- Why Do Our Bodies Crack Riverside Acquires Hiway Group Of New Jersey
- Why Do Our Bodies Crack Riverside Acquires Hiway Group Of New Mexico
Source: Deborah L. Davis appears on Babe.net, about a young woman who was eager to go out with this celebrity, whom she’d met and flirted with at a party. Days later, they met up for dinner.
Sadly, she found herself on a bad date, with a bad kisser who tried to woo her into having sexual intercourse with him. He was insistent and she went along with lots of sexual foreplay, but in her mind, she was thinking, Ugh, I’m really uncomfortable and distressed, and he’s not picking up on my hesitance, and he keeps wanting to do stuff. And so I keep doing it with him. Of course, she felt violated. Because he crossed a line. A line that she had set.
A line that she did not clearly, verbally enforce until he had crossed it a bunch of times. And she didn’t speak up until she felt desperate, sickened, and distraught. That’s when she finally, unequivocably drew the line: Enough, I’m out of here.
Afterward, the more she thought about it, the more violated she felt. But who violated whom? It's his fault, right? After all, the “worst night of her life” wouldn’t have happened if he had figured out her boundaries. But that’s not his job. That’s her job.
It’s his job to honor them, but she has to draw the lines clearly, whole-heartedly, and verbally. Not with hesitation. Not by debating about it in her own head. Not with nonverbal signals. She essentially violated herself by failing to honor her boundaries and enforce them. Source: Deborah L. Davis And how did this lack of boundaries play out for her?
She drank white wine, even though she prefers red. She went to his place after dinner, even though he was too eager for her taste. She got naked with him, even though she didn’t want to. She engaged in sexual activity, even though she found it distressing.
Every time she asked him to back off, he did, eventually getting dressed, but whenever he resumed his advances, she went along for a little while. And every time she went along with something that felt bad to her, she participated in her own violation. Yes, he was inappropriate, rude, pushy, and clueless. Yes, she felt violated by this. Yes, her reaction is appropriate and understandable. But does this young woman’s experience qualify as #metoo victimization? There are so many gray areas to consider:. She claims she was trapped and pressured to submit to his demands, but as soon as she said, “No,” he obeyed.
When she said, “I must go,” he facilitated her exit. He did not pour down her gullet. He poured her a glass of wine. She drank it. Was he “trying to get her drunk?” Or was she in total charge of how much she drank?.
He has no real authority over her. He isn't her boss, her teacher, or her superior. He has zero effect on her, success, or safety. But did he fail to treat her as an equal?. The next day, he contacted her to check in. When she told him how distressed she was, he didn’t dismiss or belittle her feelings. Instead, he told her he hadn’t realized this.
He didn’t get defensive and accusatory. Instead, he apologized. Naturally, he could not know about this drama going on inside her head. As feminist Bari Weiss writes, “”. It’s completely natural and common to have awkward, unpleasant sexual encounters.
A rite of passage even. But even though it’s not a, can't we still talk about how violating it can feel, and embolden women to stop putting up with it?. Women are socialized to be docile and polite. Men are socialized to be and wired to seek.
Perhaps this is unfair and at times, inconvenient or difficult. But even when this power dynamic exists, is it always an abuse of power?.
A clumsy, clueless man is not the same as a reckless, coercive man. A woman who is actually rendered powerless is not the same as a woman who fails to step up and honor her boundaries. But those lines are indeed blurry.
This experience certainly qualifies as #baddate. Yes, it sucks. Truly, madly, deeply. But should #metoo apply just because a woman lacks the knowledge, practice, or experience to deal with boorish male behavior? On Having Boundaries While you may not be able to fend off a bad man who is using his power to force or threaten you into sex, when you have boundaries, you can fend off a good man who is trying to woo, encourage, or beg you to engage in sexual activity. You do this by clearly enforcing your boundaries. You can stand up and say, “This is not okay with me.” And “No.” “Stop.” “Ick.” “Ouch.” Or “Let’s do something that we both want to do.” Or “I must leave.” Or “You must go.” Having boundaries also means not putting yourself in compromising situations. For example, not impairing your judgment with or alcohol.
