The next 3 highest, in order
If we're assuming women are to weak willed or stupid to even say "no" to something they don't want to do, why don't we go full 15th century and require permission from her male relatives and a marriage?ADDED: The article names a particular teenage boy asking a question — “What does that mean — you have to say ‘yes’ every 10 minutes?” — and I wonder if he affirmatively consented to having his name associated with that quote in The New York Times. The teacher, who probably consented to having the press in her classroom as she forced this intimate topic on the compulsorily educated students, said: “Pretty much.... It’s not a timing thing, but whoever initiates things to another level has to ask.”
Articles like this make feel good about being 70. Keep 'em coming.
"'Kevin de León, the California State Senate speaker pro tempore and lead sponsor of the high school legislation, said the new law was as much about changing the culture as it was about changing the law.' Changing the culture? This is a law that the California legislature passed and the Governor signed. It is not purely symbolic. Students who find themselves on the wrong side of this law may be expelled from their schools. And California has left it to the students to decipher what the law means because the grown-ups like [Shafia Zaloom, a health educator at the Urban School of San Francisco,] are unable explain it. Apparently you have to break the law to find out what it means. Talk about unconstitutional vagueness!"
Do you want to risk looking like a dummy in that press-observed classroom by asking what, to me, seem like the obvious questions: Sex has levels? What counts as a level? When does a level begin? Is there always someone who goes to the next level first or is it possible to change levels simultaneously? Can there be 2 new levels coming up at the same time, with one person "initiating things to" new level A while the other person is "initiating things to" new level B?
Actually, now, this has me thinking of a way students could force adults to become more responsible in their sex education behavior. Listen to what the teacher said and ask questions about the meaning of the words. A phrase like "whoever initiates things to another level has to ask" contains material for a hundred questions. Do these teachers really understand what they are saying, as it applies to real human beings, or are they struggling to follow government orders?
By the way, Zaloom is not just another teacher following government orders. As we learn in paragraph 22 of this 30-paragraph article, she "has written a curriculum for affirmative consent programs that is being used throughout the country." I was surprised to see that, because much earlier in the article, she looks like just another teacher trying to follow orders. Paragraph 9 says Zaloom "has taught high school students about sex for two decades, said she was grateful for the new standard, even as she acknowledged the students’ unease."
Grateful? Is she a receiver of the imposition of the standard or did she... initiate?
Posts
142 comments:
When do we start hearing about the war on men?
"Talk about unconstitutional vagueness!"
When did ever stop a Prog?
As the CA pol rightly points out, law is just a tool to change the culture.
Vague, specific, unworkable: doesn't matter. All that matters is power and results.
Can't get SSM by democratic means? Just find it in the 14th amendment.
Want abortion on demand? Discover it in penumbrae of emanations.
Want to transform bourgeois patriarchy in sexual relations? Just require consent every step of the way.
Want to give subsidies to fed exchanges but only authorized them for states? Ignore the specifics, full speed ahead.
I read an article from the Washington Post the other day (linked to via facebook by an approving friend) about college kids being taught "affirmative consent." The article itself didn't really seem to acknowledge that there's a difference between recommendations for general practice, and *law* - and there's a difference between a non-recommended and a criminal practice. It's one thing to recommend against "implied consent" and quite another to criminalize it.
This article spooks me for another reason -- I'm OK with the idea of sex ed taught in high school as a "life skill", in the same way as kids learn about personal finance even if they're not going to get a mortgage for many years to come. But the lesson described here seems to be conducted with the approach that these kids are going to use this lesson now, over the weekend, say -- with no pretense even that sex is for adults.
If they just replaced "level" with "base" it would all be very clear I'm sure
@Jane Maybe this is just the way sexual liberals have found to do what they can't do forthrightly: teach abstinence.
So, "liberals" are against the 1st amendment, the 2nd amendment, and the presumption of innocence. Other than abortion, do people actually have any rights? It sounds like rights are now something the government grants, and takes away, at its whim.
"Liberals" should be very comfortable with Sharia. If it permits abortion, that is.
Jane--I read that article this morning and had the same reaction. The writer glibly talks about how awesome it is to teach affirmative consent (which is perfectly fine--it's what Id' teach my own kids to make sure they don't get into this sort of mess) while skipping over the fact that making this a new standard in adjudicating behavior is a different animal indeed.
Here's what the proponents of the law cannot answer:
1) What counts as "initiating"? Isn't it possible for both parties to initiate something simultaneously?
2) Can two people rape each other at the same time?
3) If you need "ongoing consent" (because of course if you get consent at the beginning, but no longer consent, and are under no obligation to communicate your lack of consent but instead the burden is on the "initiating party" to keep getting affirmative consent, then it's rape) how frequently should you be getting it? Every minute? Every thirty seconds?
4) If a rapist can lie and say their victim never said "no", is it any harder for the rapist to lie and say their victim affirmatively said "yes"?
These sound silly but there's no question this issue will come up as the "yes means yes" cases start getting adjudicated.
Another Republican admits Benghazi Committee designed to go after Hillary Clinton
Rep. Richard Hanna, R-New York, said Wednesday on New York's' WIBX 950 said "Sometimes the biggest sin you can commit in D.C. is to tell the truth."
