I attended a college with an NC winning women's soccer team. Occasionally they played a men's intramural team. And got dominated.

Wow this was great. From the In Memoriam to, well, a legit point awesomely made. Really well done.

No way Bruce Jenner is one of the most famous athletes in American history.

Wawrinka might have the most technically perfect backhand in the game. And the most perfect of the last many years, too. Maybe Jakob Hlasek like 25 years ago.

1. You discussed how “how well men have manipulated these [sexual assault] incidents.” I responded with another viewpoint: how well some *women* have manipulated some of these incidents. I gave a specific example (you did not). That’s a pretty direct response to your description of men’s manipulation.

Welllll, I figured if you’re going to call me “bro,” then I’d have a little fun pushing back.

No, their consent isn’t breached. (Not that I accept there even is a consent issue here, but set that aside for the moment.)

Despite your attitude, I’ll demonstrate further:

No, you misread or misunderstand the definition you linked, and the law. The apprehension must be reasonable - which is what I argued to you. Your own link says exactly that btw.

Your approach - that the purported victim gets to choose whether or not an incident is sexual assault - is not rational and not workable. There must also be some sort of more objective measure.

What is that all about? Geez.

It qualifies as passive aggressive. A real dick move (in effect, publicly announcing, “Ain’t no way I’m marrying this chick I brought!” which, if true, should be handled in private) the meanness of which can be denied as mere joking around. I hate that stuff.

Where you contend that the lack of awareness/understanding of the difference between “sexual assault” and its subset “rape” is exploited on behalf of the accused men, I don’t follow.

The term “sexual assault,” however, carries a gravity approaching that of “rape.” That similar gravity is often exploited to increase the apparent seriousness of the incident, the apparent trauma to the victim, and apparent monstrosity of the man. (See the Prince Shembo incident.)

Actually, in 4/5 of the states, a marriage is not legally a full partnership (assuming by “full” you mean equal in terms of asset ownership), in the sense that property would be divided equitably, not equally. That kind of gets near the heart of this weird phenomenon.

Oops, I see I responded to myself rather than to you.

It is about as weird to say that the wife’s contributions to the partnership are worth $20MM as it to say they’re worth 100K. Not all partnerships are equal. His ability to make $40MM is exceptionally rare; her ability to get kids to school, pack a lunch, shop for groceries, etc. is not rare - a near-illiterate spouse…

Yet it’s also problematic to say her contribution is worth $20MM.

Um, because it’s not intolerant to be intolerant of intolerance.

I wonder what he actually said, in full and in context.