What fucking moron came up with the idea that condoms can be used as evidence against a sex worker?

FFS, of all the wrong-headed, moronic, puritanical bollocks.... that is just painfully stupid.

Prohibition never works. Didn't work for alcohol, doesn't work for drugs or prostitution.

>>>Are you saying you believe adding the topic of removing these unconstitutional parts of the law would stall, or even log jam that debate to the point of failure?

That was exactly what Rick Jones said when I quoted him above:
"The minute I cross that line and I start talking about the other stuff, I won’t even get another hearing. It’ll be done....
Nobody wants to touch it. I would rather not even bring up the topic, because I know what would happen. You’d get both sides screaming and you end up with a big fight that’s not needed because it’s unconstitutional."

>>> Removing unconstitutional laws that are designed to target 'undesirable' portions of the population is not pointless.
Ok, "pointless" is the wrong word. "Futile" would be more accurate.

>>> IANAL?
I Am Not A Lawyer. Sorry, thought that was a commonly know acronym.

>>> I can't imagine anyone publicly supporting it, so there should be no debate, it should simply be easily adopted in 2 minutes.
Really? You can't imagine a politician supporting an anti-sodomy law? In a country where Rick fucking Santorum was considered a potential presidential candidate for one of the two main parties?
'cos I can imagine it pretty easily.
Reasonable human: "we'd like to stop animal abuse and get rid of this ridiculous puritanical law at the same time"
The likes of bobknight "RARRRG!! assault on family values, persecution of christians, fganogle..... GAAAAWWWWWWD" (while drooling)

>>> How's 1 year ago? Recent enough?
Jesus, that's depressing. At least, the case was thrown out, and on the plus side, having a ruling against the law sets a precedent.

Look, I agree that the law is ridiculous, and as I said, it's kind of shocking to think this attitude still exists in a supposedly educated, enlightened country. In a perfect world, laws like this would never have existed. Hell, in a fucking semi-sane, reasonable world, they'd have been wiped at least a decade ago when the supreme court declared them unconstitutional.

But right now, US politics is not even close to sane or reasonable. If it was, you could have an actual election between a centre right candidate (Hillary) and a democratic socialist (Sanders), instead of the current clusterfuck of having Hillary or god only knows what on the fucking looney tunes side.

So while the idealist side of me says that every single law like this should be fought tooth and nail, the pragmatic side of me says that until the US political system hacks its way out of the tentacles of the religious right, some ugly compromises are unavoidable.

Given that this doesn't actually make the situation worse (remember this law already existed), it's just a question of picking your battles.

Technically, the Puritans were pretty much hard core socialists when they first got here.

In your scenario, he has an emphatic yes, yes, yes, I want to drink tea with you, he has done his due diligence.

Until we get less crazy around sex in this Puritan country, and even after, there will be mentally disturbed people who say yes and then say no.

But here's something you probably don't know. Women are conditioned to be polite. They are conditioned to be nice. They say no while smiling, and that is a definite mixed message. As someone "joked" already on this comment stream, what about the women who say no but really mean yes?

All the stuff in the prior paragraph is NOT CONSENT to drink tea.

So yeah, it sucks eggs large that there are women out there who don't take responsibility for their own choices, and for whatever fucked up reason, change their mind later.

But those are the minority, dear Scud.

The majority are women who smiling say no and don't speak up while, in their minds, they are having tea forced upon them. Or who go paralyzed and are silent. That happens. That happens a crushingly high number of times in this world.

Here's a true story, to give you a peek into how screwed up we train our young women to be. I heard this in a self defense class. A young woman was held in a dorm room for two days, having tea forced on her repeatedly. She could hear people walking in the hallway, who could have come to her aid. Why didn't she yell out? If she could hear them, then they could hear her. The guy didn't have weapon, just the threat of physical force. So why didn't she yell out for help?

She didn't want to make a scene.

Isn't that awful? Isn't that crappy?

We tell our girls to be nice and pleasant. And the message gets perverted, yeah?

The plus side is she got herself to a really good self defense class that taught her to speak up and make a scene and gave her some physical skills to deal with any tea forcing behavior. It won't be happening to her again.

But I'm telling you, dear Scud. This nice pleasant woman, if she had been asked, would have said no, no thank, I don't want any tea. If she was asked. And you don't know if you have a meek person or a loudmouth like me. So you need to ask. And ask again. And make it fun while you ask, because it is sexy as hell to say yes, please, more tea. Give me more tea. Put that tea right there.

Honestly, I don't really give a damn about the blood. It simply doesn't matter for me.... if it's there, great, but I certainly didn't sit through the movie thinking "damn if only there was more blood".

And yeah, there was CGI that was cleverly hidden.... so what? That's the point of good CGI. But there was certainly plenty of practical effects.

Agree with your point about American puritanism... what is it with that country that it loses its shit every time they see a nipple.

As for a pale imitation of the original, the first Mad Max benefits greatly from nostalgia and conflating it with the far better Road Warrior movie. As a standalone movie, it's above average, but hardly a classic.

The spectacle of it was awesome, but a good modern action film still pales in comparison to a good 80's one. Were was the blood? Besides the good guys, so you'd feelz for them and the main bad guy so you'd be like 'fuck yea! DIE MOFO!' Besides those instances there was a lot of violence and gunplay but so little carnage. Guys being shot and flying 30 feet through the air without blood splatter or wound to be seen. This movie was so hyped for its practical fx but all I saw was a lot of CG that was cleverly hidden and violence without any actual violence in it. It had an R rating not because it was gory and violent but because some random extra flashed her tit for 5 seconds. Fucking american puritanism. Calling the plot thin is an understatement.. it was literally consisted of half a page of writing.

