Stuck on Repeats

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Not Bob's Id

Two points:

A. Is it me, or does "Patriarchal Rearing" sound like a sexual role playing activity?

2. Nicely done, Raouuuuuuul. Working the Woodford neat, hmm? Now if I could only refrain from reading your posts on the PB, I might find you amusing again.

It's 80 and sunny. This remains gin/vodka season. Should global warming persist, my savings will increase not only from money not spent on heating, but my inability to shift to dark whisky season. It must be 55 degrees or lower for the day's high to qualify as a scotch drinking day. Bourbon season is year round, of course, but lately, I find it's got to be a bit more crisp outside before I can dive into that.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

The author was a senior in college, 22, and having her first penetrative sexual experience. We'd like to think that because she grew up to write for New York Magazine, she must have been educated about sex at some point prior to that, but I've learned this is an unsafe assumption -- a person can be very accomplished in clothed life while being weirdly misinformed about sex for a very long time, sometimes their whole lives.

If she held off on sex because she dreaded it, then gave it up for love of her "first real boyfriend" at 22, then experiencing pain during sex would have confirmed her expectations, so no need to call a doctor, right? I think her behavior is entirely WNL for a lot of women. (I also think her use of "rape" as a way of describing bad consensual sex is demeaning to survivors of non-consensual sex, which is an entirely different and worse experience. If I were with her in the clinic I would tell her to check the "No" box -- none of this dithering about "diet caffeine free rape" bullshit.)

It isn't rape, but she might want to choose her men better in the future. I had a girl start crying once, announcing mid-sex that she had a boyfriend and felt insanely guilty about what we were doing. Few things come to mind which would quicker drive a man flaccid (things like: Being chased by a bear, or a realizing you're in the water with a great white shark). A guy who keeps at it when a woman is crying may not be a rapist, but he's got issues, disturbing ones.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

If the question is what box to check, the answer is clearly yes. She felt violated and was harmed, and it's a form about her health.

If the question is was she justified in feeling violated, the answer is also yes, if only for being awoke by him "thrusting I to her."

Does that make it rape for which he should be prosecuted? Probably not. Practically, proof would be hard, but even if it wasn't, he relied on her express assurances and/or lack of objection, and really should be able to do so in the context of a LTR.

A tragedy here is her inability to communicate and the pain she felt as a result of expecting him to read her mind. Part of becoming an adult is learning that lose that expectation.

And a further tragey is whatever led her to behave the way she did, putting up with shit no one should have to put up with.

"Proof would be hard"? This analysis is a tragedy. You don't decide whether to prosecute - an act which would potentially due irreparable damage to both the accused and accuser - based on "whether we can shoehorn the facts into the statutory description of an offense." "We'll make new law!" or "Let's try a novel claim" or "Let's use this case to get a decision defining [insert offense]" is the most offensive basis for any legal claim. The prosecutor's primary concern should be doing what's right. In almost every instance, that is only prosecuting where there is overwhelming proof a crime that easily falls within the statute at issue has been committed.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

"Proof would be hard"? This analysis is a tragedy. You don't decide whether to prosecute - an act which would potentially due irreparable damage to both the accused and accuser - based on "whether we can shoehorn the facts into the statutory description of an offense." "We'll make new law!" or "Let's try a novel claim" or "Let's use this case to get a decision defining [insert offense]" is the most offensive basis for any legal claim. The prosecutor's primary concern should be doing what's right. In almost every instance, that is only prosecuting where there is overwhelming proof a crime that easily falls within the statute at issue has been committed.

Or, alternately, where there is a minimal proof of a minor crime that carries enormous penalties so you can try to pressure the defendant into cooperating against the bigger fish.

Sorry. Just reminiscing about my criminal defense days. I had a drug case I will never forget. Such horseshit.

You are obviously right about this "rape" case. I'm the one who called it "rape," but I was talking about her perspective and I hadn't read the part about her basically not ever telling him that it wasn't okay to fuck her awake. It's not even a close call as to whether you could, or should, prosecute this.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Or, alternately, where there is a minimal proof of a minor crime that carries enormous penalties so you can try to pressure the defendant into cooperating against the bigger fish.