And not going to a guy’s place or having him at yours when you have no interest in getting to know him better. Not abandoning your boundaries just because you pity him, don't want to offend, or you feel awkward about saying, ' No.' And having boundaries means not engaging in sexual activity when it doesn’t feel right or when you don’t want to. Source: Deborah L.
Davis Is conversation about boundaries a routine part of how human sexual activity naturally unfolds? But if this is this how you want it to unfold, you can say, “Hey, I’d like to have a conversation about boundaries and where I draw the line.” And if he doesn’t want to have the conversation, you can say, “I draw the line here.” And then you can get up and leave. And that's how to avert a #baddate. Why #metoo Must Be Discerning Unfortunately, #metoo is becoming the default label, applied to any awkward or icky encounter. And many women are uninterested in differentiating between rape and an unwanted kiss, or between the sexual advances of a boss and the sexual advances of the boy next door. But when we assign #metoo to bad sex and bad dates, we trivialize the habitual, career-threatening, power-over, violent, coercive behaviors of men like Harvey Weinstein and Matt Lauer.
It is even trivializing to assign #metoo to the crude, immature, or embarrassing behaviors of guys like Louis C.K. And Al Franken, who've since grown into mature men. There is a difference between bad guys doing bad things and good guys doing gross things, particularly back in their youth. Plus, being awkwardly groped is not the same as being forcibly groped. Being exposed to a guy’s private parts is not the same as being forced to expose yours. Of course, none of this unseemly behavior is okay. And you don’t have to tolerate anything that crosses your boundaries.
But treating all transgressions as equally criminal is foolish and destructive. Source: Deborah L. Davis Still, some argue that it’s too complicated to tease apart the borderline, the bad, and the ugly. Of course it’s complicated. But if we can’t do the hard work of differentiating between degrees of transgression, the #metoo movement can’t do the hard work of changing social norms. Likewise, with #believewomen, we can’t afford to muddy genuinely mistreated women by lumping them together with. Though this may happen rarely, we must discern which women are telling the truth, and disavow the women who aren’t.
Why must we be so discerning?. For this movement to spark change for the better, it must seek justice, rather than perpetuate injustice. People will reject the message if it’s unfairly harsh to basically decent men, or lumps them together with the incorrigible. Change for the better requires the participation of men, and if we criminalize or demonize them for any and all misconduct, how can they buy in?. Change for the better also requires a focus on reformation and redemption, rather than solely on, public shaming, and shunning. To ensure integrity, we can tolerate scrutiny of women’s stories, as long as men's stories receive equal scrutiny.
And it's okay if #believewomen swings the pendulum a tad too far, if that's what it takes. Applying #metoo to all unfortunate encounters implies that women are hapless victims even when they're on bad dates or having bad sex. It negates their responsibility for having and enforcing their personal boundaries. On this last point, for #baddate or #badsex, and even to some extent for #metoo, if women want change, they must take full responsibility for themselves during sexual encounters. They must fully claim their desires, their boundaries, and their power, rather than expecting men to figure it out for them. Women must be the change they want to see, rather than relying on men to be the change.
Women must stand up and present themselves as rightful partners in society, business, romance, and life, rather than resigning themselves to a victim role whenever a man comes on strong. In turn, men must take full responsibility for being attuned to the women they are interacting with. How do we instill these responsibilities? By having these difficult, contentious conversations about all the gray areas. By raising awareness and examining our individual contributions to the status quo.
