LTS

In my opinion, your response egged on a further response from him. If you had intentions of changing the way he approached his response then I would have suggested that you provide guidance as to why he should respond differently. Furthermore, at that point I feel that the entire conversation between the two of you would have been better served in the PM channels of the forum and not played out in a thread about other topics. You have the power, you banned him. I don't agree with it.

I see why you think it is judgmental. However, I am not judging them for doing it. I am recognizing that if you are going to engage in a culture where you post a picture of yourself, receive a few messages from some unknown person, and from that decide to meet them to hook up that there will be problems that come from that. Not all the time, but it invites an entire genre of scenarios in which bad things could occur. Sex for fun is not the problem. It's the means by which it is arranged which I think becomes a problem. The concept is that you now have people throwing themselves out there looking to hook up. It might not always be via Tinder or some similar app but it begins to reduce the steps required to ascertain what the intentions of the both parties are when it comes to sex. When it comes to rape the defining moment is when a person consciously makes the decision to cross the clearly defined line. Much like owning a gun isn't inherently a problem. It's the decision to use it against someone else that is the problem. But, we talk about an atmosphere where people are commented on for wearing certain clothes or acting a certain way and then you get something like Tinder that enforces those concepts. You are posting alluring pictures of yourself online, it seems to indicate that you are interested in having people stare at you and make comments.

I disagree. So, in the 60's, as you are pointing out, people would have had to meet face to face before they could actually arrange a hookup (unless they were calling phone numbers randomly). The point here is that today with services like Tinder and such the ability exchange messages without having ever met someone first is extremely easy and that it doesn't take many messages to arrange a hookup. I'm not certain why you consider it a blind attack. If the information is accurate it's not an attack, it's the truth. I'm not judging millenials for doing this. If that is how they want to operate then they should feel free to do so. However, we are talking about a rape culture here and yet you can clearly see in the article the mindset of a group of people who are out there just looking to have sex purely for the purpose of getting off. But that aside.. there were plenty of people who complained about the free sex lifestyle. So, that's not even accurate.

On another note... http://mashable.com/2015/08/24/millennial-sex-online/ Submitted for your reading pleasure. 10 texts or less until hooking up. I can't imagine why there are problems in the world.

Yes.. the laws are broken down and clearly defined. Just because there are varying levels does not mean they are not clearly defined. Do you know who else gets registered as a sex offender? A person who is arrested for urinating in public. Talk about unfair. Yet.. those are the rules. Clearly defined. If you want to change the law you have to provide some method of changing it. We can have a discussion on that and eventually you might end up calling me a jerk or worse because I'll keep thinking up the what-if scenarios until you are completely exasperated. That's the problem with laws and why lawyers make a great living. However, the alternate is that you leave everything a gray area and call it common sense.. except we know that common sense is usually anything but common.

Had Three Heads Brewing Giant Panda Dub Style IPA last night. I think it's the best beer they've released to date. It's really pretty incredible. I'm just waiting for their brewery to open the doors because I know some of the changes they will make to the recipes will improve the other beers.

I don't think the lines are broken. What you are arguing for is the absence of a law. When a law is written, it can't be written so that it is arbitrarily defined. The law for statutory rape is clearly defined because if it wasn't there would be even more legal cases questioning the event every time it happens. It's like arguing that the 55mph speed limit shouldn't be there because everyone can handle the speed of a car differently. That may be, but there are laws because not everyone can handle it and so our government defines a law that mandates what is safe. You don't have to agree with it but it has to be defined. Regardless of male or female, the statutory rape definition should be adhered to uniformly. It doesn't matter if he was not traumatized. He may actually be as mature as an 18 year old, but the law has to be written with a specific date in mind. You can't have a double standard with the law. How does that work? Granted, there are plenty of things that happen that make it appear as though there is a double standard but the law still remains. The thing you have to realize and accept is.. there is a law and then there is reality. They don't have to be in sync. If you want to argue that the law should be written differently then you should change your communication to say that otherwise it basically sounds like you are arguing that the law should be applied differently based on the situation.

http://www.tsn.ca/wild-assistant-coach-sydor-arrested-for-dui-1.348913 He had a .30 BAC and was driving his 12 year old son to his hockey game? HOLY CR..A.. FU.. JES. CHR..WTF! If this pans out as reported... I mean.. wow.. I don't even know what to say.

:worthy:

This entire conversation on this topic brought up one incident in my mind. This happened to me in college. Barring details... things were had just gotten to that point of intercourse. It had been pretty engaging up to that point as well. So there was maybe a brief period of time before I realized that she had this look on her face and stopped moving. She hadn't said anything. So, I did actually stop and say, is everything okay? She didn't want to respond. I said it's fine, whatever it was. After much coercing she finally told me the problem. She was trying not to fart.

