Been that way since the 1890s, and the invention of the stock ticker. Computers may be faster, but it has been a VERY long time since the stock market was connected to reality.
Hmm, I would have thought that would be the OPPOSITE of male privilege- but now that I think about it, privilege means private law, so the "privilege" of going to jail for misunderstanding what a woman wants, is indeed privilege. Thank you.
It's as much a mental illness as any other disorder that disrupts *statistically* normal behavior.
Statistically normal behavior for the human species is heterosexuality, or at least, we would hope that it is (bigendered species that do not embrace heterosexuality, we have a word for that: extinct).
A huge part of what I am saying is that "mental illness" is just deviation from a statistical norm. If we work to make homosexuality normal, we will be working to make heterosexuality rare.
If you are a malthusian eugenicist who believes that the planet is overpopulated, that's good news. If you are an evidence based theist who knows that the planet is still underpopulated, that's bad news. If you are a parent trying to raise your child in the historical norm, it is really bad news.
Not at all. For every person we engage in a discussion on the internet, there are 10 more lurkers watching. Helping other people get out evidence, pushing them to find evidence deep down in the web like this, is a public service you should be applauded for.
From the article: Women who have experienced this can recognize that placating these men is a rational choice, a form of self-defense to protect against setting off an aggressor. But to male bystanders, it often looks like a warm welcome, and that helps to shift blame in the public eye from the harasser and onto his target, who’s failed to respond with the type of masculine bravado that men more easily recognize. Two weeks before the murders, Louis C.K.—who has always recognized pervasive male violence against women in his stand-up—spelled out how this works in an episode of Louie, where he recalls watching a man and a woman walking together on a date. “He goes to kiss her, and she does an amazing thing that women somehow learn how to do—she hugged him very warmly. Men think this is affection, but what this is is a boxing maneuver.” Women “are better at rejecting us than we are,” C.K. said. “They have the skills to reject men in the way that we can then not kill them.”
I'm arguing that homoseuxality has been with us for a very long time. And that there is no reason to believe that pedophilia is a rare mental illness any more than we once believed homosexuality was a rare mental illness.
Without written documentation, she could just claim in court that she met you in a restaurant and you drugged her.
Even with written documentation- everything you mentioned could easily be faked. As every atheist has ever told me when discounting the gospels- witnesses can't be trusted.
If you're a geek with asperger's, "a modicum of a hint", especially implied, is most likely wrong. If you don't have explicit WRITTEN consent, there is no way to prove that it happened and thus is likely just wishful thinking on your part.
It isn't a joke. I have identified within my own brain an inability to find the boundary between fantasy and reality. It is something I have struggled with for decades, and will continue to struggle with.
And exactly how do you prove that a lack of consent in the first place wasn't reteroactive withdrawal of consent? Or the reverse? By evidence, the two are equal.
Date rape leaves no defensive wounds. And there is no written proof for "long term girlfriend", though "fiance" might work (though with a fiance, haven't you already "put a ring on that"? Even Mary and Joseph were betrothed.)
I did all of the above. Not murderously violent, but violent enough that I acted out in inappropriate ways.
It is safest for such men to consider *any* sexual contact outside of marriage to be rape- because it's certain that unless you have put a ring on that finger, any consent you think you have received will be revoked retroactively, and you'll be charged with rape anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
You'd find the cat, but it would be dead from a heart attack after it's collar suddenly went BLEEP for an extended period very loudly.
A lot of non zero can add up to something greater than one. But you are never going to miniaturize it into a keyfob tag.
Jewishness isn't contagious. But Leprosy is, and this is how we practically wiped it out of the Western Hemisphere.
HIV is easy to erradicate. Just use mandatory testing, sterilization, and quarantine, and no mater how it mutates, it will be gone in two generations.
Like bigotry against the unplanned in support of a massive genocide.
Never buy from a man in a suit. A large portion of what you are paying for is the suit.
Slashdot's going downhill. 52 posts and no mention of the Cybermen providing you with a free upgrade to Human 2.0
"Experts"="Con artists with a vested interest in taking money from schmucks" in this case.
Been that way since the 1890s, and the invention of the stock ticker. Computers may be faster, but it has been a VERY long time since the stock market was connected to reality.
And thus requires treatment, rather than mistreatment. Gay bashing is mistreatment, as is gay marriage.
Hmm, I would have thought that would be the OPPOSITE of male privilege- but now that I think about it, privilege means private law, so the "privilege" of going to jail for misunderstanding what a woman wants, is indeed privilege. Thank you.
It's as much a mental illness as any other disorder that disrupts *statistically* normal behavior.
Statistically normal behavior for the human species is heterosexuality, or at least, we would hope that it is (bigendered species that do not embrace heterosexuality, we have a word for that: extinct).
A huge part of what I am saying is that "mental illness" is just deviation from a statistical norm. If we work to make homosexuality normal, we will be working to make heterosexuality rare.
If you are a malthusian eugenicist who believes that the planet is overpopulated, that's good news. If you are an evidence based theist who knows that the planet is still underpopulated, that's bad news. If you are a parent trying to raise your child in the historical norm, it is really bad news.
Not at all. For every person we engage in a discussion on the internet, there are 10 more lurkers watching. Helping other people get out evidence, pushing them to find evidence deep down in the web like this, is a public service you should be applauded for.
Under feminism,. the woman's word is always right. Just as under the Gay Mafia, dissent is not allowed in the courts anymore.
3rd reply: Women are really good at fooling Men into thinking that they've given consent when they haven't, due to evolutionary misogyny and the defense against it.
It's also presumptuous to assume that your learned skills are good enough in a situation that could cost you jail time.
I've learned as well- but one thing that allowed me to learn was early on adopting the rule above- don't have sex without written consent.
Otherwise I'm sure I would be locked up and permanently branded as a sex offender by now; almost was anyway.
I'm arguing that homoseuxality has been with us for a very long time. And that there is no reason to believe that pedophilia is a rare mental illness any more than we once believed homosexuality was a rare mental illness.
Without written documentation, she could just claim in court that she met you in a restaurant and you drugged her.
Even with written documentation- everything you mentioned could easily be faked. As every atheist has ever told me when discounting the gospels- witnesses can't be trusted.
If you're a geek with asperger's, "a modicum of a hint", especially implied, is most likely wrong. If you don't have explicit WRITTEN consent, there is no way to prove that it happened and thus is likely just wishful thinking on your part.
It isn't a joke. I have identified within my own brain an inability to find the boundary between fantasy and reality. It is something I have struggled with for decades, and will continue to struggle with.
And exactly how do you prove that a lack of consent in the first place wasn't reteroactive withdrawal of consent? Or the reverse? By evidence, the two are equal.
Date rape leaves no defensive wounds. And there is no written proof for "long term girlfriend", though "fiance" might work (though with a fiance, haven't you already "put a ring on that"? Even Mary and Joseph were betrothed.)
It's how the homosexual culture, now widespread, got started in the DSM-III-TR in 1974. Give it time.
I did all of the above. Not murderously violent, but violent enough that I acted out in inappropriate ways.
It is safest for such men to consider *any* sexual contact outside of marriage to be rape- because it's certain that unless you have put a ring on that finger, any consent you think you have received will be revoked retroactively, and you'll be charged with rape anyway.
As for proof of a widespread pedophilia culture, I suggest you read this article analyzing the topic as it is treated in the DSM-V