|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
My Sex-Ed was blunt and clinical, and left me deeply deprived of any understanding of how a "Birds and Bees" metaphor works.
|
Norway28561 Posts
One of my classmates was school sanctioned designated condom carrier during our 17 day graduation party.
|
On September 08 2017 02:13 Liquid`Drone wrote:
One of my classmates was school sanctioned designated condom carrier during our 17 day graduation party.
TFW your principle delivers a crate of condoms to your house and your mother has to sign for it.
|
On September 08 2017 01:24 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2017 01:22 zlefin wrote:
I'd say the language issue has less to do with the terms themselves; than with scum on the other side deciding to expoit the issue for political/monetary gain by both deriding the language choices (whatever they were), and by willfully only highlighting the more extreme uses/misuses of the term (i.e. highlighting only the extremes, rather than the moderates) so they can all rally against the extremes, and profit by being the ralliers. which also leads to a bunch of people fighting against all of the versions of the ideas, because they can't tell the difference and refuse to make the distinction.
In some cases, yeah. Surely then, we should try and adapt our language so they don't have the choice to do that. In other cases, for example the difference between racism (the KKK) and racism (white power structure) are non existent - we are basically giving them the ammunition.
it doesn't work like that, you're missing the point. No matter WHAT language is chosen, some on the other side will point to the extremes misusing it (which will always exist due to variation in beliefs). you can always nitpick an excuse to criticize anything; and they will find such an excuse and use it because they profit by doing so, no matter WHAT term is chosen or how objectively reasonable it is.
|
I'm from the north east so all of this "god will stop us from being horny and sinning" shit is madness to me.
Ok, so there is some juice behind this story. And none of it would shock me, considering how all the largest tech companies do everything in their power to avoid systems run by humans.
|
On September 08 2017 02:13 Liquid`Drone wrote:
One of my classmates was school sanctioned designated condom carrier during our 17 day graduation party.
Yeah, if that happened in good 'ole Maumee, the parents would riot in the streets.
|
United States42009 Posts
Just casually explain to girls about how childbirth might literally tear the membrane between holes but that they shouldn't worry about it because the doctors know to be ready for that and will just sew it right back up. Suddenly condoms look a whole lot more appealing.
|
On September 08 2017 02:19 KwarK wrote:
Just casually explain to girls about how childbirth might literally tear the membrane between holes but that they shouldn't worry about it because the doctors know to be ready for that and will just sew it right back up. Suddenly condoms look a whole lot more appealing.
To make this more palatable for young people it should be rephrased to 'rip the gooch asunder'
|
These were purchased through shell corporations, so there was no way of knowing the source until further investigation.
What should really concern you is that if you took all the foreign-bought propaganda ads, they would still largely be indistinguishable from the typical electoral propaganda.
|
On September 08 2017 01:53 Mohdoo wrote:
On the topic of parental shittiness, I pose the following question: Is it ethical for a parent to name their kid something that is spelled so weird, no one will ever successfully read their name correctly in the place they live?
A friend of mine recently named his kid "Aine", pronounced "awn-yuh". To me, this could basically be labeled as ego stroking. Parents take a lot of pride in what they name their kids, and while I understand this is a common Irish way to spell the name, they don't live in Ireland. The kid will grow up in the US and their name will be mispronounced their entire lives.
How about just using a different spelling? Keep the name, but spell it in a way that their kid won't go their entire life having to correct people. My name is somewhat commonly mispronounced, and I hate it. It's just a bother at this point having to say the same thing I have said at least 8000 times. It wears on me. I mean, it isn't like the most awful god damn thing in the world, but having that not be the case would be AMAZING. My name is mispronounced maybe 10% of the time. Aine? That's gotta be at least 50%.