"This may not be politically correct, but I think that there was a big part of this investigation that was designed to go after people and an individual, Hillary Clinton," said Hanna, who is not a member of the committee.
Other than abortion, do people actually have any rights?
Women do. Men have responsibilities.
If I can be heteronormative for a moment, the over-reaching presumption in the article is that Women are unable to speak their mind, and you have to ask repeatedly if they want something.
Someone should ask the teacher if she is a Feminist.
The article names a particular teenage boy asking a question — “What does that mean — you have to say ‘yes’ every 10 minutes?”
If she is saying "yes!" about 3 times a second you are ok. Anything else is problematic, it seems.
""Liberals" should be very comfortable with Sharia. If it permits abortion, that is."
I try to move away from even calling them "liberals". No one who consistently tries to restrict freedom should have the right to call themselves "liberal".
I wonder if Watergate was designed to go after Nixon?
I wonder if the IranContra investigation was designed to go after Reagan?
""This may not be politically correct, but I think that there was a big part of this investigation that was designed to go after people and an individual, Hillary Clinton," said Hanna, who is not a member of the committee."
I'm sure a lot of the Democrats on the Watergate committee were going after Nixon for political purposes too, but that doesn't make anything Nixon did okay either. I'm hoping you're not simple enough to think Hillary did nothing wrong here?
Brando said...
I'm hoping you're not simple enough to think Hillary did nothing wrong here?
I am hoping that you weren't simple enough to buy the 'stand down' lie like most here. Anyone who bought or promulgated that lie has disqualified themselves from rational discourse.
1) What counts as "initiating"? Isn't it possible for both parties to initiate something simultaneously?
Only in same-sex encounters.
2) Can two people rape each other at the same time?
No. Only males can rape and only women can be rape victims.
3) If you need "ongoing consent" (because of course if you get consent at the beginning, but no longer consent, and are under no obligation to communicate your lack of consent but instead the burden is on the "initiating party" to keep getting affirmative consent, then it's rape) how frequently should you be getting it? Every minute? Every thirty seconds?
Whatever. It doesn't matter; if the woman regrets the sex months later, it was rape.
What came to mind is akin to those drawings of cattle with little dashed lines separating the body into the different cuts of meat: flank steak, brisket, sirloin, etc.
We need to do the same thing to a diagram of a woman's body, with the little dashed lines segmenting her into zones so that appropriate consent can be achieved, region by region.
Yes, you may insert a finger in Zone Nine.
I am Laslo.
Affirmative consent ought to apply to legislation. There used to be a rule about this.
The horny young men actually favor a law that requires the hot woman to say, "Yes,yes,yes...." Over and over during set. It is a real confidence builder. The problem is remembering that when a French lady screams out , Oui, Oui, Oui... Over and over she may need too stop and go to the bathroom.
This represents proof that THE LAW must require that all laws be understood by persons with the average education in the applicable jurisdiction AND that failure to meet that standard voids any law.
Of course, that would result in a reduction in income for lawyers (Including law professors).
3) 3) If you need "ongoing consent" (because of course if you get consent at the beginning, but no longer consent, and are under no obligation to communicate your lack of consent but instead the burden is on the "initiating party" to keep getting affirmative consent, then it's rape) how frequently should you be getting it? Every minute? Every thirty seconds?
I'm going to insert my penis now. Is that ok?
I'm going to insert it now is that ok?
I'm going to insert it now is that ok?
@Brando: "2) Can two people rape each other at the same time?"
Yes. If no-consent = rape, then two people (or three or . . .) who each/all failed to obtain consent are all equally guilty.
So will "s/he didn't get my consent either" be treated as safe harbor or as evidence of equal guilt?
"I am hoping that you weren't simple enough to buy the 'stand down' lie like most here. Anyone who bought or promulgated that lie has disqualified themselves from rational discourse."
I don't know about any "stand down" thing, but the fact that Hillary is taking credit for Libya as a success of "smart power" demonstrates that not only is she profoundly unqualified to be president, but Democrats have learned nothing from their own long criticism of Bush's foreign policy.
And remember when Democrats thought there was nothing worse than a national security breach by high officials, like in the Valerie Plame scandal? How long ago that seemed! Now "no one wants to hear" about Hillary mishandling classified information while she ran her influence peddling scheme from her office in the State Dept, using other govenrment employees to help with this. And still no explanation for why she needed to take these risks. Democrats are so very principled.
The only conclusion I can draw from this is this: The Progs' mores about sex are at least as archaic as those icky SoCons' views. But the Progs get to set the template.
Everything old is new again.
What about people who are mute? How do they ask for consent before sex? what if you don't speak sign language and don't understand grunting?
IOW, they're trying to turn the emotional and primal experience of sex into a checklist, like the one that pilots use before the plane takes off:
"Bra?"
"Unhooked."
"Pants fly?"
"Open."
"Woman's clothing?"
"Off."
"Man's clothing?"
"Off."
"Turned?"
"On."
"Penis?"
"Erect."
"Ready for intercourse."
"Let's roll."
This is a full fledged war on men. There are rules that men will be subjected to that nobody knows and that nobody can explain how one can defend themselves. They assume people will engage in sex in a manner nobody has before in history and nobody wants.
All because the Sexual Revolution failed women so amazingly.
