Mister’s enough. That’s okay. I’m here for friendship’s sake, and if I required anything back for the gesture, well, that wouldn’t be friendly at all.
"I'm not making this all about me. Not at all. Allow me to explain." :lol:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... 7/#respond
This got to be post-social-justice-warriorism, where in order to farm social justice points it is no longer necessary to pretend one is a good person with empathy, and showing this off with some unrelated story to demonstrate to the flock one is "right there with them, in the yucky place" (which sounds slightly icky), but instead it is achieved by merely claiming that one could/would/should take part in the formerly expected ritual to make it considered done. Like the morphing of the human sacrifice to eating a holy waffle and drinking wine.

Dick Strawkins
.
.
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:34 pm

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#18746

Post by Dick Strawkins »

Aneris wrote:More stuff that might be up your ally. It has feminism and gender roles, evolution and Steven Pinker in it. What could possible go wrong?

The Darwin Debate Steven Pinker, Jonathan Miller, Steve Jones and Meredith Small

[youtube]hjJAwbc5IaE[/youtube]

Out of interest, does anyone actually watch the stuff I shared? (i.e. should I bother? No hard feelings, just curious :))
I've watched a couple.
It's a useful resource but I think it might be organized a little better (divided into sections etc.)
I guess the slymepit is not the ideal host for that kind of educational resource, but it may be a useful collection point, eventually resulting in a big list of interesting videos on different subjects that can be later divided and organized in a more structured way.

paddybrown

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#18747

Post by paddybrown »

The problem with "enthusiastic consent" is that while it sounds perfectly sensible (I agree with Dick Strawkins above, why would you want to have sex with anyone who isn't completely into it?), it's being used by the feminists who advocate it as a way of defining more and more consensual sex as non-consensual. As usual, takes male consent for granted. It is a weapon to be used by women against men they have had unsatisfactory sex with. Like "Schroedinger's rapist" and "teach men not to rape" and "rape culture", it's yet another attempt to find a form of words that society will find acceptable but essentially means "all men are rapists".

Dick Strawkins
.
.
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:34 pm

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#18748

Post by Dick Strawkins »

Do you know more about the news than the average American?

http://www.pewresearch.org/quiz/the-news-iq-quiz/

I got 13 out of 13 correct.

Phil_Giordana_FCD
That's All Folks
That's All Folks
Posts: 11875
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:56 pm
Location: Nice, France
Contact:

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#18749

Post by Phil_Giordana_FCD »

I guess the slymepit is not the ideal host for that kind of educational resource
Ya sayin' we dumb?

(I do enjoy Aneris' video links. Some I've watched before, some I just discovered thanks to her.)

Aneris
.
.
Posts: 3198
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2013 5:36 am
Location: /°\

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#18750

Post by Aneris »

Dick Strawkins wrote:
Aneris wrote:More stuff that might be up your ally. It has feminism and gender roles, evolution and Steven Pinker in it. What could possible go wrong?

The Darwin Debate Steven Pinker, Jonathan Miller, Steve Jones and Meredith Small

[youtube]hjJAwbc5IaE[/youtube]

Out of interest, does anyone actually watch the stuff I shared? (i.e. should I bother? No hard feelings, just curious :))
I've watched a couple.
It's a useful resource but I think it might be organized a little better (divided into sections etc.)
I guess the slymepit is not the ideal host for that kind of educational resource, but it may be a useful collection point, eventually resulting in a big list of interesting videos on different subjects that can be later divided and organized in a more structured way.
I have started that, too, here. Also more of an experiment.
viewtopic.php?f=29&t=368

Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 17791
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#18751

Post by Brive1987 »

Dick Strawkins wrote:Do you know more about the news than the average American?

http://www.pewresearch.org/quiz/the-news-iq-quiz/

I got 13 out of 13 correct.
10 out of 13 >85%

I'm happy given some of the US slant.

------spoiler--------





Got the judge, graduate % and Florida questions wrong.

paddybrown

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#18752

Post by paddybrown »

One other thing.
German LurkBoatsman wrote:
acathode wrote:instead start asking the perpetrator what he did to ensure that she did want.
Again, I find that perfectly reasonable. Shouldn't anyone be able to answer that?
It's only perfectly reasonable if you assume there is a "perpetrator". Consexual sex, irrespective of the level of consent, is not something that one person perpetrates against another. It's something they do together.

