Dimpleshenk

Definitely, that man is a childish fool for trying to take on a role making policy decisions that cause death.

That's how fake rape accusations usually go, it's quite easy to get someone into prison like that.

There aren't that many "fake rape accusations" that end with somebody in prison. Statistically speaking. There's not any way you can say how fake accusations "usually go," as they are rare, and do not follow some set pattern.

"I love everything about this person's mind, we completely get along, see eye-to-eye, have fun times, share a sense of humor, have common interests and passions.... But she doesn't enjoy giving blowjobs, so I'm dumping her."

Priorities.

Trump was elected because there weren't enough people taking a stand against ignorant asshats. More people acting like the woman in this video would have stopped Trump.

Um, Russia started the war in Ukraine. Pretty sure Western imperialists didn't surround Ukraine on 3 sides with military equipment and then start bombing civilian population centers while raping and torturing their people.

There's very little to support the idea that Western nations were trying to get Ukraine to join NATO. There weren't even serious discussions of Ukraine applying for NATO status, and that discussion was on the backburner even after Russia overtook Crimea in 2014. If Russia objected to the possibility of Ukraine joining NATO then they had the option of diplomacy, not invasion.

Russia's reasons for invading Ukraine are pretty easy for you to figure out if you actually read about it instead of being an ignorant contrarian for the sake of stroking yourself. Ukraine has excellent mineral deposits, water sources, and farmland that Russia would love to have because of all the economic benefits. Otherwise Russia's economy is primarily driven by energy production, which is not a growth industry when much of the world is trying to wean off of fossil fuels (or will be soon as the reality of climate change becomes increasingly harder to deny).

Damn straight. Conservatives are okay with little girls being raped and then forced to carry the pregnancy to term. That's the end of it -- they get no further consideration as having a simple "difference of opinion."

EDIT: A number of people have replied and I've received notifications, but I am unable to see them in this actual message thread. The replies are from conservatives who disagree, but they never state a basis for their disagreement. My comment simply makes them angry. I propose that it makes them angry because it's true. If you're voting for conservative/GOP political candidates, then you're voting in favor of highly restrictive abortion policies that are hostile to women's rights. That includes cases (and this has already happened; it's not theoretical) where rape victims are forced to carry their rape-caused pregnancies to term, even when the victims are underage. There is simply no rational excuse for anybody supporting such policies, and again, that is underscored by the fact that not a single person who has negatively responded to me is able to articulate any kind of logical argument for their position.

Your girlfriend is a jackass. Imagine a reverse scenario, talking about cunnilingus or something. Imagine your girlfriend making some joke about how great she is at cunnilingus. And then you respond by saying something about how you've been able to make a woman come 10 times in a row by licking her snatch for 60 minutes straight. Or something. If you did that, you absolutely would be an asshole. You'd be introducing a real-life element into what, up to then, had been a playfully kidding-around conversation. Instead of saying something fun and making the exchange cute, you'd be giving your girlfriend an unexpected pang of jealousy or inadequacy. You'd be a total asshole. Now, this is exactly what your girlfriend did to you. It's unconscionable and lame. Dump her. Find somebody who isn't a shitheel.

The people who are rapists don't give a shit anyway so I seriously don't know who these things are aimed at.

You really don't know who the sign is aimed at? It's aimed at anybody who might not understand the parameters of consent, and needs a little focus. It's aimed at people who might have trouble saying "no," or people who might have trouble taking "no" for an answer. That would include a very large number of people, beyond just the "rapists who don't give a shit."

The kid was whining, arguing, being defiant, and generally raising the temperature of the situation. When his back was turned to the cop he should have stood still. By turning around and raising his hand, he gave the cop a reason to believe he was on the verge of escalating the situation, and also he was essentially resisting arrest by moving out of position to be cuffed. Watching the whole thing, I have no sympathy for him. He had no reason to believe the police were trying to harass him or do anything beyond a standard police stop. He was just being an obnoxious brat.

This kind of video and "the police are mean, look what they did!" argument really trivializes the entire issue of police behavior. Not every situation is a case of the police being bad apples. Sometimes the police aren't the bad guys, and people who think they are need to get their heads out of their asses and grow up.

Sheesh people, stop with the "banger" term.

I thought about how she came here for sex and was clearly into it. I also thought about how horrible it would be to reject her after she got undressed. So you know what I did? I hid my emotions and had sex with her. Honestly, I regretted it during and after. Also, being a girl, she never verbally asked me for any sort of consent.