@Jane Maybe this is just the way sexual liberals have found to do what they can't do forthrightly: teach abstinence.
I hadn't even read our hostess' comment before I typed my own. Great minds...
What problem are we solving, again?
Please explain to me how someone can chronologically an adult, hold a position with built in respect (teacher) and still be so incandescently ignorant of how the world really works.
Brando said...
I don't know about any "stand down" thing,
You know your are lying.
"Do you want to risk looking like a dummy in that press-observed classroom by asking what, to me, seem like the obvious questions..."
There's an emotion rather like stage fright that hinders people from asking obvious questions like "what do you mean by middle C?" and "is it safe to keep the gun loaded in my bedside table?"
Maturity and humility help to knock down that stage fright. I ask "what does that mean?" routinely, especially of youngsters.
MayBee said...
What problem are we solving, again?
LOL. That is EXACTLY what I've been trying to figure out.
When a man accused of rape shows texts from the woman the next day that says "I had a great time" the response from the radicals is to say "every woman responds to rape differently and she was brainwashed by patriarchal norms."
So even a "yes" at the time, with video evidence can be overruled by a woman who later says "I was coerced into saying yes."
The only way to win the game is not to play.
What is the "stand down" thing?
Monkeyboy: "The only way to win the game is not to play."
Yep. Just tell the girl that you don't need her nonsense because there are plenty of waitresses out there.
Can anybody explain how ARM's post is even remotely relevant to anything here?
Also, ARM, pot, kettle.
Maturity and humility help to knock down that stage fright. I ask "what does that mean?" routinely, especially of youngsters.
But this is a different beast. Sex is already something that is experienced more than discussed. Does ANY woman, on Earth, want a man to actually ask for permission every single step of the way? I thought women wanted spontaneity in sex...apparently, these sexless scolds don't. It's as if the town from Pleasantville is now running CA and NY.
Why do any adults accept this? What the hell happened to "Keep the government out of my bedroom?" They now seem to want a notary public to witness every case of fucking that occurs.
And, again, how can a man ever defend himself. Even if he videotapes himself having sex and the girl says yes at every step of the way, she can just say any moment of silence was her "realizing that she didn't want this but being too afraid to speak"
If women are so thoroughly incapable of handling sex as feminists seem to think, I don't think they qualify for equality. I would trust my kids with a gun more than feminists trust women with their vaginas.
The only way to win the game is not to play.
Feminists hate the idea of sex bots also, which would allow men to not play.
You know, MRA have a solid case.
Mmmm...different beast...
What kind of awful humorless scold do you need to be to take all the fun out of sex?
Not even the Victorians did that, they were as kinky as they wanted to be in private.
Does ANY woman, on Earth, want a man to actually ask for permission every single step of the way?
I suspect women who have emasculation fantasies want this.
Or.....you know how the ministers who are always railing against gay people often turn out to be gay, and people who push for laws against contacting underage people on the internet often turn out to be contacting underage people on the internet....I suspect some of these women like rough sex and are trying to save themselves from themselves.
Mattress girl liked rough sex, right? Oh, I think I'm on to something.
May I post a comment?
Is this the "stand down" thing?
It's not an obsession for rightists. The notion that it is an obsession seems to be an obsession among leftists.
"...I think that there was a big part of this investigation that was designed to go after people and an individual..."
This almost certainly the case for almost every Congressional investigation in the last 200+ years.
This is entirely about control. Hard left gender feminists want to be able to control men. If you start with that premise, it all makes sense.
Poor Hillary... she's a politician that other politicians go after. Hopefully the big strong men will protect her virtue!
No, Paddy O.
You may not post.
You should not try, or
Else you'll be toast.
Hillary Clinton inserted into comments on a post about the definition of rape.
I didn't get it at first.
Droll. Very droll.
I am Laslo.
A law whose purpose is to "change the culture." Makes one think of revenue laws whose primary purpose is social engineering.
California should pass legislation to tax sexual activity - an activity fee for each act. Participants make application, with payment of applicable fee, at a local State office; application is reviewed and approved or rejected; act is consumated in the presence of a State licensed inspector.
It's a win-win-win. Revenue shortfalls, unemployment, and sexual assault SOLVED. (State licensed inspectors will of course carry the State's immunity from suit.)
Lets apply yes means yes to child support.
At what age does a woman desire to stop being treated as a child?
I am Laslo.
"What problem are we solving, again?"
I suppose the problem is that according to the Left, there are far more instances of rape than rapists brought to justice (not that this is wrong necessarily, but the dispute is how many rapists go free and how many instances of rape were genuine rather than unfounded accusations). It is of course difficult to prosecute rape, particularly as victims often don't want to go through the ordeal of prosecution and it usually comes down to relative credibilty rather than physical evidence (because physical evidence of rape is almost always the exact same as physical evidence of consensual sex).
So, what to do? This "yes means yes" standard falls under the "we must do somthing, this is something, so we must do this" pattern. If it ensnares anyone at all it won't be a rapist, because of course a rapist can as easily lie about getting consent as any other part of what happened. It may ensnare some honest sap who did not ask for consent at every step.
It's not a bad idea to teach people to (a) make sure if you don't consent, you communicate that and (b) in case the other person is too dumb to follow (a), ask for consent, but establishing this as a legal standard is worse than dumb.
