kimmy

In the other thread there was some amount of complaining that feminists don't care about men's rights, and so on. From what I have seen on the internet, much of the "men's rights" talk I have seen is actually just a bunch of guys complaining that women won't go out with them. "Women only want alpha guys" and so on. And still more of it is less about men's rights, and more about men complaining that women's rights have eroded men's privilege. However, I am open-minded to the idea that there are men's rights topics that need to be discussed. What are some men's rights issues that there should be a serious conversation about? -k

I didn't get "suckered in", I just don't share your Church Lady sensibilities. I don't need to represent myself as cool, because the people in my real life know I'm cool. And my cat knows I'm cool. And I don't think talking about sex is sexist. -k

...wouldn't that be the best way to get a female perspective? If I'd thought it was anything other than curiosity, I wouldn't have replied. -k

He just asked whether women enjoy anal sex. Why you heff to be mad? -k

Thanks, this is good information. -k

I don't think he was trying to turn this into AdultFriendFinder. Perhaps he was just asking an honest question. Perhaps he's interested in finding ways that he and his wife can keep busy during her pregnancy. Perhaps he was interested in hearing a female perspective. I may have the rhetoric confused. Didn't it used to be a theme among some feminists that sex was inherently exploitive and oppressive to women, that erotica was inherently demeaning to women, and so-on? And hasn't that largely been replaced with the view that women should be free to experience their sexuality? -k

I am not sure I understand the reason for the disgust. I thought the new feminism was supposed to be sex-positive? I have had lots of wonderful experiences with wonderful people, and I'm not ashamed of it. I know that my value does not come from some arbitrary list of things that I have not done. I think my experiences have enriched me as a person, and I hope that everybody gets a chance to have as much joy in their life as I have had. -k

Trying to figure out what's really in this agreement. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-32166814 Some questions I have about this are: -what role do centrifuges and enriched uranium play in a non-military nuclear program? -is there a good reason for not shutting down all the centrifuges, rather than 2/3 of them? -is there a good reason for not removing all the enriched uranium rather than most of it? -isn't 300kg of enriched uranium still enough to build some number of nuclear weapons? I've never actually built a nuclear weapon myself. Is enriching uranium the hard part? I had always assumed that causing fission was the hard part of building a nuclear weapon. Does this deal actually halt Iran's ability to research nuclear weapons? Seems like it still leaves them enriched uranium to experiment with, facilities to build more if they wish, and time to keep researching how to actually turn it into weapons. -k

It wasn't that big of a hit, to be honest. -k

...or "Travel, Leisure, and Sports"? I dunno, this seems like as good a place as any. Sex is right there in the forum name. Personally I really enjoy sex, but I'm not exactly sure what to say about it beyond that. -k

Now that the bill has been "fixed", that is true. The law specifically lays out that it may not be used to authorize discrimination, or used as a defense against discrimination claims, including claims against discrimination based on sexual orientation. But until yesterday, that was not the case. I direct you to Senate Amendments #4 and #5 of the bill: https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2015/bills/senate/101# Amendment #4 would have clarified that the bill does not constitute a legal defense against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Amendment #4 was defeated. Instead, they passed Amendment #5 clarified that the bill does not constitute a legal defense against discrimination against someone who is in a "protected class". In Indiana, sexual orientation is expressly *not* protected from discrimination, and Governor Pence could not have been more blunt on Sunday in stating that they had no interest in adding protection for sexual orientation to Indiana's anti-discrimination law. And that's why Gov Pence kept refusing to answer that question in his interview on Sunday. He knew full well that the law *did* allow discrimination, and was afraid to say so. Gov. Pence's friends from Advance America were with him at the private ceremony when he signed the bill into law, and immediately went around claiming that the law allowed exactly what Indiana's senate majority said it wouldn't: allow businesses to deny services to gay people. They were right. It did. And that's why Advance America are so pissed about the new amendment. Gov Pence and his allies were also flat-out lying when they said that the law they made was the same as the federal RFRA law and the RFRA laws in 20 other states. Only South Carolina's RFRA considers businesses to be individuals. Only Texas's RFRA extends to legal disputes in which the government is not a party. And only Indiana's does both of those things. They were the ones spreading misinformation. Not the critics of the law. -k

Laser-like focus? Are you suggesting that a directed energy weapon may have been involved? -k

