I was just thinking yesterday that I’m very glad there’s a term that encompasses the “not actual rape” situations that clearly defines it as negative rather than allowing it to be spun as “horseplay” or “fooling around.”

She makes it look good!

I can’t believe I completely forgot that memorable gem came from the same piehole as this malarkey.

Ah, yes, we may actually be. If we had such a law on the books like the one described in the link, that would be utterly fantastic. But going hand in hand with a question like that is, are we far enough along as a society and country?

Okay, here’s a question back at you, in regards to why these institutions haven’t been overturned.

This is both sobering and inspiring. Thank you!

*internet hugs* I am so sorry.

I absolutely agree. What he did is horrifying.

Yes.. Assuming substantive good faith on issues relating to sexual assault is a miscalculation, as is the assumption that most sexual assault incidents even see the inside of a courtroom. The hypothetical questions those jurors are asking? Whatever case it is, it probably isn’t a sexual assault case.

Thank you, to everyone attending one of these events.

That’s a good question. I’m still pretty sure we’re on the same page, albeit maybe with different approaches. Look how many rape kits are still unprocessed in this country. Look how few convictions there are. Look what “punishments” are doled out when that actually happens. You speak as if sexual assault was treated li…

I’m likely preaching to the choir here, but just in case...we are. We have been. We’re screaming into the void as we’re brushed off, gaslit, or outright ignored.

“If that’s the new standard, no man will ever qualify for the Supreme Court again.”

It’s an even more apt metaphor considering that dicks in the wilderness are basically graffiti, and that as these men are wandering out in the metaphorical wilderness (which, lol), still all they can see is the perceived value of their outsized, exaggerated presence and not the actual blight on the landscape that it is…

I’m still undecided whether Yandy is an actual costume company legitimately trying to sell costumes or a collection of fabric-based trolling solely designed to generate clicks.

That’s essentially the point (and the source of morbid humor) of the entire article.

I mean, IF it’s true he was asked to leave because of that article and only because of that article, that would be an extremely interesting discussion thread.

Wait, though. This entire thread is predicated on the assumption that he was, indeed, let go because of Ghomeshi’s article, as that’s the statement made in your first post from which opinions follow as if that assumption is truth.

Yeah. It is.

That was a fantastic read. Thanks for linking.