"You know your are lying."
So you think I really do know what that's all about? I'm amazed at what I secretly know.
Making lemonade out of lemons, use this issue as an opportunity to expose horny young boys and girls to the magnificent prose of a literary genius, James Joyce, specifically the final lines of his novel Ulysses in which Molly Bloom, enjoying the best fucking she's ever had, rapturously muses:
"...I was a Flower of the mountain yes when I put the rose in my hair like the Andalusian girls used or shall I wear a red yes and how he kissed me under the Moorish Wall and I thought well as well him as another and then I asked him with my eyes to ask again yes and then he asked me would I yes to say yes my mountain flower and first I put my arms around him yes and drew him down to me so he could feel my breasts all perfume yes and his heart was going like mad and yes I said yes I will Yes."
Read and learn, students. For Molly Bloom, yes does indeed mean yes ... and so much more!
Here's a novel idea; just say "no" if your partner wants to do something you don't agree with. Problem solved!
Roughcoat - that was in "Back to School", as well.
Does this mean every time I want to go to 'another level' I have to remove the ball gag from her mouth?
Because that's gonna be a pain in the ass.
I am Laslo.
Levels? I thought they had bases.
Does each different position or stroke demand affirmative consent?
Is it really a threesome if the third party is a Notary Oublic?
On this issue, let's make sure we differentiate subgroups within the larger group of women.
Women, in general, are fine. Smart, pretty,driven, mothers, professionals, wives, and everything in between.
The problem subgroup are "Left-Wing women". These are the rabid feminists in college, the activists, the policy-makers.
"Left-wing women" are the problem. They seek to restructure society in their political favor.
Memo to young men: Stay Away from Left-Wing Women - even the attractive ones. They are more committed to the agenda of Mattress Girl then to your well-being.
Maybe this is just the way sexual liberals have found to do what they can't do forthrightly: teach abstinence.
Yes, it turns out that unrestricted sex with multiple partners with no emotional attachment to those partners is not a fulfilling experience.
And that an environment where pornography is so ubiquitous that Playboy Magazine is retreating from it and that virtually every teenager you meet has seen horrendous acts portrayed as normal or at least no big deal, is not an environment conducive to promoting respect and romance.
Who could have predicted it? It is a puzzlement.
"A guy chases a girl until she catches him."
"Here's a novel idea; just say "no" if your partner wants to do something you don't agree with. Problem solved!"
Once you start expecting people to take responsibility for their own bodies, where will it stop? Making them pay for their own food? Making them accountable for their actions? The hell you say!
The article names a particular teenage boy asking a question — “What does that mean — you have to say ‘yes’ every 10 minutes?”
This is job creation. We need to have someone monitor the "yes". Otherwise, it's still he-said, she-said, and impossible to enforce.
/sarc
So, this is what "getting the government out of your bedroom" looks like?
It is gonna be awkward to stop and ask "Can I choke-fuck you now' and then having to explain what 'choke-fucking' is.
I am Laslo.
They're not teaching a majority of our children to read and write and now we want to let them tell the kids when and how to get laid? Get real. This is all bullshit.
"I am hoping that you weren't simple enough to buy the 'stand down' lie like most here. Anyone who bought or promulgated that lie has disqualified themselves from rational discourse."
I am hoping that you weren't corrupt enough to tell the 'movie review that got out of hand' lie.. Anyone who promulgated that lie has disqualified themselves from rational discourse or elected office.
Sex doesn't have levels, it has bases.
It would be nice if we would learn from this. The progressives don't haul out these faulty statistics and call you a denier for disputing them just for their own jollies, people.
You should first follow the signals of the third base coach before you get to the batters box, then later if the first base coach waves you around to second.
Don't worry lads, the sex robots will be here soon.
Sexual culture has developed the use of safety words because of the ambiguity of 'yes' and 'no' in the heat of battle.
Perhaps something like 'Platypus'
ARM, the problem conservatives have with Benghazi do not at all require "stand down" to be true. It's more than bad enough without it, and I've never seen a conservative timeline of the events that included it. Lefties have chosen it as a straw man because the actual criticisms cann't be rebutted.
As for the actual topic, the point is to reduce the human population. It is the only thing that all leftist policies have in common.
Bob Ellison said...
What is the "stand down" thing?
You posted in the following thread "We wanted to engage in Libya but the administration told us to stand down....". Still want to feign ignorance?
Brando said...
"You know your are lying."
"So you think I really do know what that's all about? I'm amazed at what I secretly know"
It is a bit obscure because nobody knows what the chain of command was but I think he is referring to General Ham, who retired within a month of the incident, tried to order troops and air units in to help in Benghazi and was told to stand down.
I think the lie you don't know you know is one of the following:
1. Obama slept through the attack.
2. Obama was awake and ordered Ham to stand down.
3. Hillary ordered Ham to stand down.
4. Someone else ordered Ham to stand down because Obama slept through the attack.
There was a specter gun ship and at least one armed drone on station at the attack. The seals were using call for fire protocols marking enemy positions so the gun ship would take them out. There were JSOC troops in Italy ready on a bird within an hour of the attack an hour flight out. Progs have convinced themselves there was nothing we could have done to help and Obama or someone else did not tell General Ham to stand down.
