armyvet10
armyvet10
armyvet10

HaDont.

that old fashion type of lady that waits till after they get home from the sex club to shower. It's all 1920's up in here....

Who will play Mary Thom and Robin Morgan?!

ugh- I hate the super bright lights. Maybe they help you as a driver, but as the person in the other car, or on a motorcycle, these lights when oncoming are blinding at angles ( like cresting a hill). They are so bright as to create afterimage.

I find the newest lights incredibly obnoxious when at certain angles- like when the oncoming car is cresting a hill. At these angles the lights become dangerously bright and cause light afterimage in my eyes, which is especially dangerous while driving, and especially so when driving a motorcycle!

This choice of words could indicate he touched her genitals or body in some way, but didn't penetrate her. Generally that would be a legal charge of sexual assault and not rape (depending on the state and its laws). But you are right that many media outlets refuse to use the term rape when the actions clearly are that

Yes, and he "meets" them in bathrooms and bushes at parks.

It doesn't matter unless the law specifies the medium- if it says "print" then it would exempt "digital". Otherwise it is a lack of imagination in the part of the judge or prosecutor to claim a law about privacy or images/taking pictures doesn't extend to new picture taking technology. I understand exactly what you

I have never read a law that specified a difference between cloud/digital storage and printed photos. Not sure if that exists as a legal distinction for these purposes.

Preach!!

Upskirt pictures without consent were not invented with the camera phone. Secondly, the idea that under a skirt is a place people attempt to see without the consent of the skirted person isn't new either. It is either a failure of the court/prosecutors to apply old law to new texhnology( which happens often), or a

Yeah that sounds worse- but her voice is a huge part of what made the first one so creepy! The new one is going to be missing something, not sure if it can recover.

Which is why it is a problem with the privacy law, and not a problem with technology.

This isn't a problem with technology so much as it is a problem with laws being historically written and interpreted by men. When considering privacy when drafting the laws there was no personal background with wearing skirts/dresses, so those areas were not included in the definition of where one could "expect

which underscores the problem of laws being written without the input of people who do not wear skirts/dresses in public.

Blaming technology a bit of a cop out that too many courts use- would it be illegal if this was done with a 35mm camera? Or a Polaroid instant? The "technology" of taking pictures isn't new, nor is the idea of sharing them. If the law doesn't make this illegal it isn't just because of technology, very often

I feel like this is "eh" without Zelda.

He is saying "states rights".

The porn industry is about as good for women as the war industry is. Every once in a while it might help an individual woman, but on a mass scale it does not benfit women and often actively hurts them.

I share your consternation. The term has the word "self" in it, which denotes taking a picture of ones self BY ones self. But in some way Rebecca is right but I hope in the opposite direction- rather than selfie morphing into a term for "picture", "picture" should take over and devour "selfie" since it is a damn