LTS

: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.

This definitely was not the motto in college. As for the Reason article being discussed.. my interpretation was that he was not tried. The school expelled him because they adopted guilty until proven innocent. The point is that the school was found to be acting wrongfully in that case forcing the alleged attacker to prove he was innocent which as they pointed out would be damn near impossible.

Hard to justify the $60.99 price point when most games are $59.99 or less. I understand the idea of her accompanying her friend. But let's take thought processes a few steps further. Was her friend hitting on Kane and was she implying that she wanted to have sex with him? If so, let's assume that sex actually occurs. Is she just hanging around in Patrick Kane's house while they have sex? Seems a bit odd to me. Not only that, what is she protecting? In theory, this would have been the anticipated consensual sexual encounter. If not, then we have implied previously that if it was her that was invited she had no reason to expect Patrick Kane would rape her, then why would she have to accompany her friend? Was fer friend at more risk than herself for being raped by Patrick Kane? If that was a thought, why would you even go to his house? So, let's not discuss this with trying to assign any of this to this particular situation and the potential victim here. Let's discuss this as a hypothetical, two girls are in a bar with a sports superstar way.

And that answers one of the questions I had. Smart move. I think, regardless of whether he is actually charged, there is more here for EA to base their decision on. If am sitting at EA I am looking at my eagerly anticipated new game that atones for the sins of it's predecessor (I played the NHL16 EASHL beta.. it's nice). I have chosen the slogan "Play together. Win Together." I have locked up arguably one of the best franchise pairs for the cover. They have won 3 cups together, they embody my entire marketing campaign. I get this news. Patrick Kane investigated for rape. It involves a female that is not his girlfriend. Initial thought: Somehow, having Kane on the front cover with the slogan "Play together. Win together." will certainly set off the wrong kind of internet memes. Next thought, I am about to put this guy out as a face of my game. Regardless of guilt, he clearly has no regard for his girlfriend and will clearly have a womanizer tag attributed to him.. at best. At worst, he's charged and he's guilty. Next thought: Can I get the artwork changed in time and get him out of the game? His status as a young adult with a tendency to party but otherwise seemingly upstanding just went through the floor. He might recover in time (depending on the severity of the event) but he's toxic right now. I wouldn't be surprised if EA postponed the physical media release if they were unable to recall and change all packaging in time. Any disc that was printed with that logo on the front has to be changed. All inserts, all manuals, not to mention changing the software graphics. They can fix the digital aspects quickly and release downloadable versions of the game but it would take longer to fix the physical materials.

You know.. my filter worked pretty well. I am getting good at ignoring stupid media sensationalism crap like that. I didn't even pay attention to the photo and went straight to the words. Bad choice on the photo, no doubt.

The lack of knowledge and voice not contributing to a discussion isn't important. Hell, some of the 10k plus posters still do it all the time!!!! :) But in all honesty, chime in when you can. Ask questions.. learn.. enjoy.

Just some information that I came across today that pertains to the topic but not necessarily the specific situation. I have not read it in full... http://reason.com/blog/2015/08/11/campus-rape-expert-who-misrepresented-hi The link should work, but I wouldn't be surprised if they change it soon to represent the full title.

There are a lot of very bad "craft beers" out there. Craft does not mean good. Not by any means. Jack's Abby makes an IPL you might find tasty. There are others who make IPLs as well, but I'm going to keep being a JA fanboy! Look for Hoponius Union. IPL = India Pale Lager

Love the Sabres... that's actually pretty damn fantastic.. never even thought of that one. Intriguingly, the LTS was sort of the natural evolution of handle and life. At one point, in the BBS days.. (pre-Internet, you know). I commonly used the name LIfetaker. That was commonly abbreviated into LT. Later in life I started a business and since I was so used to the LT I basically played off that and called it Lightning Technology Solutions.. aka - LTS. And now? it's just LTS... but I suppose I could be Love the Sabres here. :)