Of course this has nothing to do with the thread because ARM is humiliated that it makes progressive look like the fascists they are. He is pretty desperate at the moment.
I also hope e everyone in that room where the stand down order was given dies in a fire. We have an ungodly number of assets in North Africa. To not use them was willful evil and cowardice not to mention self serving for Obama.
I rest my case.
Yeah, Bob. You happened to comment in a thread that mentioned something 3 years ago. Isn't that seared into your memory?
From the article: "One goal is to improve the way colleges and universities deal with accusations of rape and sexual assault ..."
In other words, to dispense with pesky notions of fundamental fairness or the presumption of innocence. The man must prove she said yes to everything he did.
May I post a comment?
Perfect.
I Callahan@9:34 AM:
Didn't see that movie.
But I did read Ulysses.
And I've had sex.
Is there any good reason to have a discussion about Libya in this thread except as an attempt to completely ruin any chance for discussion on both topics?
No, seriously. What was the point of the comment except to, in bad faith, attempt to damage conversation here?
It's cute that you think penetration is required for rape claims.
Laslo is awesome, that's why.
Well, the legal definition of rape has nothing whatsoever to do with the yes means yes requirement being imposed on colleges. Not imposed, of course, but suggested. The "dear colleague" letter that set so much of this in motion does not have the force of law despite the fact that colleges are jumping as though it did or as though it demanded the expansion of administrative functions designed to hammer those newly created nails. Real rape is a crime. Kissing a girl who doesn't want to be kissed is not rape. Deciding that all the sex you had with the boyfriend who dumped you was rape is not rape either.
Matthew Sablan said...
Is there any good reason to have a discussion about Libya in this thread except as an attempt to completely ruin any chance for discussion on both topics?
I'm pretty sure that touching on Libya is one of those level-things for which you must get affirmative consent.
"Why don't you object to Laslo's comments, Matthew?"
-- Because at least his weird stories are usually absurdist, and oddly enough, sometimes even relevant. He's not deliberately dropping a grenade to troll the entire community. He's a not serious joke.
RoughCoat
Ah, but in the never-published sequel ,Joyce has Molly recant because of the drinks she had earlier in the evening. Leopold loses his job and is imprisoned for ten years being unable to prove the negative.
Joyce's publisher refused to publish the sequel because the concept was so far fetched. The trial that Leopold was subjected to in the sequel was outside the Dublin court system, he was not allowed to have a lawyer in attendance, and Molly was able to produce many of her girlfriends as witnesses to her trauma. Molly, in the sequel, was called the Survivor.
Achilles said...
I also hope e everyone in that room where the stand down order was given dies in a fire.
This is what the sane half of the Republican party has come to fear. The right wing media have so inflamed their constituents with nonsense that they are now turning on the in-touch-with-reality members of the Republican party for failing to act on the nonsense that Drudge and Fox have propagated for purely for financial reasons. There is now a clear split between the financial interests of the right wing media and the political interests of the party, which Trump has capitalized upon perfectly.
'When you dance with the devil, the devil doesn't change. The devil changes you.'
Look at colleges. Penetration is not remotely needed to kick a guy out of campus.
Matthew Sablan said...
bad faith, attempt to damage conversation here?
Nanny state censorship has no place in the free market of ideas.
"... sink your penis into her anus?"
"... gobbles a man's penis into her mouth."
Awesome prose stylings!
Y'all are making jokes, but try to protect your sons:
Read them the legal definitions of rape, including the penetration part.
You are necking, and then proceed to eat her out? Inserting your tongue inside her ... vagina (use street terms here.) Without consent, that is rape, son. Legally...
You are having consentual vag-penis intercourse? And then you accidentally/or on purpose sink your penis into her anus? You have penetrated w/o permission son. That too is legal rape, by definition.
The high-profile cases show your boys are not learning this at home, it seems.
Perhaps too many absentee fathers, single/divorced/abandoned women trying to their sons how to have sex. (or simply clueless men, as evidenced here.)
Yes -- get permission as you round the bases, and as you/if you initiate plays that aren't in the old ball game. (ie/oral/anal sex.)
Teach your sons well.
They will thank you.
Not so hard, really.
Mary, not the issue being dealt with here. This is more, teach your sons not to have sex with a woman who consents and then, when he doesn't ask her out later, claims it was rape. Except the only thing to teach is that Victorian ideal that women cannot be expected to be able to consent to sex. Not really. It's too ..... what?
I don't feel sorry for any Democrat males who will be prosecuted under this law.
Michael:
Yes, but in the third volume to what was meant to be a trilogy, the IRA was called in to adjudicate the matter. Subsequently Molly Bloom was vaporized in a car bomb explosion and Leopold disappeared, resurfacing several years later in Chicago as a 1st Ward alderman indicted for being insufficiently corrupt.
AReasonableMan said...
"I rest my case"
None of what I posted was a lie. 2 vets were killed and two people serving our country died in a fire. Someone made a conscious decision to allow that to happen. Obama at any level is responsible for that decision.
The funny thing is I was in JSOC and have some background knowledge. Everything I post fits in with the context of the situation. ARM is humiliated and resentful and in this case making shit up to buttress a collapsing paradigm. It is what tools do.
Remember, consent can be withdrawn at any time.
