I feel so badly for those men that think that they have so little self-control, are so un-intelligent and animalistic, that they are only capable of seeing a woman's body and "reacting to it." They have no self-control. They just simply cannot help it.

I'm in the unique position of not cringing one bit at this. Because as of yet I haven't heard a poop-related hookup story worse than my own.

This is why I don't leave the house without taking a double dose of Immodium. There's nothing like the knowledge that it would be absolutely fucking impossible to poop even if you wanted to to make you feel secure.

It doesn't really matter what you "seriously doubt". All humans have ownership of their own bodies, and kids have a much harder time learning that if they're constantly being forced to touch people or allow themselves to be touched against their will. No one here is advocating that kids be allowed to scream and yell…

I guess you missed this part:

Why is one person's need to touch another person more important than the other person's desire not to be touched? Children are persons, after all.

To the contrary, it's very important to send an early and consistent message that your kid is the boss of their body and bodily interactions, and if they don't feel like hugging or kissing today (even if they did yesterday) then that's the end of it and no one is going to make them feel weird about it.

How is "you don't have to touch people you don't want to touch" dysfunctional?

Yes, but learning from the get-go that you show physical affection on your own terms based on how you feel about the relationship in that moment sounds a lot healthier than offering physical affection out of obligation based on a title one holds in the relationship, doesn't it?

There is a difference between denying a kid touch and not forcing them to touch people they are not comfortable with. If my nephew doesn't want strangers or even family to touch him, we honor that, but try denying this kid touch when he wants it. He is the cuddliest 2 yo alive, but we are teaching him that if…

But this child isn't being denied touch. She's being given the right to say that, at that particular moment, she doesn't want to be touched.

Her daughter isn't avoiding touch. Her daughter is touching on her terms. That sounds healthy to me.

Okay, so never do anything _ever_ that might be construed at any time as improper. Man, this list of rules of How To Earn Your Right To Be Treated As A Person While Existing As A Woman just gets longer every day!

"we concluded that adult films must remain just that, a product for adults. That's why we decided not to renew Mrs. Laurent-Auger's contract." ...not: 'that's why we decided to talk to the pupils about responsible internet use'? No, good, fine.

What are you talking about? The police did not search for her or investigate her death. I don't read any of those facts as "speculation" or bias against the police. It's Lewis that is calling for an investigation and speaking about the enemies she had on the reservation.

How is Isha supposed to know those details, when there has been no investigation? You're asking the author to solve the crime, but the point is that this is what the police should be doing.

They wouldn't care because they think women who die like that deserve it.

Benevolent sexism is the more accurate term. It's so fucking patronizing to women. It's one of those 'jokes' that are supposed to make us feel better about being women staying within their small gender box like saying that "hey, you don't have as much institutional power as men but you have your feminine wiles which…

I know we like to joke about misandry and male tears and all that, but you know what's actually misandry? Claiming that men aren't as smart as women, and that they can't possibly be expected to know how to act like adults. And it's coming from the (male) President of the U.S. of A.