Essentially, my argument is that a parent deciding to name their kid in some way that is significant to them for whatever dipshit reason, is in many ways not a decision I feel like they have the right to make. They shouldn't be able to knowingly sign their kid up for correcting people their entire lives.
i'd put this in the maybe pile; depending on the exact word, local language, familiy traditions, and so forth.
generally when this topic comes up, it's less irregular spellings, and more really bad names (like being literally named moon unit or asshole)
I think there should be some restrictions, and some names should be blocked, but where the line is and should be, that's pretty tricky, and will involve a lot of judgment calls.
idunno about this Aine case; the spelling is a real problem, but it's a fine name in and of itself, and it sounds like there may be some family history, and at any rate cultural history.
|
On September 08 2017 02:22 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2017 02:19 KwarK wrote:
Just casually explain to girls about how childbirth might literally tear the membrane between holes but that they shouldn't worry about it because the doctors know to be ready for that and will just sew it right back up. Suddenly condoms look a whole lot more appealing. To make this more palatable for young people it should be rephrased to 'rip the gooch asunder'
In KY they showed you the video of it (well, if you had a less creative interpretation of attendance requirements than I did) then told you that abstinence was the only way to avoid it because condoms weren't 100% effective so they were useless.
|
On September 08 2017 02:27 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2017 01:53 Mohdoo wrote:
On the topic of parental shittiness, I pose the following question: Is it ethical for a parent to name their kid something that is spelled so weird, no one will ever successfully read their name correctly in the place they live?
A friend of mine recently named his kid "Aine", pronounced "awn-yuh". To me, this could basically be labeled as ego stroking. Parents take a lot of pride in what they name their kids, and while I understand this is a common Irish way to spell the name, they don't live in Ireland. The kid will grow up in the US and their name will be mispronounced their entire lives.
How about just using a different spelling? Keep the name, but spell it in a way that their kid won't go their entire life having to correct people. My name is somewhat commonly mispronounced, and I hate it. It's just a bother at this point having to say the same thing I have said at least 8000 times. It wears on me. I mean, it isn't like the most awful god damn thing in the world, but having that not be the case would be AMAZING. My name is mispronounced maybe 10% of the time. Aine? That's gotta be at least 50%.
Essentially, my argument is that a parent deciding to name their kid in some way that is significant to them for whatever dipshit reason, is in many ways not a decision I feel like they have the right to make. They shouldn't be able to knowingly sign their kid up for correcting people their entire lives. i'd put this in the maybe pile; depending on the exact word, local language, familiy traditions, and so forth. generally when this topic comes up, it's less irregular spellings, and more really bad names (like being literally named moon unit or asshole) I think there should be some restrictions, and some names should be blocked, but where the line is and should be, that's pretty tricky, and will involve a lot of judgment calls. idunno about this Aine case; the spelling is a real problem, but it's a fine name in and of itself, and it sounds like there may be some family history, and at any rate cultural history.
In Germany the registry office dictates what name you can and cannot give your child. Though there is no clear cut guideline and you're basically subject to arbitrary decisions by the civil servant, the main objective of that sort of control is the child's wellbeing.
|
yea, i think the people in iceland have it right(hope i'm remembering the country right.) if you attempt to name your child anything that is new, it must be reviewed by some board.
personally i'd approve Aine, especially in the states. melting pot and all that. and then the name would be free to use for anyone after approval (assuming it was at the time unique.)
i mean i know it's mildly different, but nobody has ever gotten my last name right on the first try. to call it a mild inconvenience would be overstating its affect. understanding that you'd have to correct people more frequently i don't think it's much of a burden. the option to change it is always there should they find it one.
and again, in the states you'll run into the full gamut of ethnicities. languages differ so wildly that i don't think I'll ever pronounce any unfamiliar Indian name correctly on the first try. i don't hold that against them or their parents, it's my own ignorance after all. but i wouldn't dissuade any of them from choosing a name they feel reflects their family unit.
|
Devos is expected to roll back parts of title ix for colleges.
www.buzzfeed.com
Or the hyper partisan approach
|
On September 08 2017 02:03 Artisreal wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2017 01:32 Kickboxer wrote:On September 08 2017 01:18 Artisreal wrote:
Rant:
Dude. It was you who posted that people live in different realities a few pages back. Maybe you live in 1990 in accordance with the restrictions posed on women to be sexy as fuck and at the same time Virgin Mary and that getting raped is due to promiscuous clothing or behaviour. And that boys don't cry (read express emotion). But others live in 2017, where veganism is a thing and people play videogames for a salary and footballers come out as homosexuals. Incidentally it is also a year where women and PoC do speak up against discrimination and even men start the fight against 'Manning up' (read suck it up).