Why do you only accept the "science" produced by crackpots like Dr Jones and Dr Fetzer and the goofs at AE911, and reject actual science from actual scientists? -k

I admit my mistake. I had always assumed that the same rules that permit male-only golf-clubs and "gentlemen's clubs" also protect male-only fraternal organizations and women-only health clubs. And it turns out I was in error. Exclusive mens' clubs can operate as private clubs due to the exclusivity of their membership. But with membership easily obtainable, women's healthclubs and fraternal organizations can't make any pretense of exclusivity. In regard to women-only gyms then: some have been sued, and some successfully. If you feel like taking a run at it, lawyer up and dig out your yoga pants because you may have a case. In other cases, however, the clubs have won. The legal discussion on this is based around 3 questions: A thorough discussion of these criteria is available in the PDF linked above. -k

I called BC "Dick" for years, until he asked me to stop. It still tickles me to imagine that we're actually conversing with VP Cheney. -k

The first great thread on this topic reached 200 pages, as I recall. I would say it's less a question of discussing it, and more along the lines of poking it with a stick to see what happens next. -k

What I find most perplexing about this thread is why this guy keeps referring to Dick as "George". -k

When he's not studying "nano thermite", Dr Stephen Jones is studying electronic perpetual motion machines and trying to prove that Jesus visited America. He's almost as mental as that other hero of the Truthies, Jim Fetzer. Fetzer was once touted as a "theoretical physicist" by a former Truthie who used to post here, but these days he's he's writing at "Veterans Today" about how Sandy Hook and the Boston Marathon bombing and the moon landing are hoaxes, how Obama is planning martial law, and even how the Beatles actually replaced Paul McCartney with a look-alike in 1966. -k

A red herring. Neither Spa Lady, nor Augusta Golf And Country Club, nor the Loyal Order of Water Buffalo are places of public accommodation. -k

Well, I was wrong about this much. It turns out that businesses do care about Arkansas after all. Of particular note, Wal-Mart-- whose corporate headquarters is in Arkansas-- let it be known that they were none too pleased with the Arkansas RFRA. Arkansas governor Asa Hutchinson has obviously been paying attention, and has announced that he will send the bill back for changes. He wants the RFRA amended so that it mirrors the Federal RFRA. -k

People shouldn't have to rely on market forces to enforce their rights, and people shouldn't have to live in the right part of the country to have their rights recognized. -k

Further to this, character-actor Patton Oswalt has taken to Twitter to help lay down some ground work for comedians who want to use social media without destroying their careers. It's a 53-tweet series, consisting of 1 joke and 52 clarifications, apologies, and explanations. ... ... ... ... ... ... https://archive.today/hAZLd -k {TRIGGERED}

These are the Tweets that provoked outrage? ok. I think Jon Stewart says edgier stuff in a typical opening monologue. I have a hunch that people who found these Tweets offensive probably aren't Daily Show viewers anyway. I think that if a comedian hasn't offended somebody, they're probably not doing their job right. Today's "Tumblr feminists" would probably be offended over the old "Take my wife-- please!" bit. To me, the question isn't whether Trevor Noah is funny-- I've seen some of his stuff, and I think he is-- it's whether he'll be able to do interviews. I think that some of the best moments of Jon Stewart career have been in interviews. Blowing up CNBC's "Fast Money" guy Jim Kramer, and smacking the bow-tie off Tucker Carlson are two that come immediately to mind. Hopefully Trevor Noah will be able to bring not just the funny but also the smarts to go with it. Here's Trevor giving the ADL more to worry about: -k {"Aiiiieee!! De SchwartzeHitler!!!"}

I kind of assumed that the Indiana chapter of the Church of Satan would be the first to take up the invitation to use the new law to clown the people who passed it, because that's just what they do. They've become more or less the nuclear option when it comes to illustrating the down-side of enshrining religious privilege in law. But this time the Wiccans have taken the lead instead. Wiccans are excited to use Indiana's new law to assert their right to polyamorous marriage, spiritual use of psychotropic drugs, and naked worship. I recall that our own BC_2004 is a proud pagan; perhaps he'll be planning a road trip to Indiana soon! -k

The mainstream media might be afraid to talk about the truth, but the fearless Howard Stern is not! Howard Stern gets to the bottom of things in a groundbreaking interview with 9/11 Truther Paula Gloria! Must watch! This will open your mind! Question EVERYTHING!!! -k