No, he SHOULDN'T do it.. but people like that exist. And I 100% agree with you that his response was unwarranted but again, unfortunately there are people like that. The problem here, is a part of an overall problem in society, and that is the fear of people to forcefully express themselves for fear of retribution or other negative consequences. I think, to some degree, this goes along with an overall atmosphere in our culture to try not to offend others because others are so easily offended. There needs to be a strong focus on the importance of individualized thought and that thinking differently is not a problem. The key of course then becomes strengthening people's ability to not be concerned with what everyone else thinks. We know that peer pressure, social pressure, play huge roles in why people go along with something. They feel like they need to belong to something. That's not something you can easily correct. I'm not saying she is wrong, it's a huge problem that I wish would have been identified and perhaps she could have been reinforced in ways to express her feelings. The other piece of information that is hugely relevant in this post is her inability to act because she was still trying to process the information. This probably underscores the need to have these kinds of conversations with your children, both male and female, on what is appropriate action and how to react when something like this happens. You can only hope that the lesson registers when its needed most.

An expectation of sexual contact? I wouldn't say that. I am saying one should not be surprised if it happens in a situation like a rave. I should not have said "be offended if offered pot at a Dead concert". I should have said, "not be surprised when it happens". Your commentary about an no expectation of sexual contact at an is very off however. What you arguing, at this point, is where is the line that allows for sexual contact. The argument really has to be around rejecting sexual contact when it occurs and the ignoring of that rejection by a person that is the line. Why? Case in point.. you are out to dinner and you drive a woman back to her place. You reach over and kiss her. You have just made sexual contact. In your scenario this should be considered a problem because you did not first ask "hey, want to go have sex?" Carrying this concept further, let's assume you never ask her if she wants to have sex, but she doesn't reject your kiss. If you continue progression through any number of sexual contact situations that lead up to intercourse you will likely never ask the question. You will be working on implied consent until she says otherwise. However, again, in your scenario none of this should happen. I'm not trying to be flippant here, but the response I usually get from my wife if I just say "Hey, do you want to have sex?" is "Nice. That's romantic. Umm no." In other words, I can't just ask... I have to find out if the scenario is right and that requires some level of sexual contact. So, if you walk into an , you can reject contact when it happens. You can make it known you are not there to participate ahead of time. However, until you do, there's going to be a good chance you will be put in a sexual situation. Let me take this back to the rave scenario. Two people are dancing, one believes that the motion of the other suggests that a closer kind of dance is acceptable. The person engages in the grind dance you refer to. I don't think anyone is going to be able to press charges on this scenario. Now, telling the person to get away and having that request ignored would be where the line is crossed. Everyone's line is going to be different, but I don't think the base line can be where you are heading in your commentary. I do think we can sit here and go back and forth on what the line is and I would agree that it's blurry. The situation really has to define what was warranted.

I appreciate the legal responses you provide to my questions. And I have brought up the DUI question (I think it was in another thread). My question specifically was that if two drunk people engage in sex and the next day the female regrets it there is often an investigation as she could not give consent. But neither could the male by definition, so what happens? Does the guy get to claim he also said no.. as far as he remembers? A rave has a particular culture of its own assigned to it. It's like going to a Dead show and being offended someone offering you marijuana. The response from the guy is unwarranted but ignorant people are ignorant people. Another example, I was out one night with a group of 6 guys and 2 were gay. They wanted to go to a gay bar so we all agreed to go. I was hit on. I didn't get pissed that I was hit on by the guy. Here I was, a guy, in a gay bar. It really has a greater chance of happening than in a non-gay bar I would imagine. I just politely declined, explained the situation and moved on. It ended peaceably enough but I could imagine there might be a guy who would respond negatively to me in that situation. To add some more context, I have been hit on by a guy in a non-gay bar as well. I didn't respond any differently. Just said, thanks, I'm flattered, not my thing and moved on. And I don't mean this to diminish things but only to say that certain scenarios are going to result in certain actions being more prevalent than others. Odds are that shirtless guy is a tool everywhere he goes.

So I have a problem with this "drunk" thing. There is a line of thinking that says a drunk woman is unable to give consent. This is presumably because the decision making ability is impaired due to alcohol. As such, the woman is not being held accountable for the decision to engage in sex. At the same time there is a line of thinking that says a man who is equally as drunk should be able to make an unimpaired decision and is held accountable for the actions that occur. This creates a double standard as it relates to whether or not people are accountable for the decisions they make while under the influence of alcohol (or other drugs for that matter). What legitimate reason is there to explain that way of thinking? This is not including situations where someone is drunk and at some point during a sexual encounter decides they want to end it. I am talking in a purely, two people got drunk scenario and the next day an accusation is made. Do the majority of young men commit rape or engage in unwanted violent sex? What am I missing about your rebuttal? You are singling out an entire group of people as saying that they have a problem. I don't think there is anything that supports such a far reaching statement. My point is about those people with diminished mental capacity who believe that the fantasy items they may see on a screen are transferable into the real world. In my mind it's not even fair to single out men for this. For what it's worth, you do go on to tell me it's not fair to generalize about groups even though you, yourself, are doing the same thing in saying young men don't fully grasp the delineation. While you think I am generalizing I don't agree with you. I think it's fair to say that a large majority of situations where power and money are at play there are tendencies for people to ignore their moral compass. I also believe and if I go hunting I will find the statistics that support that criminal activities in impoverished portions of society are also higher than in other areas. People who are held up as idols develop a god-like complex and thus believe the rules don't apply to them. Those who are fighting to survive don't care about the rules because following them results in death. Both groups have greater reason to ignore the rules that normal society adheres to. Again.. so much more, but I should stop reading this group during work. Back to work I go.