By talking about how socialization and social norms and contributes to the status quo. By raising both girls and boys to fully claim their feelings, their desires, their boundaries, their power to be true to themselves-and to respect all of this in each other. Recommended Reading: Besides, I also recommend Samantha Bee's sharp commentary- you can find it. See, Emma Gray's excellent analysis of the blurred line between sexual assault and bad sex; why this conversation is so important; and how bringing men into the conversation can benefit us all. See, KatyKatiKate's look at the complicated reasons why we might try to avoid equating bad sex with sexual assault. See, on Jezebel, Stassa Edwards writes about the chasm between sexual assault and bad sex, and how #metoo can add to its power by charting that territory. See, Padma Lakshmi in an op-ed piece in the New York Times, describing why she did not report date rape when she was 16, and how women pay the price for the rest of their lives, so why shouldn't men have to pay too, even if it takes many years for his assault to come to light?
I'm not surprised at all regarding what happened. I get it, Harvey Weinstein is a bad man. So are a lot of other sexual abusers. It sucked to be Mira Sorvino and Ashley Judd. It sucked to have to work for John Besh and Mario Batali.
Ugh, who wants to be drugged. But there is a but. The way many young women are raised these days (and I am a woman) is they are urged to be helpless, almost infantile. They aren't raised as leaders, but more followers, ladies that go with the flow and question nothing. What becomes important to these young women is how they look and that they are told they are beautiful, a lot. When these young women enter the work force they realize the world can be a bad place.
They aren't ready for it. They learn to embrace victimhood to explain away their bad experiences. Society is more than happy to indulge them.
If one is a young beautiful (white) woman who acts like a child then one might be lauded, protected and treated nicely. On the other hand.one might also be setting themselves up as a target. Aziz Ansari is a brown man.
He played a creep in his TV role. He had a bad date. It's so easy to point a finger at this man as a villain. He isn't a villain. His date was a pathetic sorry excuse for a human being. She went with him to his apartment, she took off her clothes. She could have said no at any time.
She didn't because, well, probably for a lot reasons. Ansari was a D list celebrity. Ansari might have connections. Ansari would make a great Facebook post. If any young women are reading this, please allow me to provide a revelation.
Women who readily call themselves feminists may not be willing to fight your petty battles against men who have done nothing wrong. We expect you to act like an adult. No, we probably won't be coming to your aid in these situations where you like to imagine yourself a damsel in distress. Ansari heard the no. He stopped, she left.
Ansari isn't a criminal. Weinstein is a different issue.
He blocked the exit for a number of women. He didn't allow women to leave. He ruined careers because some women wouldn't engage with him sexually. He's a criminal. Bill Cosby drugged women and then molested them. He's a criminal. This isn't rocket science.
There's a pretty clear line. Just because a woman feels icky doesn't automatically render a man an abuser. This might be a good time for Mr. Ansari's date to think about how she could have acted differently to change to outcome.
She could have not gone to his home. She could have not taken off her clothes. She could have made a firm statement about what she was and was not willing to do and then stuck to it.
I speak from experience. I don't have sex with ever man I date. I'm dating a man right now and we do not have sex, because I am not at that point where I want to.
My guy is a bit pushy too, but I am insistent. Our relationship is not damaged or terminated because I am making a choice. He's a guy like any other guy, but he's not a criminal. He's respectful just like Mr. Ansari, and I am not a big whiny victim like Mr. Ansari's date. Someone with some common sense!
Yes, means yes, no means no. You have to set clear intentions, if you don't like something, speak up and say no!
If you stay silent and go along with it, you're putting it on yourself, as you mentioned. When will others realize women shouldn't be infantalized and treated like little children, incapable of consent and knowing their own boundaries. I consider women who don't speak up when wronged, to have forfeited their 'victimhood' status.
Sexual coercion happens almost in any career. It's up to the woman to have the integrity and standards to say 'No'. Unless someone's forcing you down as you scream, you're not a victim to me. That's all it takes. If the guy won't listen, it's on him then, but if you stay silent, it's on you.
Anonymous wrote: Sexual coercion happens almost in any career. It's up to the woman to have the integrity and standards to say 'No'. Unless someone's forcing you down as you scream, you're not a victim to me. That's all it takes. If the guy won't listen, it's on him then, but if you stay silent, it's on you. #NotMe So, in other words, all the olympic gymnast girls aren't victims?
