That’s a tough one. The closest I can come to an answer is that all kids think they are immortal. They all think it won’t happen to them, they are too smart, maybe they watch their drinks, etc. And then it does happen to them.
Kavanaugh
- Thread starter twenty02
- Start date
It happened when I was in school,at the most popular house on campus. No one considered reporting it. There was big discussion as to whether to go back to house and it was put to a vote. Going back won by a ton. The girl it happened to was looked down upon and people were mad that she might prevent us having further events with the frat. This was when I was a freshman and not living in, so not positive of all the details, as it was kept pretty hush hush. I don’t think it would go down that way now. But never ignore the power of social tiers, wanting to fit in, hanging with the popular crowd, etc. And yes, this is definitely an indictment on young women.
Van van, van. They kind of need to know what they are supposed to be investigating. Chances are they didn’t feel the need to go back to his high school days. Who cares who her lawyer is? Who cares why the Dems are doing this? It’s all about what Kavanaugh did. I feel sorry for any women in your congregation and I’d be willing to bet they’d leave you if they saw whatbyou posted on here.
Do you ever talk about this stuff with the girls in your house?
What do they say?
MrsSope and I have discussed it and she doesn't understand why a girl would put herself in that kind of position, and says she wouldn't have understood it when she was in high school and college . . . but then she was an electrician's daughter from a small town in the northern midwest . . . I haven't exactly asked other women I encounter at church or work, for obvious reasons. So I appreciate your sharing your perspective.
Yep.
I have read articles about studies indicating that the general dynamic between men and women - from an evolutionary perspective, I guess - is that women trade sex for access to mens' assets and men trade access to their assets for sex. I've also read articles about studies indicating - from a psychological perspective - that women have sex to gain intimacy and men provide intimacy to gain sex.
Given the changes in society over the last 40 years it's now much more possible, even likely, that women don't and won't need to make the sex for assets trade . . . the question is whether that change in society will drive a change in that trade off, or whether it's something more hard-wired in us.
Us men, though, are for the foreseeable future destined to be despicable horny bastages. Oh well . . . .
Last edited:
Oh yes. We have an official meeting with counselors each semester. I have casual conversations a lot. After reading Missoula, I told them about one of the things I read in there that frats do that sounds familiar. Said they target girls that look vulnerable, not quite as cute, etc. The ones that would be thrilled to be invited to a top frat party. The second they get there , they start playing the girl with alcohol. They then take her to a room that is not theirs. Said the girls never tell on them because they are ashamed afterwards that they got played. And usually the girls don’t even tell their friends. I will say that IU is doing a really good job talking to freshmen, frats, and sororities to try to prevent this. You can’t go to a bathroom on campus without seeing a flyer about sexual abuse. If you go to football or basketball games, you see these on the stalls. They make it very clear if you act this way, you will be responsible for getting your frat kicked off campus. The committee that produced the flyers and facilitates the semester meetings is the one I take part in.
The one I’ve heard is men talk to women so they can have sex and women have sex so they can talk to men. Sounds similiar.
The Senate needs to reinstall the filibuster rule for all judicial nominees in the next Congress.
Most of this mess would be avoided if any President knows he/she needs a 60 vote threshold for confirmation. Both parties bear responsibility for the ever escalating tit-for-tat....now we have certain folks on the left considering keeping this seat open for 2+ years if they win the Senate.
Most of this mess would be avoided if any President knows he/she needs a 60 vote threshold for confirmation. Both parties bear responsibility for the ever escalating tit-for-tat....now we have certain folks on the left considering keeping this seat open for 2+ years if they win the Senate.
Other than sex, what do men and women have in common sufficiently to merit having conversations?
Would a change in that rule have discouraged the gamesmanship regarding Garland's nomination? Not directly, I get that . . . but knowing you need the other side for your own nominees . . . .
DebtOther than sex, what do men and women have in common sufficiently to merit having conversations?
The only way to get fix this is to codify the old norms into law and cut down Supreme Court terms to 20 years. No 2nd term, those judges stay in the federal judicial pool and the most recent ones to be termed out fill vacancies temporarily if needed or if judges have to recuse themselves from a case. A term expires every 2 years so it's a normal thing, but you need 60 votes and the Senate *must* hold hearings and schedule an up or down vote on a nomination with a certain period of time.
That way it won't be a race to put in the youngest person possible with no record and ram them through when you get lucky to have a justice croak/retire when your party has the Senate/Presidency.
We've discussed this already. See post 1937 in this thread.
Was the study done only using socially awkward conservative men?
*blushes, then raises hand*
They didn't tell me when they asked me the questions . . . .
If it’s this woman, basketball and football.Other than sex, what do men and women have in common sufficiently to merit having conversations?
I was primed and ready for an account of who hit whom, who bit off whose ear and who walked away in handcuffs . . . but noooooo . . . .
He's referencing an old theory about how gender roles arose in prehistoric times, especially how apparently all of human society developed with men "in charge," so to speak. I'm not sure it's as widely accepted as it used to be, since so many anthropologists are working to subvert old assumptions, but it has nothing to do with politics. It's really an evolutionary theory.
I think she should not go back to the same location for nine more parties hosted and attended by the same people.
Sooooo . . . what do you think about Archie's pack-line defense as compared to Crean's outside-in man-to-man?
Need a little time to tell, but any kind of defense wasn’t exactly Crean’s strong suit. Once Archie gets his players in, I think we will be able to tell more. Was that a rhetorical question?
Although there are plenty of reason for people to walk on by and NOT help...... But that is an entirely different thread. Am no intending to derail this goat rope. (and this is freaking sad!)
Sounds a lot like a question if there are 10 banks on Main Street with bad security, and they start getting robbed one by one, is the first bank that gets robbed partly responsible for the misfortune of the last bank to get robbed.
Well, I respond that this might possibly be an interesting question for debate team, but the people responsible for robbing the last bank are in fact the criminal bank robbers (analogous to the equally culpable assailants at Kavanaugh's parties).
That doesn't let the first bank off the hook, though, because that bank still has responsiblility for not taking enough precautions.
Well, some banks have loan officers who are women, right? I can think of some uses for them that have nothing to do with sex.Other than sex, what do men and women have in common sufficiently to merit having conversations?
So now I see a new allegation from 1998. This is getting out of control. Why doesn't this guy just step aside?
Is this FINALLY the underage deceased girl who proclaimed this on her death bed to Kamala with no way to corroberate?
I'm really trying to wrap my head around what he thinks the end game is here. WFT is wrong with him?
I don't think he really believes he is "innocent," in the sense that he didn't do "it." I think what he really believes is that something that happened 35 years ago isn't relevant to his confirmation because he has changed, he now realizes he was wrong back then, he has grown, he improved his behavior in the decades since then. But neither he nor anybody else knows how to express these thoughts in a politically acceptable way.
My paragraph above goes away, however, if any accusations from the last 6-7 years surface.
Sweatnik (sp?) (Avenatti's client) says in her declaration that she attended 10 of these wild parties. Sounds certain that she saw what was happening and still went back.
so there's an anonymous accusation. With no names. From a mother. Who says her daughter is too traumatized to speak--not about a sexual allegation, by the way. And it's being reported. WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?
We are up to 5. What’s wrong with YOU people who still haven’t figured it out?
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
gameday crew already setting the table to screw us- Latest: Big Red Crimson Buffalo
-