You don't have to be up to speed, bring imperfect is fine in these times. Even for a man.
And to go back to your earlier example of your friends being stuck with bitchy wives and kids.
They supposedly suffer from some sort of discrimination because of they split alimony is due and the wife gets the house and yada yada.
Ok. They marry a person, impregnate them and afterwards say oops that's not for me. Tough shit. Your wife probably have up lots of career opportunities to be your child's mother while you went off and had a career. Now you're like... Bah this girl isn't for me. Whoops, your bad, have fun with the kids and no pension. Haha thanks for nothing.
What else do their wives have to live on if not the continued support of theirs kids' father?
Go back to their family and rely on their help until the kids are grown up? Go be a successful single mother managing work and kids and live a life worth living?
Ask yourself whether you would want that for your daughter or even for yourself. I don't understand why you need to misrepresent my position, especially since I'm not sugarcoating anything and it's therefore "reactionary, primitive" etc. to begin with. Rape is atrocious and has no justification under any conditions, we can get that out of the way. I don't want women to be virgins, but I do believe it's pretty healthy for them to be picky who they go to bed with, since they can basically choose to fuck whomever they want, whenever they want. There are also very technical reasons why casual sex has a different psychological effect on a man compared to a woman. I think persuading women they have the same libido as men is not only wrong but also rather harmful, since in my personal experience, women who are overly promiscuous have various problems and mostly regret it, especially those blackout episodes that end in the walk of shame and no recollection of the guy's name. If that happens to a guy, it's mostly just funny. As for my friend, I can explain his situation in brief: he's been with his wife for over ten years, is the sole owner (paid all the money) of the apartment they live in, and has been the major provider for all this time. Though working on and off, she's mostly been a stay-at-home mom. They have two children together, and their relationship is completely fucked, they basically hate each other, for which they are naturally both equally responsible. Difference is, she is perfectly happy with her position, she barely talks to him, refuses to have sex, expects him to pay the bills and basically is happy dealing with their twin daughters. The poor guy is not only constantly pissed off, he's also sexually frustrated to the orbit and back, because she's nasty enough to have told him, repeatedly, she will pack the kids and file for divorce if he cheats on her and she finds out. In Slovenia, provided they do divorce, roughly 30% of the property goes to her, the kids, whom he loves very much and are practically the only thing keeping him sane go to her by default, and you can be bloody sure she will make it hard for him to spend time with them, as well as mandatory alimony in the amount of some 600€, which is exactly half of my friend's gross pay, to be enforced for the next 10 years. I probably don't have to explain this would effectively ruin his life. Would you say that's a fair and balanced situation in any way? I really don't think so. First of all, I apologize for supposedly misrepresenting. But what I read from your post makes me doubt I actually did that. It is very tempting to take the bolded part and remind you of my post about marital rape in Germany being outlawed in 1997. Why exactly is it worth mentioning that she does not want to have sex with someone he hates?Apart from that I perfectly sympathise with the situation the poor bloke is in. Having to fight to see ones own kids is not something you should have to do. But the fault of this situation is not to be seen in the woman, you said yourself that they both fucked it up, but in the law that, by your account, decides a default attribution of parental rights to the woman. Direct your anger to the system. If that is such a common occurence, why wasn't it changed already? Are the politicians' wives threatening to withhold sex should they pass such an amendment? And if you tell me that a father should not provide for his underage children under (virtually) every circumstance, I don't know where your so heroic values of old went all of a sudden. The nuturer of the community and such. Isn't it perfectly normal that you have to take responsibility if you put a new human into life? By my account it is. If you have to fight through court to get your rights granted you do.