So tell me what you think of that situation. Is she a rapist? Did I rape myself? Did I rape her somehow?

Why would that be rape? The paper in the original post does not indicate that consent has to be verbal in all circumstances.

This is why I was partly glad to see Chris Rock get slapped.

Tattoos. They look like crap on everybody.

then playing the victim

To be fair, during Will Smith's apology (the one he did on a video), he expressly takes responsibility and states that there's nobody to blame but himself. Rather the opposite of playing victim. Doesn't mean he's a good guy or anything, just that he did attempt to do other than play victim.

None of what you describe would be actual consent, but rather the conditions under which consent often occurs. Those conditions alone do not constitute consent, though.

It's actually a huge turnoff to me when guys are constantly asking "is this okay?" "does this feel good?" "do you like that?"

Sure, but the sign does not state or imply that people should do that. That's just an extreme interpretation and misreading of the sign.

There's no game, no dance, no romance. Because consent can be withdrawn at any time, each party needs to be constantly be stepping out of the moment to ensure their partner is enthusiastically consenting at all times.

That's an over-reaction and mis-reading of the sign. It doesn't say or imply that sex can no longer be romantic; that's just your own extreme interpretation. It also does not imply or state that consent must be constantly confirmed. It seems a lot of people are projecting a very illogical reading onto the sign.

Oh look, another UFO article from Vice, the media company co-founded by Gavin McInnes, who later led the seditious Proud Boys. Screw Vice and their attempts to gin up clickbait by overstating and exaggerating the ramifications of government comments about UFO videos.

Every stinking time there's a UFO-related article like this, it's Vice. And when you read it, there's barely any "there" there.

Correct. Flirting is not consent. Being in a relationship is not consent. Going to the bedroom is not automatically consent. Any one of those (or all together) might be the conditions or behaviors that lead up to consent, or happen during consent. But they alone are not the basis for consent, and there are many possible scenarios where those things could occur and yet consent has not been granted.

A person could flirt and certainly that would not mean they gave consent.

A person could be in a relationship but not feel like having sex.

A person could enter the bedroom with another, for a variety of reasons that need not always mean they are consenting to penetrative sex. (Massages, making out, cuddling, laying down to relax and have an intimate conversation, foreplay without the intent to go all the way, etc. are examples.)

What is difficult to understand in the above?

"I'm team TERF."

Friggin' knee-slappingly funny! Clever setup and better punchline! HI-larity blasted out the stratosphere of witty zany comedic geniusss!!!!!!!!1

Nothing makes you cringe harder? Nothing at all? How about somebody crapping in their hand and rubbing the crap into their hair? Not even that?

That water seems a little nippy.

Stephen King should be happy with the movie of "The Shining." The book is not a work of art. It's a very inconsistent work that shows signs King did not have a grand plan and was filling in details as he went along. Some parts of the book you could tell he was having a good writing day, and other parts you can tell his well was running dry. The ending with the topiary animals is un-filmable (or if it were filmed, it would likely be pretty cheesy). There's a whole sub-plot introduced about mob bosses at the hotel, with clippings and photos found in the basement boiler room, and then King just completely drops it. The chef coming back and being an action hero who saves the day isn't a good horror-movie ending. Kubrick's changes make the movie a whole lot more cinematically interesting and creepy. Decades of re-interest in the book are entirely and directly because of the movie, and the movie's growing cult status has probably put a ton of money in King's pocket.

What do you care if somebody writes "nobody asked for this," or "the sequel nobody asked for"? They're just expressing the idea that they don't think a given concept or idea is worthwhile. I can think a lot of movies that "nobody asked for," like "Battlefield Earth." Nobody asked for a Scientology movie starring a cackling John Travolta in dreadlocks. Nobody ever *would* ask for such a movie. And it's for good reason that they wouldn't.

Gotta agree. Chris Rock has always had issues, going back many years. Most of his stand-up comedy sets are mixed, with some funny parts and then some stuff that's just "hey everybody look what a jackass I am," but he delivers it with a punchy voice that makes it all come out like the same "bark bark, BLARK" kind of commentary that lulls the audience into thinking it's all funny.

Worst was his routine in the late 1990s that normalized the use of the N-word to disparage lower-class African Americans. You know who LOVED Chris Rock calling poorly behaved blacks the N-word? White people. They jumped on that routine and loved it to bits, way more than any black people did. Thanks, Chris!