Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

opiate69

(10,129 posts)
92. And looks like somebody else is fond of posting 40+ year old videos.
Fri Jun 7, 2013, 02:30 PM
Jun 2013

Mote, plank, eye, genius.

Then again, I'll take a 30 year old scientific study over the uncredentialled, nutbag blogs you seem to live by every day of the week.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Yesterday I read on DU that preschool boys who knock down block towers are being trained to rape. Warren DeMontague May 2013 #1
It's silly, but the attempt to redefine "coercion" is worse. Bonobo May 2013 #2
If you look at the anecdote, it seems to be missing some info. Warren DeMontague May 2013 #3
Of course something is being left out. Bonobo May 2013 #4
People are complex, and allowed to change their minds. Warren DeMontague May 2013 #5
On EDIT: Read the last line: "He'd gotten her consent after all". Bonobo May 2013 #8
It also demands that we fully understand and teach what those things mean Major Nikon May 2013 #10
If they built the blocks to look like girls and fucked the structure first, maybe. Gore1FL May 2013 #6
What it was was taking an example of shitty parenting and trying to sketch some Warren DeMontague May 2013 #7
I'm not sure that building and knocking over block buildings qualifies as shitty parenting, either. Gore1FL May 2013 #11
No, it was that the parents excused it by saying "boys will be boys", supposedly. Warren DeMontague May 2013 #12
additional clarification: yes, the point of block towers is to build and knock them down. Warren DeMontague May 2013 #13
I appreciate the clarification Gore1FL May 2013 #14
The usual suspects make a big deal about it if the subject is breached Major Nikon May 2013 #9
alert results datasuspect May 2013 #15
I was on that jury too (#5) ProudToBeBlueInRhody May 2013 #16
They will continue to engage in it because they know it succeeds occassionally Major Nikon May 2013 #18
Regarding your comment Major Nikon May 2013 #19
Apparently you're a "Warren Farrell Fan with a Flimsy, Flawed Study" Warren DeMontague May 2013 #20
Warren Farrell Fan with a Flimsy, Flawed Study Major Nikon May 2013 #21
Warren farrell fan with a flimsy flawed study Warren DeMontague May 2013 #32
Looks like the beginnings of a C&W hit Major Nikon May 2013 #33
Could be the spark that reignites Randy Travis' career! opiate69 May 2013 #35
What can I say, I'm a poet. Warren DeMontague May 2013 #36
Aw cute, look who agrees with you! redqueen May 2013 #22
Very telling how some believe in the validity of guilt-by-association fallacies Major Nikon May 2013 #24
He's me. SHHHH! DON'T TELL ANYONE! Warren DeMontague May 2013 #25
If you think about it, the only thing stopping you is a $15 domain registration Major Nikon May 2013 #26
the only thing stopping me from what? Wearing yellow shirts? Warren DeMontague May 2013 #27
Hey now! For some of us, the goatee is the best we can do! opiate69 May 2013 #28
Oh, it looks good on you, though! Warren DeMontague May 2013 #29
lmao! Well played, Judge Smails! opiate69 May 2013 #30
When I was growing up, my friends and I lived that movie. Warren DeMontague May 2013 #31
Heh.. my friends and I were more like Dante & Randall.. opiate69 May 2013 #34
Yeah, I was those guys too. Warren DeMontague May 2013 #37
lol opiate69 May 2013 #38
Yeah, I really got a kick out of it at the time. It hit exactly the right spot for where I was in my Warren DeMontague May 2013 #40
That study is from 1988. redqueen May 2013 #39
Farrell's book came out 5 years later Major Nikon May 2013 #44
"the no means no meme is bullshit" - followed by quoting a nearly *30* year old study... redqueen May 2013 #45
It means exactly what the study says it means Major Nikon May 2013 #50
You're still not answering the question. Why do you repeatedly quote a 25 year old study, alongside redqueen May 2013 #51
Let's be clear here Major Nikon May 2013 #63