Even a couple of months after the act. So, men, you may have been innocent at the time, but things have changed and now you are guilty.
But of course you can prove that you obtained consent from the woman who is now accusing you of rape.... HA HA.. That's a good one!
Just wait until the campus no-presumption-of-innocence standard moves into the criminal justice system. because that's the goal.
"You may not post.
You should not try, or
Else you'll be toast."
May I post as a ghost?
May I, may I?
I promise not to boast, neither as toast or as a ghost.
If only I can post.
Teach your sons the difference between women. Some have character, some do not. Just like mothers teach their daughters about men.
Can men decide that your daughter raped them after the fact?
Because women can do that to men. And be fully believed.
How do you teach your sons to be sure the woman won't decide it was rape if you break up down the line?
Liberals have spent decades complaining about others wanting to intrude in to our bedrooms. But now you have liberal college campuses trying to regulate all bedroom activities of the horniest age group. Good luck.
Remember, consent can be withdrawn at any time.
Even a couple of months after the act. So, men, you may have been innocent at the time, but things have changed and now you are guilty.
But of course you can prove that you obtained consent from the woman who is now accusing you of rape.... HA HA.. That's a good one!
Just wait until the campus no-presumption-of-innocence standard moves into the criminal justice system. because that's the goal.
And hawkeyedjb proceeds to steal my thunder. :)
Question: how are these affirmative consent laws going to stop, in any way, girls who, 3 months later, regret the episode? She can claim she was forced into saying yes. She can claim she was forced into writing "Yes" in any contract.
This is entirely useless for what it proposes to fix. Which gets us back to where we started: this ain't about what it proposes to fix.
"sink your penis..."
Suddenly, it's golf. Everyone else is seeing baseball.
Ann Althouse said...
Everyone else is seeing baseball.
Laslo was seeing ball gags.
Then again, I've never been to a baseball game organized by Laslo. Maybe ball gags are par for the course.
Oh crap, we're back to golf.
Planned Intercourse, without the fava beans, but perhaps a glass of Chianti.
Hans Rosling Statistic of future
Yes, numerous human populations are the problem, but strangely the same people encourage high density population schemes, that exaggerate or accelerate the challenges of the former.
I know I shouldn't engage, but...
Trying to find out what happened in Benghazi is partisan, but trying to find out what happened to Pat Tillman is Patriotism.
"I rest my case."
Aren't you suppose to actually make your case before you rest it? I'm not following the details of the Benghazi case, but I do know that (a) Hillary was and still is a big cheerleader of our ill-conceived intervention in Libya which has greatly worsened that country and proved she has learned absolutely nothing from the past decade; (b) the mess they caused indirectly led to the deaths of American diplomats in the area--I'm not saying she killed them, of course, but she has taken no ownership of the fact that the whole adventure was a bad idea so get used to this when she takes office; (c) the investigation has revealed that on top of everything else, she has callously risked our national security so that she could run an influence peddling ring from the State Department (unless you have some other more plausible reason why she needed to do everything over a private server).
But I look forward to your defenses of her in this upcoming cycle, and when she further erodes this country with her incompetence and corruption as president. If nothing else it'll be amusing.
Not to be inflammatory but to promote a discussion. Since the Sexual Revolution and the debasement of covenant marriage, should we not treat rape as a lesser offense than traditionally? Virtue and chastity are blase, quaint and irrelevant. The article we are commenting on is about a class where unmarried minors are being taught how to have sex. Doesn't it follow that rape should be downgraded to simple battery or misdemeanor theft of services unless the perp inflicts a serious bodily injury or transmits a disease? After all, biologically, the penis is designed to be inserted into a vagina, and a vagina is designed to receive a penis, even producing its own lube for the occasion. Since sex is no longer a holy sacrament reserved for a husband and wife united in a life long marriage, and is now merely a feel good recreational activity, what's the big deal if someone pinches a little without permission?
People are touching on the truth: progressives are trying to tear down our culture and society. The rule of law and the presumption of innocence are unique to the United States. The presumption of innocence keeps the political class from throwing the serfs in jail.
If you look at the moves of progressives from the point of view of a noble class that wants to remake our society into a class of haves and dependent class of have nots with no natural rights the Obama administration starts to make sense.
"But I look forward to your defenses of her in this upcoming cycle, and when she further erodes this country with her incompetence and corruption as president. If nothing else it'll be amusing."
If Hillary wins it will be the final nail in the coffin of the rule of law. Nobody will take seriously a government run by her with respect to moral authority. At that point we will be going to a cash black market economy. Have fun with that.
I can only think that Jerry Brown signed this law because he hasn't had sex in 60 years, if ever, and doesn't much care if a lot of people are going to get into trouble because of it. His thinking must have been that no one is going to use a law like this but because it gives the female the right to use it if she gets mad, then it's scares the boy into acting better and gives the girl more power. It's a power transfer tool. If you make a girl mad she now potentially has the power to, on her word alone, retroactively throw you out of school. What could go wrong with a system like that?
Birches said...
I know I shouldn't engage, but...
"Trying to find out what happened in Benghazi is partisan, but trying to find out what happened to Pat Tillman is Patriotism."
Everything progressives do with respect to the armed forces serves to drag us down and destroy us. They are viewed not as anti war or conscientious objectors by most of the army. They are enemies.