German LurkBoatsman

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#18753

Post by German LurkBoatsman »

Dick Strawkins wrote:I don't think most men would object to the woman saying "Yes, Yes, Yes, lets have sex now!" but that is not what usually happens, even though the other person is giving signals to that effect.
Maybe I'm confused here but AFAIR enthusiastic consent does not necessarily imply constant verbal feedback (even though someone who's a bit on the Aspergian side might wish for that).
Dick Strawkins wrote:non-verbal signals that imply consent (usually by means of body language, enthusiastic kissing, removal of clothes, touching etc.)
Body language may be hard to read and verbalize afterwards, but the other instances I'd count as signs of enthusiastic consent. They also all answer the question "what did you do to ensure that she did want" - "well, she gave me constant feedback because she enthusiastically kissed me all the time and seemed to enjoy and reciprocated my touching her, then she removed her clothes, smiling, etc..."

I'm not sure wether legislating it would have a big impact. I think there was a case in Germany last year where some guy with a history of crime and violence had sex with a 16-year old who afterwards filed charges but said she just froze up when alone with him and didn't dare to move or fight. Guy went free because the girl's reaction wasn't communicating non-consent enough for the judge. Maybe that's one of the cases were I'd like to have seen a different protocol instead of "how often and how loud did you mumble 'no'".

That said, as there are men who look for legal loopholes to get away with rape, there are also feminists who will take any definition of consent and look for loopholes in any scenario how it could maybe have been rape nevertheless. In any definition of consent there will be some grea area. Some people can't handle that ambigouosity, not even in fictional accounts like Carrier's a while back.

TedDahlberg
.
.
Posts: 1111
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2012 1:08 am

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#18754

Post by TedDahlberg »

Brive1987 wrote:
Dick Strawkins wrote:Do you know more about the news than the average American?

http://www.pewresearch.org/quiz/the-news-iq-quiz/

I got 13 out of 13 correct.
10 out of 13 >85%

I'm happy given some of the US slant.

------spoiler--------





Got the judge, graduate % and Florida questions wrong.
10 of 13 as well (we are the Borg...). Judge, congress and Florida wrong.

paddybrown

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#18755

Post by paddybrown »

Another thought. "Enthusiastic consent" is a strategy for women, in a world where they are having to be more explicit about what they want, to retain the plausible deniability the passive, hinting and ambiguous "signals" strategy has always given them..

Apologies for the multiple posts, I really out to have said all that in one, but it's early in the morning and my brain is working in fits and starts.

FrankGrimes
.
.
Posts: 373
Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2013 2:55 am
Location: Below a Bowling Alley

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#18756

Post by FrankGrimes »

Dick Strawkins wrote:
FrankGrimes wrote:
I saw bits of that on telle earlier tonight. Seemed harmless enough but what's with the "enthusiastic" bit? Isn't the word "consent" enough? Are SJW's trying to get this written into law?
I guess it is to make a distinction between passive consent (not saying "no") and active consent (saying "yes".)
I've not seen any calls for it to be put into law but the idea of promoting this notion of active consent is certainly something that is gaining momentum amongst the SJWs.
It's not exactly a bad idea, but as I mentioned previously, it runs up against problems such as the alcoholic blackout scenarios.[/quote]

Yes I agree. And sorry for snipping probably the most pertinent part of your post. The alcohol issue is interesting and important. What you said makes sense. I doubt that anyone, ever, has come away from a night of drinking heavily (quickly), and remembered everything that happened.

Barael
.
.
Posts: 258
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2012 1:49 am

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#18757

Post by Barael »

Dick Strawkins wrote:Do you know more about the news than the average American?

http://www.pewresearch.org/quiz/the-news-iq-quiz/

I got 13 out of 13 correct.
12/13. I got the second last wrong (had no idea who she is).

