jazzhammer
jazzhammer
jazzhammer

Or, even better, the guys who actually could hold their arms to their sides but hold them out anyway. "Imaginary lat syndrome" is the scientific term.

What body builders (the non competitive ones who do it to look like the guys on the magazines) don't understand is that they are mostly only making an impression on other guys.

I think, or I feel (if you will), that such prefaces show an acknowledgment of conceptual complexity. I have formulated an idea based on what I have learned and observed but am open to hearing and considering a different point of view on the matter. It is a sign of intelligence. The fact that women often say these

You need to re read your original comment. You said that rape is a consequence of drinking. That is victim blaming. The end. Good day sir or madam.

I don't drink anymore and haven't for a long time. I have friends who are alcoholics and it's hard for me to watch. I don't spend very much time with these people because of it. Rape is not a consequence of drinking. That is victim blaming to say that. Stop it. There are all kinds of things you can say about the

I don't really know what is unclear about these cases. Perhaps the first one presents a challenge because if one person is too drunk to give meaningful consent, they are probably also too drunk to understand if they have meaningful consent from the other, and they would both have to be in such a state for this

"If he hadn't been so drunk, he might have been able to figure out that he was being a D-BAG. And now he's committed sexual assault." You, emphasis mine.

To say that rape is a consequence of drinking is implying causation, your Virginia Slims analogy explicitly states causation, which is clearly victim blaming because you are saying that a girl's drinking is the cause of her rape. I have done sooooo much drinking and never been raped because I have never partied with

I am doubtful that those guys who claim ignorance regarding their victim's consent aren't just making excuses for themselves. I believe, actually I think it's obvious, that people's inhibitions are reduced when they drink, and that includes rapists who have a sexual preference for coercive sex who ordinarily might

I was joking too. Well, perhaps only half joking. In my hippiedom I take barefootedness too seriously. I apologize for drawing your ire and realize that my response to your post wasn't useful.

That's not what I'm referring to. I'm more talking about when an intelligent and well meaning person has an opinion based on some factual or philosophical errors and instead of informing them of where they went wrong, an otherwise like minded person who might actually want to have coffee with the person if they met

Not tacky at all in your situation. Sorry about your friend situation. That sucks.

Is it though? (Their job, I mean). It is not actually a legal defense to argue that her cooperation would have been required or that she wasn't a model citizen or virgin or whatever they were getting at with the Miss Muffin comment. She was well below the age of consent and he was an adult in a position of authority

There is nothing sexy about anyone ever who is so irrationally afraid of ringworm that they will never squish fresh mud between their toes.

DUDE! It's because she felt more attracted to him! She had her reasons and she didn't want to say them out loud for fear of hurting your feelings. It sucks when you want to be with someone and they don't feel the same way, but you'll be the bees knees to someone else provided you keep an open heart.

I don't understand. You said you dated her, right? And presumably, she had met the person she left you for since apparently she was familiar enough with him to list his admirable qualities. What did she not know? And when was "beforehand"?

Someone else posted this farther down:

The reason is probably that they are not attracted to you. I know men that are o.k. looking and that I think are nice, intelligent, funny etc... but I am just not attracted to. Attraction is either there or it's not. There is not necessarily any logical reason why. I think you just need to accept an absence of

The food we eat literally becomes part of our bodies. We put it INSIDE of our bodies. It's sort of intimate. I think that a person's reasons for not eating certain things should absolutely be respected regardless of whether or not you think that food is healthy. If I choose not to eat bread even though I tolerate

I'm sorry that you are inconvenienced by your food allergies. I have some food sensitivities as well (nightshades) and it's often hard for me to avoid those foods when I eat out so on a smaller level I can relate. I disagree that restricting gluten or any other food that a parent is not fully confident is healthy is