Over-all fun movie with some cool spectacle. But still pale imitation of the original.

Also, American is real goddamn English. The puritans rescued English from the British when it was still in a salvageable state and brought it to America; after they left it just fell to shit in the Queen's country. I don't think any honest man among us can forgive British English for having rudely chopped "I've gotten" into "I've got." Fuck that noise.

Lazy bastard, yes, but not too lazy to read these...they were on topic at least....mostly.

Ok, the first one said what I said, that she used the term technically. It's maybe the listeners who don't understand that a 'prostituted woman' may be prostituting herself, so it's not pejorative or denying women having 'agency of their own'.
The second was the same thing, commentary about her saying the words 'prostituted women'.
The third was about the Westburrough Baptist Church?!?! WTF? Yes, it mentions "radical feminists" and derides their puritanical prudeness, but it never mentions Sarkeesian, and never quotes these "radical feminists" to support their claim that they really are puritanical.
I bothered to read all 3, and nothing there was in dispute, she did say sex workers are "prostituted women" (and disgustingly ignored the prostituted men, that uber bitch, burn her!). EDIT: because some took it as " agency-denying code phrase used by sex-worker-eliminationist radical feminists" does not mean it was meant that way, perhaps it was, but I'm not yet convinced. A video of her saying it with disgust on her face and in her voice would convince me....if that matters to you. She's off my radar.
I said originally that I think the term applies, and is only pejorative if the listener thinks selling sex is bad. That's why I can't understand porn stars being upset by it, but could understand them being upset by being called 'dirty whores on film' or something like that.
I still can't say if she meant it in a negative way, only that it's clear that she likely said the words about sex workers, and some took it negatively.

EDIT: I never said she was a good speaker, which is why I'm not a fan. She had a point to make originally, but her style and the over reaction to it overshadowed her cause. That makes her a terrible spokesperson for anything....in case you thought I support her.

hey!
it was the *70s ,don't judge! you gaggle of puritanical hippies!

No, there is a world of difference between having a responsibility for your plight and choosing how you respond.

The correct response to being assaulted, robbed, or otherwise offended against, is never to bow down to what your attackers want. You can apply this logic to all kinds of situations.

Don't want cat calls? Don't wear a sexy outfit.
Don't want to be gay bashed? Don't go into the rural south.
Didn't want to be shot? Shouldn't have published those cartoons.

FUCK

THAT

SHIT

But funnily enough, no-one ever tells a white guy that if he didn't want to be car-jacked, he shouldn't be driving that corvette.

It's pretty fucking awful that the assholes who stole the photos manage to be both puritan and lecherous at the same time. Telling the woman she's a slut for posing naked whilst masturbating to the images. It's the height of hypocrisy.

And meanwhile, you have a bunch of guys telling her what she should or shouldn't do in the privacy of her own home.

Italy's youth unemployment rate hit a record 44.2% in August

Welcome to Europe, where we fuck up the prospects of not one, but two generations of our precious brothers and sisters, all in the name of market fundamentalism and Puritan work ethic.

I'm always amused how this show's host plays the puritanical angle when it's obvious all the questions are geared for uncomfortable answers and sexual innuendo.

Yep, but as the video says, all of those potential risks (urinary tract, stds, etc) are better managed by simple hygiene or the use of a condom.

If there are legitimate medical reasons for a particular individual to be circumcised, then of course you should do it. But that's the rub for me. It is a surgical procedure that involves removing part of your body. It shouldn't be done just because some puritanical flake merchant hated sex.

Put it this way. We're all born with an appendix. It's utterly useless and every now and then, just straight kills you for no good reason. Surely every child should have this dangerous organ removed? Well, it turns out that's really not a good idea, because that would ultimately do more harm than good.

We don't go around doing random medical procedures for anything else, and the vast majority of the world gets along just fine with their dicks intact.

My last word on this is that I will continue to call it barbaric, because I'm trying (in my own tiny way) to change attitudes on this. Using milquetoast terms doesn't help that. I'm not going to change this myself, but hopefully I'm contributing to a gradual shift in attitudes where infant boys are not mutilated (even "harmlessly") on the whims of their parents.

edit: really really last word. Kudos to all involved for a thought provoking discussion. You can have a rational argument on the internet!

I've known the whole "Kellogg was a puritanical nutjob" origin for a long time now.

It's probably why I find the whole thing so distasteful.

Sorry, but it is intentionally cutting off part of a human for no good reason. Just because people were misinformed previously or they thought the invisible sky father said they should doesn't justify it. As far as I'm concerned, it's equivalent to bound feet (although obviously nowhere near as painful).

It is barbaric, especially the orthodox Judaic version, which adds unsanitary and frankly kinda creepy to the mix too.

Try this thought experiment.
We have discovered a new island in the middle of the pacific. Miraculously, they have had no contact with the outside world since humans arrived there. When we arrive we find all the women are missing their left nipple. It turns out this is ritualistically cut off at birth. "It's not a big deal" they say. "the baby gets over it quickly and it doesn't affect them in later life".
Ok with this?

Or being born in a hospital in a sane country.

The only reason circumcision is common in america is because of some wack job puritan superstitions in the mid 20th century.

Frankly, it's a fucking disgrace that it is not only acceptable, but actually encouraged to surgically mutilate your child's genitals.

If you're an informed adult and you want to hack at your penis for whatever reason, go nuts. But doing it to kids is nothing short of violation.