While I agree that she shouldn't be obligated to appease his sexual desires just because she's his wife, she's also forbiding from him cheating on her(though considering they aren't in a loving relationship, let alone a healthy one, there isn't much of a betrayal here) with the threat of divorce and making it excessively difficult to be a parent to his own kids.
This kind of "arrangement" is a classic case of sexual abuse.
|
Wow, how topical of her. She must read the thread.
|
On September 08 2017 02:42 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2017 02:03 Artisreal wrote:On September 08 2017 01:32 Kickboxer wrote:On September 08 2017 01:18 Artisreal wrote:
Rant:
Dude. It was you who posted that people live in different realities a few pages back. Maybe you live in 1990 in accordance with the restrictions posed on women to be sexy as fuck and at the same time Virgin Mary and that getting raped is due to promiscuous clothing or behaviour. And that boys don't cry (read express emotion). But others live in 2017, where veganism is a thing and people play videogames for a salary and footballers come out as homosexuals. Incidentally it is also a year where women and PoC do speak up against discrimination and even men start the fight against 'Manning up' (read suck it up).
You don't have to be up to speed, bring imperfect is fine in these times. Even for a man.
And to go back to your earlier example of your friends being stuck with bitchy wives and kids.
They supposedly suffer from some sort of discrimination because of they split alimony is due and the wife gets the house and yada yada.
Ok. They marry a person, impregnate them and afterwards say oops that's not for me. Tough shit. Your wife probably have up lots of career opportunities to be your child's mother while you went off and had a career. Now you're like... Bah this girl isn't for me. Whoops, your bad, have fun with the kids and no pension. Haha thanks for nothing.
What else do their wives have to live on if not the continued support of theirs kids' father?
Go back to their family and rely on their help until the kids are grown up? Go be a successful single mother managing work and kids and live a life worth living?
Ask yourself whether you would want that for your daughter or even for yourself. I don't understand why you need to misrepresent my position, especially since I'm not sugarcoating anything and it's therefore "reactionary, primitive" etc. to begin with. Rape is atrocious and has no justification under any conditions, we can get that out of the way. I don't want women to be virgins, but I do believe it's pretty healthy for them to be picky who they go to bed with, since they can basically choose to fuck whomever they want, whenever they want. There are also very technical reasons why casual sex has a different psychological effect on a man compared to a woman. I think persuading women they have the same libido as men is not only wrong but also rather harmful, since in my personal experience, women who are overly promiscuous have various problems and mostly regret it, especially those blackout episodes that end in the walk of shame and no recollection of the guy's name. If that happens to a guy, it's mostly just funny. As for my friend, I can explain his situation in brief: he's been with his wife for over ten years, is the sole owner (paid all the money) of the apartment they live in, and has been the major provider for all this time. Though working on and off, she's mostly been a stay-at-home mom. They have two children together, and their relationship is completely fucked, they basically hate each other, for which they are naturally both equally responsible. Difference is, she is perfectly happy with her position, she barely talks to him, refuses to have sex, expects him to pay the bills and basically is happy dealing with their twin daughters. The poor guy is not only constantly pissed off, he's also sexually frustrated to the orbit and back, because she's nasty enough to have told him, repeatedly, she will pack the kids and file for divorce if he cheats on her and she finds out. In Slovenia, provided they do divorce, roughly 30% of the property goes to her, the kids, whom he loves very much and are practically the only thing keeping him sane go to her by default, and you can be bloody sure she will make it hard for him to spend time with them, as well as mandatory alimony in the amount of some 600€, which is exactly half of my friend's gross pay, to be enforced for the next 10 years. I probably don't have to explain this would effectively ruin his life. Would you say that's a fair and balanced situation in any way? I really don't think so. First of all, I apologize for supposedly misrepresenting. But what I read from your post makes me doubt I actually did that. It is very tempting to take the bolded part and remind you of my post about marital rape in Germany being outlawed in 1997. Why exactly is it worth mentioning that she does not want to have sex with someone he hates?Apart from that I perfectly sympathise with the situation the poor bloke is in. Having to fight to see ones own kids is not something you should have to do. But the fault of this situation is not to be seen in the woman, you said yourself that they both fucked it up, but in the law that, by your account, decides a default attribution of parental rights to the woman. Direct your anger to the system. If that is such a common occurence, why wasn't it changed already? Are the politicians' wives threatening to withhold sex should they pass such an amendment? And if you tell me that a father should not provide for his underage children under (virtually) every circumstance, I don't know where your so heroic values of old went all of a sudden. The nuturer of the community and such. Isn't it perfectly normal that you have to take responsibility if you put a new human into life? By my account it is. If you have to fight through court to get your rights granted you do. While I agree that she shouldn't be obligated to appease his sexual desires just because she's his wife, she's also forbiding from him cheating on her(though considering they aren't in a loving relationship, let alone a healthy one, there isn't much of a betrayal here) with the threat of divorce and making it excessively difficult to be a parent to his own kids. This kind of "arrangement" is a classic case of sexual abuse.