I think you're a bit clueless about the psychology that's going on with a lot of women in these situations. Anonymous wrote: I think this person's opinion is about women not children, perhaps you misunderstood it. Sorry, it can't be entirely dismissed on that simple technical difference. The issues here don't pivot ENTIRELY on whether you're over the age of consent, one day short of it, or one day after it, and depending on whether it's in Germany and Italy (age of consent 14) or some US states (where it's as high as 18). The point is that women are usually physically smaller than men, often even an adult woman is about the size and weight of a child compared to the man, and so the issues of physical control and power are still the same. Yes, I get the issues outlined in this article, and they are worthy points. But let's be clear that, on the other hand, this article should NOT be taken as providing a 'free pass' to any man simply because a woman didn't speak up loudly and firmly.
It's incumbent on men to try to make a real effort to read the woman's body language and feelings, and not try to figure out how he can get a 'free pass' by hoping she doesn't speak up or acting in a manner where she feels or seems to read from the man's body language that he will get violent unless she says 'yes'. Some of the advice in articles like this seem to rely a little too much on the literal interpretation of the words spoken. One only needs to be reminded of the Mafia-speak when the big muscle man tells you in a New York accent, 'Nice family you got there - sure would hate for something to happen to them.' Literally, an expression of caring, but the context and body language couldn't differ more.
Anonymous wrote: The gymnasts were not on a date with Larry Nassar. They were there for an examination. They were also under age, and not legally capable of consent.
My point stands 100% nevertheless. Yes, on legal grounds it differs by location, from age 14 in some countries, to age 18 in some US states, and even under 14 in some countries. My point was with regard to the psychology, not legally being under age. Psychology of teenage girls doesn't change on national and state boundaries - only the law does. Anonymous wrote: I consider women who don't speak up when wronged, to have forfeited their 'victimhood' status. Are you clueless?
Wake up, learn, read, think - try it, it works! Many of Weinstein's women reported it to all kinds of people. Courtney Love even said something about Weinstein on the red carpet in the most public way possible. And what happened to her? She lost her membership in the CAA and was blacklisted from other events.
And what she said was pretty much dismissed. Not really believed. Others talked to their lawyers - in many cases were told they don't have a case because it's just a 'he said she said'.
Are you a doofus? Thank you Deborah L. It is nice to see something other than the Salem mob mentality from a woman.
I wrote this over at 'Enthusiastic Consent vs Compassionate Relating: Aziz & Grace' by Ravi Chandra M.D., D.F.A.P.A. Who manged to get the last word by closing comments instead of refuting the ones he found offensive. Not someone I would seek for 'help' if that is his way of handling issues. Adult or child? Submitted by S.P. On January 18, 2018 - 1:43pm Well, unless I am mistaken, Abby Nierman was an adult at the time of this incident.
As an adult, she is supposed to have agency and self control, right? So, either she could have simply left or clearly said, 'No!' Her entire representation is that he did not pick up on non-verbal clues, she did not assert her agency and felt 'icky' about the way Aziz behaved. She behaved like a helpless child, regretted or was embarrassed about her own weakness, and decided to make herself feel better by blaming Aziz for her own lack of agency.
Aziz may have been awkward, goofy, icky or whatever, but the accusations are simply those of someone attention whoring and looking to be coddled as a victim for a situation she should at least take 50% of the blame for. If she is so delicate and powerless, she should be institutionalized for her own safety.
(slight sarcasm) - As others have said, 'men cannot be expected to be mind readers'. I disagree that women who speak up to complain about a man who behaves as Ansari did is 'going too far' or being 'fragile'. I have not heard anyone call Ansari a rapist or say that he should lose his job.
I haven’t heard of anyone saying he should be punished at all. Women are just saying that anyone who behaves with so much callous disinterest in their sexual partner’s reluctance is a poor-quality human being.
How can you excuse such blatant lack of empathy? If we trust this account (and your article seems to) her protests to him were NOT only non-verbal; she did clearly tell him she did not want to have sex (intercourse) or go further, more than once. He ignored not only her non-verbal signals but also her verbal protests. I understand some of your view that women are being “too fragile”, because I know about underfunctioning and overfunctioning. Why do women not say no more loudly?