The bees are in the what now? Let me rephrase that and tell me if you agree: "Rape is something a seemingly normal person is capable of committing. And something that normal people are capable of being vicitms of" I find nothing normal about a person who commits rape. They invalidate themselves from that definition by virtue of their actions. You can BELIEVE they are a good person as well, but you could also believe in unicorns. Let me say this about porn. The production of legal, violent porn requires complicit males and females. There are those who like violent sex. This is really no different (other than topic) than the link to violence on TV and video games being blamed for violent actions. While I think it's conceivable that rough sex pornography and violent television may blur the lines for some people I think we can agree that it doesn't do it for ALL people. What you try to say, by using these types of arguments, is that rough sex porn is a problem when it really isn't the problem. The problem is the flawed mental capacity of the person who views it and their lack of ability to understand the differences between what is on the screen and what occurs in real life. It's this lack of comprehension that is the problem. The graphic content may be a trigger but eliminating that content on the basis of a small minority of people is wrong. Which brings me to a few other questions for discussion... The lack of moral compass is a significant problem in this world. It's not something that society underscores. It works against freedom which is what so many people believe we have or need. However, this lack of moral compass runs through a few niches of society. The first, as was mentioned, is in impoverished areas. I'm not qualified to speak to the reasons it happens but I think we can all take a fair shake at some of the more obvious ones. I'm good with just accepting the research. The second, we also mentioned, is with money and power. Again, we see, throughout history, that whenever money or power are to be gained or are at risk the line people are willing to cross becomes more blurred. I say this because I think rape is, in some cases, a by product of a niche of societies lack of moral compass. What I mean is, do we see rape being more prevalent than other crimes inside that same group of people or so we see rape being more prevalent in a group of people who wouldn't also be more inclined to commit other crimes. This in no way is meant to lessen the significance of rape but rather to say that focusing on one part of the problem may not actually lead to a solution. I would love to go on but I am late for a meeting.

Not the dog with the squidhead that StuckinFL was using.

You are correct. I did not read it. Thanks for the info! Someone posted a picture that I saw showing the relative line at the Bills game. 20+ in line for One Buffalo, 2 in line for Molson Canadian. If that trend continues it underscores my thoughts on them putting this out. Well done, perfect timing, hello revenue.

27 games short of 1,000 games? bummer. At least he got to play a long time.

I assume any settlement offer included language that basically said, you don't speak of it, you give up all rights for further action, etc. Accepting a settlement does keep her from testifying and the entirety of legal wrangling and such that will go with it. Power to her to see it through.

Yea.. and killer avatar.

She would still have the ability to sue him in a civil suit as well right? No, older games never get newer rosters. However, Eichel cannot be in the game until he plays 1 regular season game in a Sabres uniform. So, given that the Sabres opener is Oct. 8th he will not be in the game until the first roster update after that. It has to do with some NCAA licensing garbage. So the game comes out on Sept. 15. It's likely going to be a month before you can play as Eichel, unless EA has a roster drop overnight on 10/8 :)

The nitro push is what makes the difference. Any beer on nitro will be less fizzy. Small bubbles.. love nitro. And it is a real stout. I'm not sure why anyone thinks it isn't. BJCP Style 13A. Dry Stout - ABV 4-5% It could be an IPA. Some session IPA's will add oats for beef up the body while using less malt. The wheat usually detracts from the body a bit so that's an interesting twist. Who is brewing it?

I like both sweaters. Now onto other interesting news.. The Leafs are the definition of Canadian Old Boys Network and must have a HUGE kitchen, they've added Lemaire to the mix. http://www.tsn.ca/leafs-add-lemaire-to-coaching-staff-1.345495

Was that a planned meet up or by chance? In any event.. COOL.

I get to play as Eichel as soon as he plays one regular season game in a Sabres uniform and they update the roster files. But I'm not sure what that has to do with charging everyone $1 to remove Patrick Kane from the cover. Very true. The chancellor acted out of emotion and not fact. They pointed out that once the chancellor met with the alleged victim everything changed. Sigh.