she isn't forbidding him anything. there are simply consequences should he make that decision. he did opt into the marriage and children on his own accord and any consequences that come from it are duly earned.
i don't think it's fair for anyone, but i also don't think it's more unfair for either party over the other.
|
On September 08 2017 00:26 Kickboxer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2017 00:15 Plansix wrote:
It also describes the pressure put on men to treat women terribly and justify it. That is is fine for them to sleep around, while women are seen as damaged if they do the same. To you that appears toxic, and I'm undoubtedly a "sexist bigot" for stating the obvious and perpetuating these horrible stereotypes, but to someone who recognizes the inherent biological, emotional and social differences between men and women, rooted not in social constructivism as you might erroneously believe but more or less in simple biology, it might seem perfectly normal. This is where the divide between us is practically unbreachable. You think I'm wrong and a complete idiot, and vice versa.
Could you please explain this 'simple biology'?
As someone who went to school for evolutionary biology & anthropology I have no clue what you're talking about. The sexual escapades of women and how that is viewed is entirely socially constructed. You can see how females leverage promiscuity in a multitude of ways across a diverse amount of species including some of our closest living relatives like the bonobos. So unless you think human sexual activity is biologically unique, there is nothing biologically significant related to how many dudes a chick wants to bang and how fit that makes her.
You can certainly have your personal preference when choosing sexual partners and judge how men and women should carry themselves in today's society but don't act like you formed your stereotypes based on some biological implication of sexual fitness. Have whatever opinion you want but don't hide behind fleeting mentions of 'biology' or science without explaining such justifications.
|
On September 08 2017 02:46 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2017 02:42 Gahlo wrote:On September 08 2017 02:03 Artisreal wrote:On September 08 2017 01:32 Kickboxer wrote:On September 08 2017 01:18 Artisreal wrote:
Rant:
Dude. It was you who posted that people live in different realities a few pages back. Maybe you live in 1990 in accordance with the restrictions posed on women to be sexy as fuck and at the same time Virgin Mary and that getting raped is due to promiscuous clothing or behaviour. And that boys don't cry (read express emotion). But others live in 2017, where veganism is a thing and people play videogames for a salary and footballers come out as homosexuals. Incidentally it is also a year where women and PoC do speak up against discrimination and even men start the fight against 'Manning up' (read suck it up).
You don't have to be up to speed, bring imperfect is fine in these times. Even for a man.
And to go back to your earlier example of your friends being stuck with bitchy wives and kids.
They supposedly suffer from some sort of discrimination because of they split alimony is due and the wife gets the house and yada yada.
Ok. They marry a person, impregnate them and afterwards say oops that's not for me. Tough shit. Your wife probably have up lots of career opportunities to be your child's mother while you went off and had a career. Now you're like... Bah this girl isn't for me. Whoops, your bad, have fun with the kids and no pension. Haha thanks for nothing.
What else do their wives have to live on if not the continued support of theirs kids' father?