I think it’s often because (a) we really like the guy, and want to protect the relationship, and (b) his reaction, even if not violent, is not going to be favorable. What were her options – go along with the sex that HE was demanding, or leave?
His way or the highway? Is that the standard of relating for men and women? Is it so terrible that women are saying we want men to not act like nagging, pestering children about sex? Why do women not say no more loudly? I think it’s often because (a) we really like the guy, and want to protect the relationship, and (b) his reaction, even if not violent, is going to be to blame her for saying no. Many young women don’t have much practice in holding their ground in the face of anger, blame, resistance, and manipulation.
Many young women don’t have much practice in NOT going along with what others want from them, in swimming against the current – especially not in a way that gets them what they want. What were her options – go along with the sex that HE was demanding, or leave?
His way or the highway? Is that the standard of relating for men and women? Is it so terrible that women are saying we want men to not act like nagging, pestering children about sex?
She did say no – she just didn’t get angry and confrontational about it. Is that how anyone wants to act on their first date – angry and confrontational? I’ve noticed on Psychology Today that most of the articles regarding #metoo are harshly critical of the movement.
So you weren’t really sticking your neck out HERE. Also it’s revealing how many therapists are more concerned about defending selfish, aggressive behavior than about encouraging someone who feels harmed to have a stronger voice. Plus, you seem to excuse his behavior on the grounds of being ‘young’ and perhaps a bit awkward – but wouldn’t that also excuse her lack of assertiveness? And if the only way young people learn is by flinging themselves into the deep end of the pool and struggling to figure it out – it seems like young men get all the rewards from it, while young women get all the emotional pain. I think what this movement is saying is – we can do better.
It’s not just about punishing criminals; it’s about creating a way that people don’t feel victimized. Speaking as a lifelong feminist, I find this article refreshing and a voice of reason in an unsettling debate. When I was young (many decades ago) I fought alongside my fellow feminists for the right to claim my own sexuality and own it. We fought against the chauvinists who sexually objectified us and saw us as nothing but sex objects.
We fought to assert our own power and raise our voice against those who would abuse us. Most of all, we fought for the control of our own bodies and minds. We established that we as women were the ones in control and that no man could ever take that away from us unless we let them. So, it deeply saddens me to see women who refuse to use their voice, as the person in the Babe article did on her bad date with Aziz Ansari, did. We fought and suffered for the right to use our voice and control our own sexuality, and now it seems our fellow women are giving back what we fought so hard for.
The truth is that all she had to do to end what was happening was use her voice. All she had to do was effectively set boundaries and use her voice to ensure that. If after setting those boundaries he refused to comply, then its time to get dressed and go home. I would never remain in a situation where I did not feel 100% in control, and it flabbergasts me that she didnt use the power of her voice and the power of leaving the situation to stop herself from being hurt.
Even worse, it tells me that our young women are missing the message of what the woman's movement is really all about. Its definitely not about confusing a man by not setting boundaries and expecting him to read your mind about what you expect and what you want.
We fought for that decades ago, and now today's young feminists are throwing it all away. Because the author of the Babe piece unfairly used the #MeToo movement as a vehicle to pine about her own failures in judgement, she has diminished the plight of the true victims of sexual assault and sexual harassment - and thats really a lousy and selfish thing to do.
The movement has been hurt because of this, and the backlash will only get worse if we allow the focus to waver. The author of the Babe article must understand where she went wrong and then we can save the #MeToo movement from any future derailing. I enjoyed your post. I'm dying to weigh in but don't dare. Much much too dangerous ii not today's climate. But I loved your articulating what I remembered of the 60's. With the advent of the Pill, women finally acquired their complete agency and salience.
