Menu
Jump to content

What's with the ads?

Free

Members
  • Content Count

    1,008
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2,511 Excellent

About Free

  • Rank
    Learning Bee

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    South of the Vindhyas
  1. Well firstly, I am pretty damn sure the kid does not think he "invented" a clock, for goodness sake!!! He may have said so in an interview or two, but then even Presidents & CEOs are known to trip on words sometimes. When somebody dissects a child's words to this extent, I do not know what else to call this but mean spirited pettiness. And then to critique a complete stranger's work on the internet based off a grainy photo when a few pages back you admitted you did not know enough electronics to differentiate between a clock and a bomb? I don't know what to call that either. And what need is there to discuss the boy's device? Unless one resents his sudden fame and wants to tear him down? Sorry, Ahmed did not put anything up to the public, nor did he seek the horde of internet armchair experts to critique his device. The clock, from what I read was still in police custody. He is a 14 year old boy whose hand-cuffed picture was tweeted by his sister, which then went viral. His international fame is not the work of some evil genius mastermind. He may be sure be basking in the spotlight for now. But then, so what? I am happy for him. I am happy that a really ugly situation was turned around by the generous people who supported him and sent him some really cool invitations and freebies. I was reading an interview with him where he seemed to freaking out about "going viral" and that made me laugh. Because I have a 14 year old myself and I can relate to this boy. I would rather, a boy called Ahmed who showed passion and interest, get his 15 mins of fame, than the Kim Davises and the Jareds and the Duggars of this world.
  2. Or maybe he just used a word incorrectly? That can happen you know.
  3. I'm reading through "Make It Stick" right now. It is not a teaching book, but rather a book on how to learn so that the brain can retain information. I think it is a must read for homeschoolers/ teachers.
  4. Absolutely. I am surprised by this thread. I have always been taught "gift" is both a verb and a noun.
  5. Yes some people overlook sensible precautions and end up more likely to be assaulted. Her gullibility / stupidity does not let the other person off the hook for what she did.
  6. Well, I know people in my family who eat because of habit. It is meal/snack time, so we must eat. I think this is actually very common. Like regentrude, I too don't know anybody who eats only when they are hungry. I also think it is easy to condition our brains to eating a certain portion size, or certain foods. For example, before marriage I wasn't fond of sweets. I wasn't fond of snacking on oily stuff. I never drank soft drinks of any kind. My husband loves snacking and sweets and I picked up these habits from him. Nowsdays I don't feel 'satiated' if I don't end my meal with something sweet. My brain is conditioned this way. It has nothing to do with hunger.
  7. I find this to be a weird requirement that one must ascertain the modus operandi of the penetration before one engages in the sex act. I mean, I would always tend towards assuming that sex involves body parts unless explicitly specified.
  8. No of course not. Consenting to be blindfolded during sex is not implicit permission for the partner to do just anything he wants with her body. As another poster mentioned, It is not for example permission to have a beer bottle thrust inside her. It is also not permission for her partner to let a third person have sex with her. Even among long time partners where there is no deception involved, I would still find it bordering assault if one of the partners used a sex-toy or an object on the other without permission.
  9. It is kind of ironical that when religious people say "science requires faith" or "secularism is a religion" they mean that as an insult.
  10. Yes. And that is sexual objectification of women. That women are sexual objects "desired" by the frat boys and to be "protected" by the fathers. I don't consider myself particularly young. I have felt sexually objectified, humiliated and even assaulted plenty when I was younger. I just did not have the language or the tools to recognize what was happening and so I blamed myself and felt ashamed of myself. A lot. I am really glad that because the language surrounding sexual harassment and rape is changing, young women today are more empowered and don't have to remain silent or endure the feeling of shame. I think this social change, where we don't shrug off or minimize sexually aggressive messages, will actually stop women from being victims.
  11. That article was guilty of sending confused, contradictory messages itself. The author says: The feminists call it “rape culture†and blame “traditional masculinity,†but they forget, if they ever knew, that “traditional†men were never encouraged to behave like this." Surely you see that this is a laughable claim. It would seem that she believes that misogyny, sexism and rape were invented after the sexual revolution - when in fact those were all "traditional" values for a long long time. While the poll included questions about forced vaginal and anal intercourse as well as forced oral sex, it also defined “forced touching of a sexual nature†this way: “Forced kissing, touching of private parts, grabbing, fondling, rubbing up against you in a sexual way (even if it is over your clothes).