It was not unnoticed that the enemies Hillary is most proud of are aAmerican.We are not proud of Hillary, but she is an enemy and her supporters are disgusting people.
Brutus,
A slice off a cut loaf's never missed.
Theft of services, exactly. That's what we are debased to.
"If Hillary wins it will be the final nail in the coffin of the rule of law. Nobody will take seriously a government run by her with respect to moral authority. At that point we will be going to a cash black market economy. Have fun with that."
If Hillary wins--which at this point is almost entirely dependent on what the GOP does this cycle, so I'm not hopeful that they can stop her--the only hope is the GOP holding on to the House (which is most likely) and the Senate (which is about 50/50). The Senate is key because it controls judicial and executive appointments, and if the Dems get the majority you can easily expect them to end the fillibuster to ram through judicial appointments. Scalia and Kennedy may retire within the next four years, and of course there's all the lower court appointments too.
Much as I can't stand the GOP, they may be the only check left for this country. Hillary's corruption, mismanagement and fascist tendencies--and anyone who laughably dispenses with civil liberties every time it's convenient is at least a soft fascist--are going to take an America that is already facing serious challenges and send us further down the drain to the point where we may not fully recover.
"It was not unnoticed that the enemies Hillary is most proud of are aAmerican.We are not proud of Hillary, but she is an enemy and her supporters are disgusting people."
It's possible she misspoke, but it would have been nice for someone to follow up with "do you really consider Republicans not just your opposition, but your enemy?"
I guess that whole "bring back civility" really meant "tell those nasty tea partiers to mind their manners! Everyone else, carry on!"
AReasonableMan said...
Bob Ellison said...
What is the "stand down" thing?
You posted in the following thread "We wanted to engage in Libya but the administration told us to stand down....". Still want to feign ignorance?
10/15/15, 9:58 AM
AReasonableMan, go back and read what you linked to. Reading is fundamental.
Still want to feign ignorance?
The "stand down" thing appears to be a leftist craze nowadays. Why?
Aren't there enough leftist scandals without you lefties making up ones we righties are supposed to be obsessed about?
It's possible she misspoke, but it would have been nice for someone to follow up with "do you really consider Republicans not just your opposition, but your enemy?"
I guess that whole "bring back civility" really meant "tell those nasty tea partiers to mind their manners! Everyone else, carry on!"
That's the Establishment on both sides for you.
"Conservatives need to compromise more". Then, those same elites decide to work with Democrats to get a Speaker rather than compromise with conservatives.
Hillary is measures worse than most. Nixon, at the very least, had shame.
Leftists tend to project obsession on rightists. Rightists are gun-crazy, homophobic, racist, money-grubbing wack-jobs only interested in Hillary's emails and some weird "stand-down" thing...though rightists occasionally lift their heads up long enough to deny voting rights and...stuff.
"Hillary is measures worse than most. Nixon, at the very least, had shame."
Nixon also had a GOP that ultimately put the country ahead of party. Hillary doesn't seem to have that in today's Democrats. The same ones who thought the Valerie Plame leak was the worst thing imaginable now "are tired of the damn e-mails". They also used to be antiwar, as I recall. Now only Glenn Greenwald and a few others are, but mass protests have gone out of style right around January 2009.
Birches said...
Trying to find out what happened in Benghazi is partisan, but trying to find out what happened to Pat Tillman is Patriotism.
I honestly can't remember seven different house and senate committees investigating the Tillman death, but I could be wrong on this. And there actually was something of a cover-up in that case, which was understandable given Tillman's propaganda value to the military, but troubling nonetheless.
Bob Ellison said...
AReasonableMan, go back and read what you linked to. Reading is fundamental.
I did. For the cartoon to make any sense you had to know about the 'stand down' libel.
Telling the truth is fundamental.
Paddy O, let me suggest that we take this in a Seussian direction.
Could I post this is as a ghost?
Would I, could I post the most?
I would not, could not dare to make our host
Think that we boast of things like...toast.
I'd better have another cup of coffee.
Hey, AReasonableMan, since you know what's in my mind right now, what am I gonna cook for dinner?
Thanks for clarifying that it's the 'stand down' libel. I'll use the English quotation marks from now on and refer to it with all three words.
Look, ARM I'll clear this up for you so your partisan blinders don't send you into a tailspin. Every investigation/hearing conducted by a political branch of government will have some element of partisan gain behind it. It's naive to assume the Dems investigating a GOP president (or Republicans investigating a Dem president) are doing everything just to "get at the truth" and "for love of country" with no mind towards how it could help them politically. That's why these "revelations" that the Benghazi committee was (horror of horrors!) in part an attempt to pick at the Obama administration and Obama's particularly awful Secretary of State are such a yawn.
But that does not mean that these investigations do not serve a good purpose for our democracy and uncover actual scandal, and it does not mean there aren't noble intentions involved as well. To blow this off as "just a partisan witch hunt!" is cheap deflection, and does not get at the root of the question, which is whether laws were broken, whether the American people were lied to, whether the adminsitration acted with corruption or incompetence, and whether anything can be done to prevent the mess in the future.
But don't expect that from the Hillary toadies. They're on full craven spin mode, 24/7.
