Messages

Jesus fucking christ, you guys.

Allow me to remind you that by posting ITT, you are essentially consenting to be part of BH's disgusting fantasy life. And it's not like it's a subject that doesn't already have an active and recent thread. Fuck.

It doesn't,  there's several good active threads about feminism in general, none so far that have had anything about how the current system hurts men, which is a truth that is maintained, but not demonstrated.  Not saying it isn't true, but seeing how would be a good thing.

I do indeed thrive on negative attention, here more than many places just because you guys are so damn good at it,  that doesn't mean everything I post is an attempt to get it.  And no,  I don't fantasize about any of you (except for Roger, but don't we all?)

He also, in an effort to defend his stupid fucking friend, and lash out, accused Freeky of making excuses for pedophiles, among a litany of unbearable qualities others could mention. I admit I am somewhat biased because Freeky is a really good friend.

defended a pedophile, and she did, she said he seemed like a decent person.

So in the sex Ed thread Cain posted this.

One of the most interesting areas of feminist thinking, to me, is how patriarchical societies constrain men as well as they do women, and I strongly suspect if there was a greater focus on this, it would get a lot of guys who might otherwise be not so interested in feminism thinking about how such things impact on them personally.

This is something that I think deserves its own thread.  I remember seeing some discussion of it in another thread and every time someone came up with a way that they felt men were constrained by society it was shot down as a myth.  This is absolutely not to deny the existence of male privilege, it is to examine the ways in which our current sexist society keeps men down, to open feminism up so  that it is easier to see that it is not just a movement for women.

One that I have noticed is the divide as far as being the breadwinner versus being the caretaker in a household.  Men are expected to be the breadwinner, women the caretaker, if the woman is the sole wage earner and her husband stays home to take care of the kids and house people view them both as aberrant and not ok.  This is not really an issue for the working class, usually, since both parents generally have to work just to keep the household afloat. 

[OK now I want to hear from the guys about what they do to prevent potential sexual assault and street harassment.]

Oh I forgot something I used to do because I don't have them anymore, and I'd really like to find them again, but fashion is a fickle creature.

I used to wear those chopstick style things to put my hair up, and I only actually need one to keep my hair in place, so the other one was there as a potential weapon, my favourite ones were wicked sharp at the tips, and would often carry one in my hand when walking alone.

OK now I want to hear from the guys about what they do to prevent potential sexual assault and street harassment.

The only guys I know who take measures to prevent sexual assault spent time in prison.  The measures they took were to join gangs and get tattoos that showed their gang affiliation so that potential rapists knew that revenge would be taken.

I think that sex ed and feminism are (or at least should be) two very closely related subjects. If the concept of respecting women as people and respecting peoples' boundaries was part of a sex-ed curriculum it would do a whole lot of good to counter the rape culture. Trying to teach over already-ingrained programming is never as effective as instilling that teaching as the default programming from a young age.

Issues of consent can be taught at a very young age without getting into sex at all.  If another kid doesn't want to play don't push, absence of yes means no, whether it's kickball or felching.

Conservative parents are going to backlash about young kids being taught about sex, including many who would be supportive or at least quiet about sex ed for high school kids, they aren't going to get upset about kids being taught that consent is important in all activities, or being taught that boys and girls are both people and worthy of equal respect.

http://www.northwestern.edu/newscenter/stories/2012/08/dreger-fetal-engineering.html

well here's some shitty news.  Not only is it an extremely dubious idea if it only does what it is supposed to, it's also highly likely to increase the fetus' cancer risk.

Can long pig be used to make decent jerky?  Does the jerky taste better if the source of meat was an unkind being?

jerked pork is pretty good stuff, but it's a bit different from beef jerky.  It originates in the Carribean though, which is also where the word cannibal comes from, so I am sure jerked long pork has been tried at least a few times.

I did some digging and can't seem to find a reference to the time terms of the bond. That is to say how long they have to reduce said recidivism rates. I'd really like to know what kind of return on investment over time they expect. The possibility of failure that will cost up to $2.4mil over a possible $2.1mil max profit seems like a big fat risk. I know it's just a relatively small pilot program, but I'm sure the real lucre they want is control in the long term.  If this program is successful they'll likely get quite a bit of it!

Also:
Philanthropy works just fine without a profit motive GODDAMNIT! 