†.... And there is, in my judgment, no doubt that college campuses do have a problem with bad behavior of a sexual nature, and even rape in some cases. But is an unwelcome hand on the buttocks sexual assault? What about an unwelcome kiss on the lips? If the Post had run a story about gross behavior, the survey would have served as validation. Um, what? :svengo: . So grabbing a$$ and forcible kissing are now just "gross behaviour"? Well this is exactly what rape culture is, isn't it? The minimizing of non-consensual sexual misconduct. Isn't this the attitude which leads to "Well that was nothing...I don't know why she is making such a big fuss about just a little forcible dry humping?" In pop culture, in entertainment, and even in redoubts of “higher†learning, crudeness and vulgarity have become commonplace. “No Means Yes! Yes Means Anal,†shouted a bunch of Yale University undergraduates marching past women’s dorms. This is rape culture too, but again she resorts to minimizing it by labeling this behaviour rather tamely as "crude" and "vulgar". Her ideological bias prevents her from either recognizing or acknowledging that this is what we mean by rape culture. Eager verbal consent must be obtained before each and every step in a sexual encounter. When Antioch College introduced such a rule in the 1990s, the ridicule rang from coast to coast. It was the occasion of a Saturday Night Live parody. Today, it is law in California and policy at dozens of universities. Yes times change. What was considered OK once upon a time is no longer considered OK. That is how progress happens. Will there be teething problems as we try and adjust to the new reality? Sure! Will we need to get used to new ideas such as "eager and enthusiastic consent". Yes! But those are good things...it is the feedback loop through which we adjust our behaviours. It does not mean that we should all just go back to the (non-existent) "good old days". Common sense and about 5,000 years of human experience suggest that women keep themselves as safe as possible, mindful that they are the smaller and weaker sex, that some men are not gentlemen, and that even seemingly nice men can behave badly when drunk. They might also want to consider that their own judgment will be impaired by alcohol. Such simple truths were conveyed from mothers to daughters for eons. There are so many things wrong with this. Yes, 5000 years of human history is filled with rape & misogyny. But, 5000 years of human history is also filled with slavery, racism, violence, wars, genocide. Should we just give up then and not try to make things better? Has not history also shown us that attitudes and hearts can change? That cultures can become kinder and more egalitarian? But if “traditional masculinity†is the cause of rape, how do progressives explain homosexual rapes? No one would argue that homosexual behavior of any kind fits into the “traditionalist†model. LOL. What? Can this article get worse? It is sort of funny that the author spends so much time defending "traditional masculinity" and yet apparently does not even realise the contradictions in the following statements: Common sense and about 5,000 years of human experience suggest that women keep themselves as safe as possible, mindful that they are the smaller and weaker sex, that some men are not gentlemen, and that even seemingly nice men can behave badly when drunk. ...... The depiction of “traditional masculinity†as essentially pathological—encouraging disrespect of women and violence against them—is a highly tendentious interpretation of history and culture. ...... On the contrary, Western civilization has devoted tremendous effort to constraining male violence (against other men as well as women) and has heaped shame on men who would strike or hurt women. ....... Any fair assessment of “traditional†norms of masculinity would have to include male chivalry and protectiveness toward women. It is clear from the entire article that the author has a strong ideological bias - she dislikes the sexual revolution because of the freedom it gave women to express themselves as sexual beings. Men being sexual by forcibly grabbing some booty? That is nothing...don't make a fuss about it. Women being sexual by hooking up? Tsk. Tsk. "Ungoverned sexuality can degenerate into degradation and abuse all too easily." And finally, I counted at least four times Obama was mentioned. Ungoverned (female (never forget)) sexuality has led to rampant campus rape?
  12. 1. Sexual objectification of women and sexually aggressive speech, both of which the signs were guilty of, do in fact contribute to rape culture. 2. Rape culture does real damage to men and women everywhere. We should not have to wait until rape occurs to speak out against this. 3. I disagree with the idea that we should allow free speech by...curbing our own speech. 4. Clearly you and some others read those signs as an invitation to a party, but nevertheless, as this thread shows a sufficient number of women have read those signs the same way I did- as implying a threat of sexual assault. I would have been chilled to the bone if I had seen such a threat being displayed when I entered my college on my first day. When a significant portion of the college going populace feels threatened and unsafe, then this has crossed over from being merely offensive speech to being dangerous speech. Turning one's back or remaining silent in such case would be the same as being complicit in the intimidation.
  13. I did not see any sign announcing that the guys were looking for "casual sex partners". I saw a sign announcing instead that guys will be sexually targeting the freshman girls - that is in fact advocating rape.
  14. Not a cult, but for a short while I seriously bought into the radical unschooling/ unparenting philosophy and decided that it was OK to let my child watch TV and play video games for an unlimited amount of time because all these women on the internet were saying that was the right and loving way to raise a child. Sometimes when you are struggling and your inner compass is not yet developed enough, and your personal value system is still evolving you don't know what to believe. You don't trust yourself, so you just want a simple rule book that tells you what to do and is guaranteed to produce results. In some cases (like in my own short-lived experiment with radical unparenting) you realise pretty quickly that you are not getting the results you desire and start looking elsewhere.
×
×
  • Create New...