For the first time in history women could control their pregnancies and were therefore able to engage sexually on a much more equal footing. They now had free choice which included the choice to be sexually active without the fear of pregnancy. It must be horrifying for you to see what you fight so hard to achieve, slowly being given up. A lot of the #MeToo movement has, under the guise of 'righting wrongs' lost sight of moral and legal fundamentals. Apart from due process having been abandoned, the more fundamental legal principle 'nulla poenam sine lege' - 'no crime without a law (no punishment without a crime'), has been abandoned.
This foundation of the laws and structure of the modern world is itself under threat. How does a 71 year old man like me reflect upon his life of 50 years ago in a different world? When I grew up and when I studied law, a man could not be charged with raping his wife. The crime did not exist. There were laws against violence and assault but marital rape was an unknown concept. As a thought experiment, imagine a world where it is forbidden for human to drive a car (not too far off at all). At that stage, someone who still has a car with a steering wheel and decides to go for a drive, will be committing an offence and there may be a strong moral censure because human drivers are the main cause of collisions.
Can you imagine your children hectoring you and looking at you with loathing and distaste because X years ago you drove a car? This is a bit how the world feels to me. Back to married life where there are a million conflicts - where to eat, home or out, which restaurant, what film to see, where to go on holiday, how to bring up children etc etc. All of these are handled with greater or lesser regard for the partner. That is how married life goes (and went in my day). A good example is: 'Let's go out' 'No'. And on and on it goes until one or the other desire prevails.
Applies to all activities where both parties are involved. Out all the myriad every day tussles, suddenly sex is singled out for special treatment.
All the normal give-and-take, all the normal cajoling and negotiation, normal in every way, suddenly becomes a crime of rape because suddenly the new norm is 'no means no'. Not up even for negotiation, and anyone who finds this strange is, at best, morally suspect. I have no problem with the new norm of today. 'No means no' and cajoling and insensitive pressure does now amount to rape. I'm happy with that, but to be judged today on standards of today, for behaviours entirely normal 50 years ago, is insane. There is the argument of 'well you should have known - any decent person would have known', but that is not the case at all because what is decent/moral or not decent is often entirely a social construct of the time and of the society. I live in Australia where prostitution is perfectly legal, so I can go up to a policeman and ask where I can find a brothel and they might very well point me to the nearest brothel or tell me where to go for the information, but if I ask them where I can buy a gun I'm liable to be arrested.
In many states in America the exact opposite is true, so if I ask a policeman where I can buy a gun, they will direct me to one of the many gun shops in the city but if I asked them where I can find a prostitute I will be locked up for solicitation. Australia, America, both begin and end with 'A' (non-sequitur I know), both countries with Anglo-Saxon and Judeo-Christian roots, but oh so different in so many ways. For American readers, go online and read The Wentworth Courier, a weekly in Sydney.
This full colour, family magazine, handed out to every household free in the Eastern Suburbs and available for free at all convenience stores, is the premier real estate magazine with pages of full colour ads for houses and apartments for sale and rent. Read towards the back for classifieds, for tradespeople, and for services. And the last 2 or 3 pages are colour ads for escorts, brothels, erotic massage, and kinky services. Many ads are explicit and many have colour pics of the women (and men) advertising their services.
This is an excellent learning experience for those who find paid sexual services immoral and to be prohibited - to see how different norms operate in another country. Socially constructed norms are norms with the added problem that each society believes it's norms to be self evidently correct, irrefutable and utterly logical. Well, standards of behaviour change too over time. Think homosexuality, think marijuana, think consent, think the age of consent.
When I grew up, the age of consent for women was 16. There were no moral issues at all.
18 was the age you could legally get a driver's licence or drink alcohol. No moral issues whatsoever. I get that today there is moral repugnance and legal prohibition against a middle-aged man having sex with a 16 year old girl but there was none 40-50 years ago and to judge men by today's standards on behaviour which was normal then and had no moral censure then, is iniquitous. Think legal drinking. I was in my early 40's and had just landed in Boston on a holiday and I took my then 10 year old to an oyster bar. The oysters came and the drinks came.