Za-zen
.
.
Posts: 2683
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:39 am

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#18758

Post by Za-zen »

To my shame, i watched this for the first time last night. Absolutely gripping version of Les Mis

[youtube]SyQ-0JOF1Qk[/youtube]

FrankGrimes
.
.
Posts: 373
Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2013 2:55 am
Location: Below a Bowling Alley

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#18759

Post by FrankGrimes »

Quote fail

Aneris
.
.
Posts: 3198
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2013 5:36 am
Location: /°\

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#18760

Post by Aneris »

Barael wrote:
Dick Strawkins wrote:Do you know more about the news than the average American?

http://www.pewresearch.org/quiz/the-news-iq-quiz/

I got 13 out of 13 correct.
12/13. I got the second last wrong (had no idea who she is).
Only 10 :(
I had no idea about the Florida senator, no idea about the judge question and thought the first graph with the massive dent was the correct one, not the forth that skyrocketed later.

DownThunder
.
.
Posts: 859
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2012 8:10 pm

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#18761

Post by DownThunder »

The problem with the guidelines of "enthusiastic consent" is that it is a theoretical framework which does not appear to be made by people who have sex, or at least sex that does not resemble most peoples experience. (Seriously my partner would HATE constant asking) IMO once you are in a sexual situation with someone, then I think there is an amount of leeway where if you do something that your partner finds uncomfortable, that doesn't consign you to being a rapist even if you didn't get full verbal consent first. If your partner is uncomfortable they will probably show physical signs, or they will say something. I would encourage all people to discuss openly what they like or dislike with their partners. If you are going to engage in short term "hook ups" where you dont have time to learn what an individual's likes/dislikes are, then you'll eventually end up doing something someone finds uncomfortable.

I think there are just some women who need a constant emotional and legal safety net where they can blame someone the moment they experience something that isn't 100% to their expectation and satisfaction, where men and most other women manage to learn from sexual life experiences without needing to pawn off responsibility.

Gumby
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 5543
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:40 am

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#18762

Post by Gumby »

Dick Strawkins wrote:Do you know more about the news than the average American?

http://www.pewresearch.org/quiz/the-news-iq-quiz/

I got 13 out of 13 correct.
I got 11 out of 13. Better than 91% of the public, according to Pew. Not bad for before 6 AM with no coffee.

Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 17791
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#18763

Post by Brive1987 »

Gumby wrote:
Dick Strawkins wrote:Do you know more about the news than the average American?

http://www.pewresearch.org/quiz/the-news-iq-quiz/

I got 13 out of 13 correct.
I got 11 out of 13. Better than 91% of the public, according to Pew. Not bad for before 6 AM with no coffee.
Ha! You'll doxx yourself like that east coaster!

Gumby
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 5543
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:40 am

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#18764

Post by Gumby »

Gumby wrote:
Dick Strawkins wrote:Do you know more about the news than the average American?

http://www.pewresearch.org/quiz/the-news-iq-quiz/

I got 13 out of 13 correct.
I got 11 out of 13. Better than 91% of the public, according to Pew. Not bad for before 6 AM with no coffee.
oh, I got the Supreme Court Justice question and the population pyramid question wrong.

Gumby
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 5543
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:40 am

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#18765

Post by Gumby »

Brive1987 wrote:
Gumby wrote:
Dick Strawkins wrote:Do you know more about the news than the average American?

http://www.pewresearch.org/quiz/the-news-iq-quiz/

I got 13 out of 13 correct.
I got 11 out of 13. Better than 91% of the public, according to Pew. Not bad for before 6 AM with no coffee.
Ha! You'll doxx yourself like that east coaster!
Midwest, actually. La-den now has me almost pinpointed!!!

Za-zen
.
.
Posts: 2683
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:39 am

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#18766

Post by Za-zen »

The only questions i got wrong were the "who is this" type, except for Snowden of course.

mordacious1
.
.
Posts: 1061
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:33 pm

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#18767

Post by mordacious1 »

Dick Strawkins wrote:Do you know more about the news than the average American?

http://www.pewresearch.org/quiz/the-news-iq-quiz/

I got 13 out of 13 correct.
12/13 Got the DJA (stock market) graph question wrong.

Apples
.
.
Posts: 2406
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 12:39 pm

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#18768

Post by Apples »

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Sorry to hear about Caine's loss. My sympathies.
Yes, but the life expectancy of a pet rat is approximately the shelf-life of a Twinkie. This is not the first time Caine has ululated on Pharyngula about the death of one of her rats and won't be the last. Also, it gives her a chance to bury the corpse and later dig up the skull.

Gefan
.
.
Posts: 2088
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2012 2:55 pm
Location: In a handbasket, apparently.