Notice how ARM responded to the Tillman analogy, where be could point out a difference, but ignored the Nixon and Reagan analogies, where he can't.
Code Pink and the homeless will be back if a Republican wins.
The affirmative consent "rules" are just another example of what happens when governments make rules without working them out with the affected parties first. (Hm. "Pass it to see what's in it". Is that SOP now?)
Back in the 60's there were all kinds of accounting scandals reported about the C-5 airplane program. The reporting impressed me with how awful the contractor companies must be, to break all those rules. But...
In about 1985, at ROLM Corp in Silicon Valley, we lost our "commercial exemption" from certain DoD accounting rules because the proportion of out military business had exceeded some limit. this meant we were subject to so-called "1411 rollup" rules.
OK, fine. We get training on what that means. How to fill out timecards (! for a SV programmer type?), how to bill time to various projects in the approved way, etc.
After about a month, the systems programming team put together a list of 10 questions for accounting and HR, asking how common work situations should be accounted for. Nothing esoteric, stuff like how to account for:
- If we leave a reliability test running in the lab overnight
- If (as happened often) we started such a test, then 30 minutes later as we were walking out, we notice that the test had stopped, and we spend an hour getting it going again.
- how to fill out a timecard through friday when the cards were due by 5 PM thursday?
- If I call someone in project X to discuss an issue I am having with project Y?
- If the total time I spend in a week on my 3 projects exceeds 40 hours?
HR and accounting answered precisely 0 of these questions. So, we just winged it, doing the project accounting on a best-guess basis.
The most amusing thing was that we had (about 6 month before) got a new CEO, and when 1411 came into effect, he literally said "Please follow the rules - if you don't I could go to jail."
We tried, or would have if there really were workable rules, but then, we didn't really like the new guy, so...
TL;DR: It's typical for gov to make rules that cannot be followed, and this has been so for many decades at least.
MayBee said...
Does ANY woman, on Earth, want a man to actually ask for permission every single step of the way?
I suspect women who have emasculation fantasies want this.
Or.....you know how the ministers who are always railing against gay people often turn out to be gay, and people who push for laws against contacting underage people on the internet often turn out to be contacting underage people on the internet....I suspect some of these women like rough sex and are trying to save themselves from themselves.
I think this is absolutely the case, but not only with regard to rough sex- also promiscuous and recreational sex. Women generally are not wired to engage in sex without an emotional attachment, and now that they're being encouraged to so so (and even made to feel abnormal if they don't feel good about it) they have a need to project the bad feelings onto the partner who 'made them do it.'
Yet it never occurs to feminists that the sexual revolution has harmed young women's psyches in this way. Even the feminist that Ann blogged about the other day, who felt women should be able to reject sexual advances more freely, focused entirely on the physical enjoy ability of sex. Sure, that's it, teach more guys about anatomy and it'll all be good...
Qwinn said...
Notice how ARM responded to the Tillman analogy, where be could point out a difference, but ignored the Nixon and Reagan analogies, where he can't.
Why didn't you bring up the murder of the Neanderthals, I didn't address that either.
Qwinn said...
Notice how ARM responded to the Tillman analogy, where be could point out a difference, but ignored the Nixon and Reagan analogies, where he can't.
Why didn't you bring up the murder of the Neanderthals, I didn't address that either.
OK, first a serious point: This appears to be a class for 16-18 year olds. Isn't the MOST IMPORTANT thing you could tell them about is what the age of consent law is in your particular state? Because you can get a yes yes yes at every stage, but if you are 17 and your partner is 15, that's real statutory rape. And that applies whether the "initiator" is male or female.
Second, a comment from my heart: For God Almighty's sake! When you, as a teacher, talk to children (your students) about sex the first thing you should say is DON'T! And the second thing is, TALK TO YOUR PARENTS! If I had children in that age range and I found out they were being taught this stuff, they'd be enrolled in the nearest Yeshiva by dawn the next day.
Wassamatta, godfather? Don't you WANT your kids "socialized"?
Read the Wikipedia entry on Pat Tillman. There's plenty of congressional inquiries.
Do you know that his brother thinks he was murdered by the Army? Why? Because instead of telling the truth, the government obfuscated and deflected, trying to hide their own incompetence in the situation. By trying to cover the truth up, they created the idea that there was something very sinister going on. A video? Friendly fire? Say it ain't so.
Ann,
Everyone knows that sex doesn't have "levels," it has bases - first, second, third and home. I guess in California now you need explicit verbal OK to round one base and head for the next. P.S. Don't tell Meatloaf.
CStanley- yeah, I think you are right. Maybe if someone just asked them every step of the way, they would at some point say no and not have another episode of meaningless sex.
Why didn't you bring up the murder of the Neanderthals, I didn't address that either.
Evidently, ARM thinks he's witty......
he's half right.
Women generally are not wired to engage in sex without an emotional attachment
Bad thoughts! Bad thoughts!
Men and women are exactly the same...gender is a cultural construct....you Patriarchal oppressor!
Laslo jokes but makes a good point. This criminalizes BDSM. Talk about old fashioned sexual prejudices.
This is job creation. We need to have someone monitor the "yes". Otherwise, it's still he-said, she-said, and impossible to enforce.
If I apply early, can I choose which college students I get to monitor?
Post a Comment