And:
Babbsy, GO fuck a corpse sweetie. Relevant spags are trying to talk like adults here.

Volunteering are you?  I'm sure the derail is appreciated (and will probably be jumped on by a few others)  I'm sure there are others who wont jump on it who could give you lessons in acting like an adult.

In regards to the actual meat of your post, Goldman Sachs doesn't make stupid investments, risky ones yes, stupid ones no, if the potential for loss is greater than that for profit than someone else is going to be paying the losses. 

Philathropy doesn't work very well at all without a profit motive in our current system.  Philanthropy without profit is a brief act of good that dies out, without making any real ripples.  Not that there is any real philanthropy in anything GS does mind you.

Today I saw a bunch of cops wearing jackets emblazoned "GANG ENFORCEMENT" searching a couple cars outside of a convenience store.

They might as well just change those labels to "BLACK ENFORCEMENT". Truth in advertising and all.

Or, to look at it another way, they are the enforcement arm of the gang known as the state..

Is manipulation for sex, rape?

It is in Israel

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/21/arab-guilty-rape-consensual-sex-jew

Will this have any particular impact on what happens if the board members/management of goldman sachs end up in New York city jails?

http://whatever.scalzi.com/2005/09/03/being-poor/

The article is good, the comments are too.

So far we have really only talked about happy endings for men. I am curious about how people here feel about the increasingly common practice of happy endings for women? Same? Different? Why?

http://www.herprivatepleasures.com/

Different in that it is far less likely that the man giving her a happy ending has been trafficked into the country, and if she goes into a place expecting a happy ending and doesn't get one she is far less likely to rape him.

The differences are less than the similarities though.

[wish]

YOU GUYS

          seem to have covered quite a bit here. it's fun to call girls names, especially things they may not be keen on. referring to a girl as a "slut" by my standards, usually means she's someone who is likely to go home with a person who's poorly chosen, maybe because she's wasted, but it's also kind of a habit of hers. like, she sleeps with people she may not want to remember the details about the next day. yet, again, does this type of thing often. enough so, that as cool as she may be as a person, her sexual activity makes her unappealing, because she has no standards.

I DON'T PERSONALLY

          consider "slut" to be a put down, really, it's just a way of doing things. nigel's "friend/ whatever" is, imo, not so much a slut as she is just an asshole. i've known guys just like that chick. being "slutty" may mean that one eventually sleeps with anyone and everyone in their friend/ social circle, but i think a lot of people mistake sexual intimacy for intimate communication. for some people, sex is the foot in the door to getting to know someone.

THAT SAID,

          when i consider male slut friends, this term is more reserved for guys (i am thinking of mostly gay guy friends, since straight guy friends probably wish they could be sluts, if enough girls would just pay attention to them) who generally are so oversexed, that they really don't care what the anatomical parts are connected to, and will repeat this type of sexual encounter without shame, 'cause they're getting some. sluts can find true love though, i've seen this happen. even if it doesn't change their sexual habits, they just need to find the right partner.

This is how I've always used the word, although I do know straight male sluts.  One of my friends is an attractive guy, he's also marginally musically talented and he is definitely an object of desire for women.  He has no real discretion and sleeps with pretty much anyone.  He's also had his heart broken several times because women don't want to get seriously involved with him. 

I don't see slut as an insult, I'll happily be friends with a slut and there was a lot of time when I would have been a slut if I could have pulled it off.  Its not really healthy, but fuck, neither is smoking and I won't judge you for that and I indulge in it myself now and then. 

I'm also way more likely to use the word slut in reference to a male than a female, because it's more likely to be seen as insulting and degrading by a woman.  Doesn't mean I won't call a woman a slut if I know her and know she's reasonably comfortable with that side of herself.

I don't think something is ethically "wrong" if it's unavoidable.

There might actually BE a way to avoid it, but it would be hard as fuck. You'd have to be 100% survivalist-off-the-grid, maybe have a small farm somewhere and an extremely primitive lifestyle. Most of us couldn't pull it off, and there would most likely never be enough people doing it to make any difference.

So, what you and Nigel said.

You could trade with other people who also were not using slavery products, and it would be a good idea to do so.  However dropping out isn't going to stop the slavery, or improve their condition.  It might make you feel good about yourself, but it isn't doing any damn good for the actually suffering people.