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#18769

Post by Gefan »

Dick Strawkins wrote:Do you know more about the news than the average American?

http://www.pewresearch.org/quiz/the-news-iq-quiz/

I got 13 out of 13 correct.
12 out of 13. Missed the first one.

German LurkBoatsman

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#18770

Post by German LurkBoatsman »

12/13, also with the judge wrong...

The science and tech knowledge quiz on the PEW site is way too easy. Still, males beat females in all fields except medicine :shhh:

http://www.pewresearch.org/quiz/science-knowledge/

FrankGrimes
.
.
Posts: 373
Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2013 2:55 am
Location: Below a Bowling Alley

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#18771

Post by FrankGrimes »

This "enthusiastic consent" thing is fraught with problems. First, what the fuck is it? How does a woman give consent that is explicitly enthusiastic? Next, Mr Strawkins brought up the issue of alcohol. At what point does enthusiastic consent become enthusiastic consent under the influence and therefore null and void?

Further, what is wrong with just the word consent? It's a term that's used in the legal profession all the time. Everyone knows what it means and how it is defined. The word enthusiastic creates a huge amount of uncertainty. Which leads me to the next point... the only people this could possibly benefit in a court of law is lawyers. They would now get to argue for hours on end the finer details of of the interpretation of the word. Lawyers love that shit because it gives them more bucks. Judges, I guess, would hate it because it takes away from the real issues in more ways than one.

So how would a court case like this go?

Prosecutor: "So, were you given consent to have sex?"
Defendant: "Yes"
Prosecutor: "Ahh but were you given enthusiastic consent?"
Defendant: "Err... I think so."
Prosecutor: "You think so? Please describe for the court the victim's enthusiasm ..."

About this point, regardless of the defendant's reply, the prosecutor could argue till the cows came home that the consent wasn't enthusiastic enough even if the supposed victim was begging for sex. I mean seriously, will they be making a list of words and physical actions that do and do not represent enthusiasm?

I don't think it's a bad idea as far as interpersonal relationships go but in a court? No fucking way. It's just another way that someone can be accused and convicted without a fair and balanced representation. Buyers remorse? Bah! "I wasn't that into it. Rape."

And what a lovely slippery slope. What's next? Certain sexual positions require enthusiasm as well? You know, I'm so glad I'll be married soon. I'll never have to play the dating game again and worry about whether or not consent was enthusiastic enough for fear of going to jail.

Aneris
.
.
Posts: 3198
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2013 5:36 am
Location: /°\

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#18772

Post by Aneris »

DownThunder wrote:The problem with the guidelines of "enthusiastic consent" is that it is a theoretical framework which does not appear to be made by people who have sex, or at least sex that does not resemble most peoples experience. (Seriously my partner would HATE constant asking) IMO once you are in a sexual situation with someone, then I think there is an amount of leeway where if you do something that your partner finds uncomfortable, that doesn't consign you to being a rapist even if you didn't get full verbal consent first. If your partner is uncomfortable they will probably show physical signs, or they will say something. I would encourage all people to discuss openly what they like or dislike with their partners. If you are going to engage in short term "hook ups" where you dont have time to learn what an individual's likes/dislikes are, then you'll eventually end up doing something someone finds uncomfortable.

I think there are just some women who need a constant emotional and legal safety net where they can blame someone the moment they experience something that isn't 100% to their expectation and satisfaction, where men and most other women manage to learn from sexual life experiences without needing to pawn off responsibility.
Indeed. There are many bigger cultural set "thresholds" where it is an issue if you just cross them without slowly approaching and getting consent for it (usually with body language). The first may already be about getting near someone into personal space. Few people find this out by asking. But it is considered rude to just doing it, thus humans do alot of body language and checking out if it is permitted and wanted.

For the next ones there is the anecdote about Germans and Americans after the war. It goes like this: when the Americans were stationed in Germany with all the lonely Fräuleins around, quite some got interested in them. The German women would claim that Americans were very "passionate", i.e. rush things a little. And curiously, the American men would claim the Fräuleins were rather stormy, too. As it turned out, the cultural expections of the proper order of advancing was reversed for kissing and holding hands. In one culture, it was common to first hold hands and then start kissing, in the other it was considered a sign of commitment to hold hands and kissing came first. This was in the 1940/1950s so I don't know which one was what (I have the hunch in Germany kissing came first). I don't even know where I heard this story, and coulnd't find a source for it.