Coke for him and a beer for me. I gave him my beer to have a sip and suddenly the room became quiet and stunned, before a white-faced waiter asked me in a shocked voice what I was doing - how could I give my son some beer? Well, for me it was normal. I didn't usually drink alcohol, but oysters and beer were something new and special and I wanted my son to experience it too.
Remember that I had come from a country with no rigid norms about kids having alcohol during a meal, with their parents. We never as a matter of course had alcohol with meals at home, but if we went out, well, the kids could have a sip too. Go judge me now with having plied my kids with alcohol!
Think speed limits. When I grew up, there were no speed limits on out-of-town highways. I get that there are speed limits today and anybody who drives faster than the speed limit is subject to penalty, but to say to somebody who drove at 120 miles an hour 40 or 50 years ago 'You reckless lunatic.
We will now punish you for your excess speed 50 years ago', is plain crazy. And it is even worse than that because today's standards embody huge moral censure of shame and mortification for acts quite normal in the past.
Not only am I a crazy for having driven at 120 miles per hour but I'm morally repugnant for having done so then. I now await an outraged litany of protestations of the sort 'but surely you knew that x, y, or z was morally repugnant and self-evidently so'. Things change over time. Think slavery.
Today it is incomprehensible that slavery existed but it did once and people accepted it as a norm and behaved towards their slaves in ways they saw as reasonable. Reasonable people behaved as decently as they knew how during those times. Others did not. But that was how things were. Today we know differently. Remember too that the concept of fundamental human rights only became embodied in the UN Charter in 1949. Didn't exist before.
Think homosexuality. 50 years ago my father was outraged that I brought a gay friend to our home - 'I cannot believe you brought a homosexual into my house' is what he said. He was misguided in terms of today's norms, but for me to find him, today, morally repugnant for his views would be to be a bigot and a more loathsome bigot than any homophobe could be. That is how my father grew up and was taught.
So, yes, I fear the untrammeled repercussions of the excesses of the #MeToo movement. Apart from the havoc it plays in terms of witch-hunts, it will lead to a lashback. It will distort so monstrously that in the end it will become utterly discredited and at that stage, women who really do have need for a #MeToo movement, will have either nothing at all or merely a discredited shell which nobody takes seriously. Thank you for a long, insightful post, sir. I can't imagine what it must be like in your 70s to have witnessed modern insanity, with lowered standards and expectations and everyone acting the victim.
The greatest oddity is the acceptance of muslims in the West. Leftists are judging people based on ideas that were the norm even 20 years ago, but happily accept violent, backwards savages who haven't changed since 600AD. “There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them.
One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.”-Ayn Rand. Anonymous wrote: The greatest oddity is the acceptance of muslims in the West. Leftists are judging people based on ideas that were the norm even 20 years ago, but happily accept violent, backwards savages who haven't changed since 600AD.
Oh, stop with the idiotic nonsense. What you really mean is perhaps, terrorists or troublemakers, and you stupidly associate a small percentage of people from a label as everyone under that label?
Or, if you really buy your dumb logic, then you must also support the theory of ardent feminists, who have observed that bad managers and sexual harassers tend to overwhelmingly be men, so therefore ALL MEN ARE abusers, harassers, and insecure and nasty managers? Just because some of them are? Yeah, talk about sounding like a victim yourself.
Looking at Abby Nierman's online profile (what's left after she locked her accounts), shows her to be a nasty entitled little manipulator. She tried to use Ansari but Ansari used her instead and that infuriated her. She felt degraded because she failed in her quest to manipulate him and because she had to perform for a brown man. This immature thot tried to use the #MeToo movement to project herself as a victim.
Why Do Our Bodies Crack Riverside Acquires Hiway Group Of New Jersey
The unfortunate thing is that half the feminists fell for it. And some would continue to defend her even though her half naked pictures are all over the web proving she's no wallflower. Take back #MeToo from scammers like her. Ansari's specific sexual behavior would seem to reflect a combination of celebrity and a culture of porn and/or prostitution.