Sorry. Just reminiscing about my criminal defense days. I had a drug case I will never forget. Such horseshit.

You are obviously right about this "rape" case. I'm the one who called it "rape," but I was talking about her perspective and I hadn't read the part about her basically not ever telling him that it wasn't okay to fuck her awake. It's not even a close call as to whether you could, or should, prosecute this.

I sued someone years ago on a trumped up negligence theory and probably fucked up the person's career. I'm pretty pragmatic about the amorality of commerce, and the legal business in particular, and I even had the Nuremberg Defense (partner made me do it [among many other skeevy things requested]), but that one still bugs me. I hung a lead weight on an undeserving person's career, and why? Because abusing the language and law, we could do so. And for what? A few hundred grand.

I'm with you on the abuses of prosecutors. It's why I left crim work. It's the depressing cause of most people's exit from that area, I think. But the civil side? It's close second in terms of people defining right and wrong by what they can get away with, rather than what ought to be done.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

It isn't rape, but she might want to choose her men better in the future. I had a girl start crying once, announcing mid-sex that she had a boyfriend and felt insanely guilty about what we were doing. Few things come to mind which would quicker drive a man flaccid (things like: Being chased by a bear, or a realizing you're in the water with a great white shark). A guy who keeps at it when a woman is crying may not be a rapist, but he's got issues, disturbing ones.

Some people consider being chased by bears arousing.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

Some people consider being chased by bears arousing.

Right. But ninety-nine percent still prefer sailors, bikers, and flaming queens.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

Some people consider being chased by bears arousing.

I hope not you. If you're wearing bike shorts and that big anaconda you carry got hard that bear would reminded of a flipping salmon. No question what's for lunch.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Right. But ninety-nine percent still prefer sailors, bikers, and flaming queens.

I disagree. Being a hairy guy in amostly gay neighborhood, I can tell you with certainty that an awful loty of flaming queens like being chased by, or chasing, bears. Whether the guy is a bear or just someone with a lot of hair.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally Posted by Adder

If the question is what box to check, the answer is clearly yes. She felt violated and was harmed, and it's a form about her health.

I re-read the article. The question on the form was "whether [she] had ever been sexually assaulted." I continue to contend she has not, and that "clearly" she should not say so. She is free to say exactly what happened to whomever she likes, but saying she was sexually assaulted measured only by her feelings and not any failure of her sexual partner to obtain consent is a huge definitional gulf. I don't want women or men going around using the language of criminal law merely to vindicate their feelings, because they will leave more tragedies in their wake.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

I re-read the article. The question on the form was "whether [she] had ever been sexually assaulted." I continue to contend she has not, and that "clearly" she should not say so. She is free to say exactly what happened to whomever she likes, but saying she was sexually assaulted measured only by her feelings and not any failure of her sexual partner to obtain consent is a huge definitional gulf. I don't want women or men going around using the language of criminal law merely to vindicate their feelings, because they will leave more tragedies in their wake.

wasn't she asleep when he stuck it in? is lack of objection consent?

[J. Fred Muggs]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

I disagree. Being a hairy guy in amostly gay neighborhood, I can tell you with certainty that an awful loty of flaming queens like being chased by, or chasing, bears. Whether the guy is a bear or just someone with a lot of hair.

Quit chasing them.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by J. Fred Muggs

Quit chasing them.

That's what's wrong with you young people today. Nobody wants to do the hard work.

[bold_n_brazen]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

wasn't she asleep when he stuck it in? is lack of objection consent?

Frankly, yes. In a relationship, lack of objection is consent.

Please don't make me give you examples.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

According to the State of California:

Steering Control–Modern vehicles
require very little steering to turn.
Look at the steering wheel as a clock
face and place your hands at 9 and 3
o’clock or slightly lower at 8 and 4
o’clock. These are the desired hand
positions that reduce the possibility
of turning the wheel too sharply.
To reduce forearm and hand injuries,
your hands should be placed
on the lower half of the steering
wheel, with your knuckles on the
outside of the wheel, and your
thumbs stretched along the rim of
the steering wheel.

Does anyone drive in the 8/4 position? I just tried and it was really uncomfortable.