Anyway, when two end up allowing each other to undress, its again where not every move is greenlit first. If something is not okay, one partner would just move the hand away and thus signalize "that. later. maybe" and if someone kept trying, could end up with a premature ending. The next threshold is what -- my dictionary claims this -- english speakers call "vanilla sex". We call it Blümchensex, "flower [diminutive form, i.e. little flower] sex". Each step is secured with the former by mutual consent (which can be enthusiastically skipped under some circumstances, but that is also obvious without that anyone has to say a single word).

The problem with drugs is, as discussed last time, drugs impair jugdement and/or reaction and/or perception of both partners. The communication with body language may not work as flawlessly as before and it doesn't have to be with ill intent. I believe it can go wrong in many ways and it is very difficult to untangle who-did-what just by hearing their accounts. It could be, for example that one partner seems to move along but actually didn't want to, but was too drunk to make that known clear enough, or the other partner was too dunk to notice it, or any combination. But it is very hard to imagine that all these thresholds are passed at once that way. This would mean that one is really that drunk that they let it all happen and the other had enough opportunity to notiice that their partner is barely reacting. I would consider this rape. The grey area cases, or regret later that it went too far, wouldn't be that if they were crystal clear. It is an illusion that some change of behavior can remove the grey area. If that could do it, then saying "no" clearly could do as well and it is not an unreasonable request that people also make known what they don't want when it gets uncomfortable.

Gumby
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 5543
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:40 am

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#18773

Post by Gumby »

German LurkBoatsman wrote:12/13, also with the judge wrong...

The science and tech knowledge quiz on the PEW site is way too easy. Still, males beat females in all fields except medicine :shhh:

http://www.pewresearch.org/quiz/science-knowledge/
13/13 for the science and technology quiz. You're right, that was almost embarrassingly childish in its simplicity.

mordacious1
.
.
Posts: 1061
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:33 pm

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#18774

Post by mordacious1 »

Gumby wrote:
German LurkBoatsman wrote:12/13, also with the judge wrong...

The science and tech knowledge quiz on the PEW site is way too easy. Still, males beat females in all fields except medicine :shhh:

http://www.pewresearch.org/quiz/science-knowledge/
13/13 for the science and technology quiz. You're right, that was almost embarrassingly childish in its simplicity.
13/13 on the science/tech, the scary part is that only 7% scored that high. We need to do more to educate people in this area.

BarnOwl
.
.
Posts: 3311
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:18 pm
Location: The wrong trouser of Time

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#18775

Post by BarnOwl »

Dick Strawkins wrote:Do you know more about the news than the average American?

http://www.pewresearch.org/quiz/the-news-iq-quiz/

I got 13 out of 13 correct.
Merkin here who got 10 out of 13 correct. Missed the congress and Dow Jones questions, plus had transient prosopagnosia (had no idea what the person looked like, tbh). Not surprised - I'm relatively ignorant about economic and tech business issues.

Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 17791
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#18776

Post by Brive1987 »

I don't know why I find the juxtaposition here amusing. Ogvorbis was following up a the "moderator alert" he had earlier squeaked out about good ol' Mr Bobcat.

Mellow Monkey could almost have been talking about Ogvorbis ..... :lol:


http://i.imgur.com/omDq47L.jpg

Dick Strawkins
.
.
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:34 pm

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#18777

Post by Dick Strawkins »

Just another point on the alcoholic blackout question I raised previously.
As I mentioned, 'alcoholic blackout' does not mean passing out, or even going into some strange trance-like condition.
It is simply a process whereby the person stops processing their experiences into memories. Usually, it seems, this is caused by drinking too quickly, although it is unpredictable - the same person may have a blackout on one occasion but not the next and may be able to drink a lot more at other times without impairing their memory to that extent. There is no way of telling, at the time, whether any particular person is undergoing this type of blackout as they will act exactly the same as someone who isn't. They don't even have to act particularly drunk, as many people report these blackouts when they've only had a couple of drinks.

The question it raises in my mind is whether there is a connection between two hitherto unconnected observations:

First, the fact that figures show an increase in the levels of binge drinking amongst young women (there is also an increase amongst young men but the proportional increase is greater in women.)