Other celebrities indulging in similar behavior could learn from his experience about the frailty of their careers, which depend on their popularity. Men disrespect women in numerous ways both in the workplace and in their private lives.
A more fundamental attitude needs to change, not merely dating etiquette, which clearly both men and women have different opinions about. There two issues on this matter. A) Bad sex will happen even if we start to videotape people. If every sexual encounter is a blast, LOLOLOL well I do not know what to say. So any movement that say no more bad sex for women, it is not only laughable but proves the point women think like children.
B) Every intimate encounter – you get lucky. He gets lucky. Both get lucky. No one gets lucky. Ansari’s case – he got lucky. I am very sure the date girl cannot say with 100% certainty she never made a man feel bad after he had sex with her. No one can so this means, anyone over the age of 18 will have some consensual sex that is just bad.
Those who do not are lucky or get married too soon. But you are dating, you will have bad sex, bad date, bad day period. It is called life. You will feel used, violated, annoyed. And weird enough, you will make someone feel that too Now the question is what do we do about this? I keep hearing “internalized” “socialized” blahahh but what I do not hear is also that most children are raised by either two parents or a woman.MOST – IS THE KEY WORD HERE.
Now if most women are having bad sex, putting up with it, and teaching their boys that is great and teaching their girls, well I put it up with it and so you should, THE PROBLEM LIES WITH THE PERSON RAISING THE CHILDREN. The reason we are not hearing this is that women want men to change – because men are smarter.
Even if they were brought up to be assertive and competitive and take it all by their mothers – they can still change. But when the women are brought up by women to be docile, sexy and be demurring and polite – we are like but hmmmm they cannot change?
Why Do Our Bodies Crack Riverside Acquires Hiway Group Of New Mexico
So both sexes are brought up certain way but we are asking only one to change. It is much easier to become non-compliant than to be compliant. My advise to young women: No more hooking up – trust me even doggy style is nasty and violating when the guy wont want to sleep with you over night. Either take it like a man or leave it until you know the person and he can respect you.BECAUSE YOU RESPECTED YOURSELF. If every guy is gemthen do we even need to sleep with more than one guy?
The reason we sleep is cause not everybody is good. Either you end up like grace, silly little girl or you end up bitachy that every guy talks about you get what you want, cause you ask and if you do not get it, you had nothing to lose anyway – you lost another loser. I had many bad sex – that I gave cause I could not careless – I wanted what I wanted. And I got few bad ones and I can laugh about it cause I am like WTF did I stay for!!!!!!!
But one thing, I am a woman with autonomy who was brought up in muslim and guess whateven that did not stop me saying NO! White girls cannot have it all. You cannot raise loser boys and docile girls and complain.
Either raise more assertive kids or face the consequences.
'If normal body temperature is about 98 degrees Fahrenheit, why do we feel hot at that air temperature?' Meyer, Melbourne, Fla. Walker, a physiology professor at the University of Arizona, has a cool explanation: The human body is like an engine that continuously generates large quantities of heat, and its radiator, so to speak, disperses heat least effectively in hotter climes. Heat is an unavoidable by-product of the work being done by the tissues of the body.
Contracting muscles of the heart, diaphragm and limbs; ion pumps that maintain the electrical properties of nerves; and biochemical reactions that break down food and synthesize new tissues (to name a few) generate body heat continuously. With this gurgling volcano of active internal organs, the body has a critical need to dissipate heat to the surroundings. It does so by circulating blood near the surface of the skin, by exhaling warm, humidified air, and by evaporating sweat. These processes function best when ambient temperature is around 70 degrees Fahrenheit, where we feel most comfortable, and they serve to maintain core body temperature around 98 degrees F.
But when the surroundings match core body temperature, the dispersal mechanisms are not optimal, so we feel hot, especially when humidity is high. Humidity has a significant effect because water on the body absorbs enormous amounts of heat and then dissipates it by evaporation. Anything that interferes with this vaporization of water (humid air, lack of a breeze, heavy clothing, and so on) makes us feel especially hot and uncomfortable.