Go back to their family and rely on their help until the kids are grown up? Go be a successful single mother managing work and kids and live a life worth living?
Ask yourself whether you would want that for your daughter or even for yourself. I don't understand why you need to misrepresent my position, especially since I'm not sugarcoating anything and it's therefore "reactionary, primitive" etc. to begin with. Rape is atrocious and has no justification under any conditions, we can get that out of the way. I don't want women to be virgins, but I do believe it's pretty healthy for them to be picky who they go to bed with, since they can basically choose to fuck whomever they want, whenever they want. There are also very technical reasons why casual sex has a different psychological effect on a man compared to a woman. I think persuading women they have the same libido as men is not only wrong but also rather harmful, since in my personal experience, women who are overly promiscuous have various problems and mostly regret it, especially those blackout episodes that end in the walk of shame and no recollection of the guy's name. If that happens to a guy, it's mostly just funny. As for my friend, I can explain his situation in brief: he's been with his wife for over ten years, is the sole owner (paid all the money) of the apartment they live in, and has been the major provider for all this time. Though working on and off, she's mostly been a stay-at-home mom. They have two children together, and their relationship is completely fucked, they basically hate each other, for which they are naturally both equally responsible. Difference is, she is perfectly happy with her position, she barely talks to him, refuses to have sex, expects him to pay the bills and basically is happy dealing with their twin daughters. The poor guy is not only constantly pissed off, he's also sexually frustrated to the orbit and back, because she's nasty enough to have told him, repeatedly, she will pack the kids and file for divorce if he cheats on her and she finds out. In Slovenia, provided they do divorce, roughly 30% of the property goes to her, the kids, whom he loves very much and are practically the only thing keeping him sane go to her by default, and you can be bloody sure she will make it hard for him to spend time with them, as well as mandatory alimony in the amount of some 600€, which is exactly half of my friend's gross pay, to be enforced for the next 10 years. I probably don't have to explain this would effectively ruin his life. Would you say that's a fair and balanced situation in any way? I really don't think so. First of all, I apologize for supposedly misrepresenting. But what I read from your post makes me doubt I actually did that. It is very tempting to take the bolded part and remind you of my post about marital rape in Germany being outlawed in 1997. Why exactly is it worth mentioning that she does not want to have sex with someone he hates?Apart from that I perfectly sympathise with the situation the poor bloke is in. Having to fight to see ones own kids is not something you should have to do. But the fault of this situation is not to be seen in the woman, you said yourself that they both fucked it up, but in the law that, by your account, decides a default attribution of parental rights to the woman. Direct your anger to the system. If that is such a common occurence, why wasn't it changed already? Are the politicians' wives threatening to withhold sex should they pass such an amendment? And if you tell me that a father should not provide for his underage children under (virtually) every circumstance, I don't know where your so heroic values of old went all of a sudden. The nuturer of the community and such. Isn't it perfectly normal that you have to take responsibility if you put a new human into life? By my account it is. If you have to fight through court to get your rights granted you do. While I agree that she shouldn't be obligated to appease his sexual desires just because she's his wife, she's also forbiding from him cheating on her(though considering they aren't in a loving relationship, let alone a healthy one, there isn't much of a betrayal here) with the threat of divorce and making it excessively difficult to be a parent to his own kids. This kind of "arrangement" is a classic case of sexual abuse. she isn't forbidding him anything. there are simply consequences should he make that decision. he did opt into the marriage and children on his own accord and any consequences that come from it are duly earned. i don't think it's fair for anyone, but i also don't think it's more unfair for either party over the other.
Oh, okay. Sexual and mental abuse is totes okay because somebody got married and had kids under the pretense of a different situation.
Real intelligent there. You'll still have that point if the guy snaps and starts beating her?
|
A more reasonable case would be to call it quits and go through the legal process of securing visitation rights or even full custody of his children.
I don't condone her way but cannot see how this is not a possible outcome of every relationship that you have to be prepared for when engaging in child bearing consequences.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
