The whitest, most unrealistic, nondiverse, nonsocialcommentary, vapid show in American TV history.

Most DV instances involve family members fighting.

The statement was opinion based. You really think Bethesda would openly say "hey, were cutting skyrim short to tell you on our MMORPG"?

Pretty much. I mean, the site hasnt been a 'safe place' for men in a while, but some of this overt irrational vitriol-by-implication is getting out of control. It does not help feminism or the idea of feminism when you play into the negative stereotypes by asshat MRA's.

All these theories, yet not one word on how fucked up it is that she PHYSICALLY ASSAULTED someone and wasnt arrested for it.

Exactly. Shit like this plays right into the narrative MRA'ers convey about the double standards of physical violence. I mean, I know jez is not exactly known as a 'safe place' for men, but you cant go about defending PHYSICAL VIOLENCE with pure assumption just because the person committing it has a vagina and the…

For those jumping to the "he cheated and Solange responded"/"She was defending her sister"

1- Yes, Ive played both. Besides being extremely short in comparison to older DLC like Shivering Isles and Tribune, they also did not add much to the story. I assume youre a 'johnny come lately' to Elder Scrolls games?

Nothing like playing a game in which your imagination has to make it more fun and full of consequences!

Imagine if CDProjekt (witcher 2) did an open world game of thrones game....then get angry that it didnt happen.

The Aylied ruins were better IMO because they used a lot of darkness and creepiness that Skyrim lacked. Skyrims Dwemmer ruins shined, but its old nord ruins were horribly boring.

The first (or last) one should be that bethesda totally hosed its fans by not releasing an adequate amount of expansion packs (not DLC additions, expansions, as they used to with morrowwind and oblivion).

I dont disagree. But the consent element is where I was focusing. But you are right, its for a judge and jury. I do think there needs to be a revision of the rule (maybe a 3 year difference from 17-20, but not above for example) purely because the standard is set so arbitrarily. By the current standard, my mother…

Because we have to draw the line somewhere to protect as many people as possible without infringing on peoples freedoms.

Yet you do that without offering a counter relevant to my point. You went from (validly) arguing my incorrect wording to an assumption of awareness of the article, but you still did not clarify what 'indefensible' position I was defending. Nor did you counter it.

I question why you are so fouse on a hypothetical situation that doesn't even apply to you.

Here is my reply again with all quotes in the right place:

What I understand is that your questions are completely rhetorical and you know that. But the manner in which you are asking them in framed in such a way as to implicitly express your belief that teenagers are able to make the decision to have sex with an adult.

What 'argument' did I make? And, again, why does the suicide of a female make the issue more or less pertinent than a male?

You said I went off topic. My first sentence was a disclaimer that this was somewhat related but partially off topic