Yes means yes. It does not mean "no" or even "maybe" lumberjack_jeff May 2013 #41
Are you seriously ignoring the subject being discussed (that "the no means no meme is bullshit")? redqueen May 2013 #42
No means no to the receiver Major Nikon May 2013 #46
Explain why you quote it along with your defense of Farrell being 'quoted out of context'. nt redqueen May 2013 #47
First try reading what was posted with and without context and see if you derive the same meaning Major Nikon May 2013 #48
You quoted him. At length. redqueen May 2013 #49
Based on what? Your opinion? Major Nikon May 2013 #54
Now who's quoting things out of context? redqueen May 2013 #55
Nowhere does that study say "no means no is bullshit" opiate69 May 2013 #59
Are you for fucking real? redqueen May 2013 #62
Are you?? opiate69 May 2013 #71
Even redqueen admitted "no means no" meme was bullshit Major Nikon May 2013 #79
Yep.. exhibit # 531,140,998 as to why I hate "bumper sticker ideology". opiate69 May 2013 #82
I posted the excerpt you are quoting from Major Nikon May 2013 #67
That is precisely the subject. nt Bonobo May 2013 #52
Another thread, in another forum... opiate69 May 2013 #53
ROFL, ... unfuckingreal. No, opiate69, THAT thread inspired THIS one. AS USUAL! redqueen May 2013 #57
Right.. because 3:50 pm today is before yesterday, which was when bonobo started this thread.. opiate69 May 2013 #61
Uggggggghhh... redqueen May 2013 #66
I'll settle this. Redqueen is correct. Bonobo May 2013 #68
No problem with that at all, and thanks for clearing it up. redqueen May 2013 #70
Right.. except... opiate69 May 2013 #72
Consent should be a bright line, clearly communicated and understood. Warren DeMontague May 2013 #43
That nuanced view leans toward yes meaning MAYBE and maybe meaning NO. redqueen May 2013 #56
Question: Bonobo May 2013 #58
Yeah, like when they're married to someone they don't love, but don't want to cheat, redqueen May 2013 #60
Please don't tell me what I WANT to hear. Bonobo May 2013 #65
Actually quite a few of those are saying yes Major Nikon May 2013 #76
There's an awful lot of straw, in that post. Warren DeMontague May 2013 #64
Last year my ass, he posted it today. redqueen May 2013 #69
No you have it backwards Bonobo May 2013 #73
I've said over and over that I don't give a flying philadelphia fuck about Warren Farrell. Warren DeMontague May 2013 #74
You were done some time back Major Nikon May 2013 #75
In no other realm would you expect me to substitute my judgement for hers. lumberjack_jeff May 2013 #80
And looks like somebody else is fond of posting 40+ year old videos. opiate69 Jun 2013 #92
"Have sex with me or I'll give you an F for the semester" is coercive. lumberjack_jeff May 2013 #17
by unpacking the xojane article galileoreloaded May 2013 #23
Bottom line for Radfems is: Bonobo May 2013 #77
Everything that gets posted here goes through the funhouse mirror. Warren DeMontague May 2013 #83
Associative logic tends to make one lose their grip on reality Major Nikon May 2013 #84
It must KILL them... Bonobo May 2013 #85
Im going to stick with my earlier statement. Warren DeMontague May 2013 #86
I heard puppies are kind of gamy tasting Gore1FL May 2013 #87
I only use farm raised puppies Major Nikon May 2013 #88
Here is how Smith college defines sexual assault and consent Bonobo May 2013 #78
Even their definition leaves a lot to be desired Major Nikon May 2013 #81
For me, it's simply being conscientious of what the other person wants or doesn't want. nomorenomore08 May 2013 #89
Yes, we do all know how we should act. Bonobo May 2013 #90
In general, I think I agree with you. And I think splitting hairs over someone's "real intentions" nomorenomore08 May 2013 #91
Try looking at the definition of the word 'coerce' LanternWaste Oct 2017 #93
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Men's Group»Let's talk about "Coerciv...»Reply #92