Second, there is an increase in the reports of date rape of a particular type - the scenario whereby a woman meets a guy at a party or bar and then remembers nothing else about the evening when she wakes up the next day next to the guy, clearly having had (unremembered) sex with him.

The general asssumption (at least amongst SJWs and I suspect amongst the population at large too) is that unremembered sex in that scenario equates to non-consenting sex (ie, woman passed out due to large amounts of alcohol/roofies etc.)
But if the alcoholic blackout scenario is correct then consent could have been given - but not remembered since the entire evening was not processed into memory.

The implications of this are pretty serious, both in terms of the assumption of rape (with the psychological damage this may cause in the woman, and the real life damage it may cause for the guy if he is falsely accused) and in the fact that these types of cases are very difficult to prosecute so the woman may feel justice was denied to her if she tries to bring it to the police, and the man will feel victimized because of the stigma of a rape accusation.

Anyway, food for thought.

Jan Steen
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 3061
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2012 3:18 am

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#18778

Post by Jan Steen »


Ape+lust
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 7364
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2012 12:55 pm

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#18779

Post by Ape+lust »

Dick Strawkins wrote:Do you know more about the news than the average American?

http://www.pewresearch.org/quiz/the-news-iq-quiz/

I got 13 out of 13 correct.
Got the 1st one wrong. I thought it could be same-sex marriage states, but it included Iowa which seemed unlikely, so I went with minimum wage.

James Caruthers
.
.
Posts: 6257
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2013 2:50 pm

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#18780

Post by James Caruthers »

There are just so many problems with "enthusiastic consent" in practice. No guy I know of would object to a woman being upfront about either wanting or not wanting sex. Men have traditionally pushed in the romance game for fewer mind fucks and more honesty. But you have to understand, these teasing games put a lot of power in the hands of the woman. You think those types of women who enjoy manipulating men with sex are going to give up that power for SJW ideology?

So now the problem of alcohol comes into it. How much alcohol invalidates consent? SJWs have been very careful to not place a limit. Of course, no amount of alcohol a man drinks invalidates HIS consent, and in the case of both being drunk, it seems fairly certain the SJWs would argue for the man to be held on rape charges using SaalPalani "men drink to become better rapists" reasoning. So we have to assume any alcohol at all in a woman's bloodstream invalidates "enthusiastic consent," no matter how enthusiastic and consensual she seems. Say goodbye to mixing alcohol and sex, you better be drier than an Abolitionist's grandma before you try any funny stuff, mister!

The next problem is retroactive removal of consent. Many SJWs seem to be arguing on Pharyngula and FTB that if a situation "feels" rapey, or you look back on it and it seems like "maybe it was all rapey and stuff", you can retroactively remove your consent and call it rape. Even if you consented at the time. The ultimate get out clause. All of us here know about the power of memory to feed us false information? The brain has no particular bias towards true information over pleasing falsehoods. Give someone permission to feed their victim complex and they'll recover all sorts of memories.

This whole enthusiastic consent thing is, I think, just another way for certain kinds of women to increase their sexual power over men, further punish male sexuality and enjoy all of the benefits of the party hard lifestyle without any of the risks. A man might drink himself blind stinking drunk and wake up the next morning with a disgusting woman who took advantage of him that night, but if she had even of a thimble full of alcohol, she'll be the one calling HIM a rapist. Most men in that situation would take it as a personal life lesson and move on. A SJW calls it a horrible rape.
DownThunder wrote: I think there are just some women who need a constant emotional and legal safety net where they can blame someone the moment they experience something that isn't 100% to their expectation and satisfaction, where men and most other women manage to learn from sexual life experiences without needing to pawn off responsibility.
I agree. I also agree with your point (which I cut accidentally) that these SJW rules seem to be written by people who don't have sex, don't like sex, or have very strange sex.

And a lot of men refuse to play these CCC mind games. See, I don't have a problem with "enthusiastic consent" if it's just a game some SJWs want to play when they get fucked. But Crystal Clear Consent has the stench of a SJW idea that they want to make into law. This would, along with a weakening of the presumption of innocence in rape cases (which they are already pushing for) have the potential to cause great harm to any man who has sex with any woman he doesn't know too well. Even though I'm not a fan of so-called pick-up artists, making these ideas law would put every single PuA in prison for rape.

As for me, I suppose I'll start filming my bedroom with hidden cameras in case I ever bang a SJW.

Locked