TrueBlueGED Posted August 24, 2015 Report Share Posted August 24, 2015 (edited) Just another freaking blind attack on millennials. It gets tired. In the 60s they would have sex before the first text, but you don't see anybody complaining about that.Don't be silly, everyone knows the 60s and 70s were a puritanical sexual age. Edit: And seriously, why do people care how long it takes to hook up with someone? Sex is fun, and it's okay to have sex for fun. Really, it is. Edited August 24, 2015 by TrueBluePhD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJFIVEOH Posted August 24, 2015 Report Share Posted August 24, 2015 Everybody's a victim. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabres Fan in NS Posted August 24, 2015 Report Share Posted August 24, 2015 I'm old and I don't text ... neither does my wife. :( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted August 24, 2015 Report Share Posted August 24, 2015 Everybody's a victim. Meaning? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTS Posted August 24, 2015 Report Share Posted August 24, 2015 Just another freaking blind attack on millennials. It gets tired. In the 60s they would have sex before the first text, but you don't see anybody complaining about that. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted August 24, 2015 Report Share Posted August 24, 2015 (edited) It was a joke... There was no texting in the 60s. Edited August 24, 2015 by Hoss Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted August 24, 2015 Report Share Posted August 24, 2015 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. FYI, "I can't imagine why there are problems in the world" comes off as awfully judgmental. I also think trying to relate sex for fun with rape culture is one hell of a leap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJFIVEOH Posted August 24, 2015 Report Share Posted August 24, 2015 Text culture? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calti Posted August 24, 2015 Report Share Posted August 24, 2015 It was a joke... There was no texting in the 60s. we were all excited about push button phones Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Posted August 24, 2015 Report Share Posted August 24, 2015 Don't be silly, everyone knows the 60s and 70s were a puritanical sexual age. Edit: And seriously, why do people care how long it takes to hook up with someone? Sex is fun, and it's okay to have sex for fun. Really, it is. Are you fooling around about the sixties and seventies? I recall (as a very young boy) The summer of Love, Woodstock and Studio 54. My grandparents were right about Elvis Presley's hips! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted August 25, 2015 Report Share Posted August 25, 2015 Yes, he is fooling around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
... Posted August 25, 2015 Report Share Posted August 25, 2015 See, you guys can have this incredibly detailed and oddly polarized conversation about how you think people ought to be, how sex and sexuality should be this delicate thing that people dance around for the sake of all that is moral and pure, and then I run across this video while looking for something else (which I will post in the awesome thread after I post this): BTW, it's NSFW... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5ENv7Dac7w So, whatever. Chicks dig sex. Guys dig sex. Chicks can and do flaunt their sexuality, same as guys. There is nothing wrong with it. If a foreigner completely unfamiliar with our culture were to read this thread, you would leave them with the impression that nearly all American men are predators, and that nearly all American women have to utilize ninja skillz to so much as go out shopping. It's like the media trying to convince us all that homosexuality is everywhere and is mainstream, when it actually only comprises 3.8% of the population. WTF is that all about. Truth is, like anything else human (and otherwise), there are aberrations of behavior. People are violent sometimes. It's like every time a pit bull bites someone, it's news, but all of the other dog bites are ignored, because it's not a pit bull. Aggravated assaults occur with, arguably, alarming frequency...those are pretty traumatic. Why don't we have an aggravated assault thread going? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3putt Posted August 25, 2015 Report Share Posted August 25, 2015 CBS 2 here in Chicago reporting that Kane and Cambria met with Hamburg police and Erie County investigators. Their legal expert said it could be good or bad. One scenario is the DA is on the fence. The other is that coming forward might be a way to lessen the degree depending on the veracity of his statement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted August 25, 2015 Report Share Posted August 25, 2015 Their legal expert said it could be good or bad. That's some hard-hitting analysis, Robert. Back to Stevie Wonder with your weather report in front of the black screen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJFIVEOH Posted August 25, 2015 Report Share Posted August 25, 2015 I can't watch that video. He's just trying to exploit those girls for the purpose of YouTube viewers. Those poor girls were just dressing nice for the party, especially the one girl that must have had a drink spilled on her. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted August 25, 2015 Report Share Posted August 25, 2015 Methinks Sizzle forgot the very important fact that rape isn't about sex... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bunomatic Posted August 25, 2015 Report Share Posted August 25, 2015 See, you guys can have this incredibly detailed and oddly polarized conversation about how you think people ought to be, how sex and sexuality should be this delicate thing that people dance around for the sake of all that is moral and pure, and then I run across this video while looking for something else (which I will post in the awesome thread after I post this): BTW, it's NSFW... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5ENv7Dac7w So, whatever. Chicks dig sex. Guys dig sex. Chicks can and do flaunt their sexuality, same as guys. There is nothing wrong with it. If a foreigner completely unfamiliar with our culture were to read this thread, you would leave them with the impression that nearly all American men are predators, and that nearly all American women have to utilize ninja skillz to so much as go out shopping. It's like the media trying to convince us all that homosexuality is everywhere and is mainstream, when it actually only comprises 3.8% of the population. WTF is that all about. Truth is, like anything else human (and otherwise), there are aberrations of behavior. People are violent sometimes. It's like every time a pit bull bites someone, it's news, but all of the other dog bites are ignored, because it's not a pit bull. Aggravated assaults occur with, arguably, alarming frequency...those are pretty traumatic. Why don't we have an aggravated assault thread going? I'm heading over to the awesome thread. I can watch that vid. without the guilt. Thanks Sizzle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted August 25, 2015 Author Report Share Posted August 25, 2015 CBS 2 here in Chicago reporting that Kane and Cambria met with Hamburg police and Erie County investigators. Their legal expert said it could be good or bad. One scenario is the DA is on the fence. The other is that coming forward might be a way to lessen the degree depending on the veracity of his statement. Similar report in online BN. The Chicago legal expert is doing his/her best to read tea leaves, and both takes are plausible. Seems like law enforcement is on an information gathering process as prelude to deciding whether to present to a grand jury. If the proffers Cambria makes at that meeting are enough to create questions for the D.A. about the strength of the case, then maybe no charges are brought. I reckon that's the "on the fence" scenario the Chicago expert described. The other scenario is one that confuses me a bit. The idea being that the D.A. might seek a lesser charge depending on what is said? Interesting, if that sort of thing happens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted August 25, 2015 Report Share Posted August 25, 2015 SOP? Does everyone get to go meet the DA with their lawyer to try and charm your way out of a mess? Or just rich athletes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted August 25, 2015 Report Share Posted August 25, 2015 Methinks Sizzle forgot the very important fact that rape isn't about sex... Depends on the kind of rape Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted August 25, 2015 Report Share Posted August 25, 2015 Depends on the kind of rape Not really. Rape is about exerting some kind of control over the other individual. Sex is just the tool. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3putt Posted August 25, 2015 Report Share Posted August 25, 2015 Similar report in online BN. The Chicago legal expert is doing his/her best to read tea leaves, and both takes are plausible. Seems like law enforcement is on an information gathering process as prelude to deciding whether to present to a grand jury. If the proffers Cambria makes at that meeting are enough to create questions for the D.A. about the strength of the case, then maybe no charges are brought. I reckon that's the "on the fence" scenario the Chicago expert described. The other scenario is one that confuses me a bit. The idea being that the D.A. might seek a lesser charge depending on what is said? Interesting, if that sort of thing happens. It is a function of the burden of proof the prosecution faces. He may not feel scenario A can be proved beyand a reasonable doubt while scenario B can. A may be a felony and B a misdemeanor. What I did not have the time to post was that the commentator did not see a middle ground. It was either good or bad and not the normal course. I agree to the point that I would never let my client talk to prosecution unless it was to provide conclusive exculpatory evidence or to seek a plea. Only three criminal cases, and none involving sexual assault, in the interests of full disclosure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ddaryl Posted August 25, 2015 Report Share Posted August 25, 2015 damn hockey seaosn can not get here fast enough. 41 pages on this topic. All I do is show up and hope for some hockey news but this thread is always there to greet me. Come on training camp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted August 25, 2015 Report Share Posted August 25, 2015 Not really. Rape is about exerting some kind of control over the other individual. Sex is just the tool. There are 3 aspects to any crime, no? 1) Severity 2) Victim type (age, race, etc) 3) Motivation (manslaughter/murder) Given a case that isn't statutory rape, the first aspect (Severity) does not come into play in a rape crime, does it? Neither does the Victim Type in terms of race or gender. Hence only motivation is left, and I believe we've well established in this thread the possibilities of different motivations for rape; whether it be mixed signals, booze, date rape, or about imposing your will on another. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That Aud Smell Posted August 25, 2015 Author Report Share Posted August 25, 2015 SOP? Does everyone get to go meet the DA with their lawyer to try and charm your way out of a mess? Or just rich athletes? As 3putt indicates below, this is not SOP. But not unheard of either, I imagine. Your chances of getting an audience are greater when a guy like Cambria is your attorney. It is a function of the burden of proof the prosecution faces. He may not feel scenario A can be proved beyand a reasonable doubt while scenario B can. A may be a felony and B a misdemeanor. What I did not have the time to post was that the commentator did not see a middle ground. It was either good or bad and not the normal course. I agree to the point that I would never let my client talk to prosecution unless it was to provide conclusive exculpatory evidence or to seek a plea. Only three criminal cases, and none involving sexual assault, in the interests of full disclosure. I don't imagine Kane did much talking -- probably nothing more than some coached/prepared remarks (not reading off of a paper, mind you). I also imagine that Cambria's presentation focused more on the accuser than on Kane. You can bet your Caz Park wine coolers that Cambria's had his P.I.s out there getting all available dirt on the accuser. I would bet that Cambria wanted to persuade the D.A. that the road forward with the accuser would be a perilous one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.