Ah, bringing religion into it changes everything.
Location also.

My reading and the anecdotal evidence I've heard suggests that closed communities are the most accepting. Which includes areas in cities and rural communities. Obviously not in the case of your Grandparents.

But the East End was very much a place where you deal with you own problems, and don't invite Lily Law in to deal with them for you. So the chap at number 42 smacks his wife about. You all know it, but that's life.

And in a village you know the chap who lives at Church End cottage diddles with his daughters. Well, that's what happens. If he diddles with yours he'll get a pitchfork where the sun don't shine. But you won't mess with what don't hurt you.

Things are different now.
I'm not saying these things don't happen any more, and I'm not saying people don't turn a blind eye. But it's not as easily glossed over these days.
And I don't mean to make it all about men vs women - in the times and in the situations I've mentioned, what we would now consider crimes were those in which men believed they owned the women living under their roofs, and used physical strength to get what they wanted. In no way a typical male/ female relationship.

Actually the talk about physical force brings an interesting point that's relevant to the thread at large I heard made by historian Yoval Harari about patriarchy theory (Which he does generally believes in).

In 8 minutes 32 seconds into the interview:

FOX on women.

I have had a number of links collected for this thread. I want to just unload them here before I lose track of them.

How 7 things that have nothing to do with rape perfectly illustrate the concept of consent

http://upw-prod-images.global.ssl.fa...3f28a45572.jpg

Son, it's ok if you don't get laid tonight.

A teaser, really. I liked the whole article. I think you'd like it too.

Article from the Hate Mail.
Turns out that in two of seven age ranges (only five of which are shown in their graphics) women earn a small percentage more than men. Rising to the heady heights of 1.1% more in the 22-29 age group.

Which wholly justifies the headline
Article here (Daily Mail website).

I watched the whole FOX on women video. Urghk..

That letter was awesome. What I like about it is that it connects the dots. One thing that really strck me with a lot of the surveys and polls that have been done, show that a lot of men, often young men, when presented with the question 'Have you ever raped a girl/woman?' will answer no, but when presented with the question, 'have you ever had sex with a girl/woman who was too drunk to say no?', or 'have you ever continued to have sex after a girl/woman has changed her mind about wanting to?' and even 'have you ever got a girl/woman really drunk in order to have sex with her?' will say yes.

And the role of peer pressure really has to be recognised too. A lot of the cases we see in the news, of young women being raped while passed out or drugged involve groups of lads. I suspect that the individual boys are often not bad lads on their own.

That Fox video is just so depressing.

Don't forget when that lad has a boner, he might encounter a lady... now this is one in a million or more, who fibs.:eek:
Not telling him the truth, or being so vague, he'll make the wrong decision.

Chrissie Hynde stands up for rape victims
 

... not.

Now I'd like to think that even if I was walking around drunk in my underwear, men would feel protective and get me to safety. Okay, some might "accidentally" cop a feel, but in general they would know I was in some sort of trouble.

And to equate wearing high heels to "putting it about" and "being provocative"! I'd like to think she was misquoted, but it's not just a single sentence.

Leaving your valuables on display in a car is careless and does make robbery more likely. Leaving your ground floor windows open at night (depending on where you live) raises the potential for opportunistic theft. Walking through high crime areas without paying due care and attention/ displaying conspicuous wealth is likely to end badly.

But wearing high heels makes you responsible for being raped?

I wonder if Chrissie Hynde actually bothers to read the news. Knows about grandmothers being raped in their own homes, or women out walking dogs or with their children? Sluts, obviously.

Yes, there are things you can do to lessen your chances of being raped on a night out. Same as the crimes I cited above. But they are common sense (awareness of surroundings, area, company) not her version of it. She was very naive - to the point of stupidity - to choose to go to a party with men wearing I heart rape badges, yes. But being naive and even being stupid are not illegal as far as I know. She should not have had to pay for her actions by being sexually violated.

That defines the fundamental difference between an adult and an adult who is only a child. A child will take whatever he can especially if he thinks he can get away with it. An adult is required to have ethics. In fact, we should test every adult by having actors walk down the street looking drunk in their underwear - to find the scumbags BEFORE they actually harm America and the world.

If that not the premise of an ABC News show where actors create situations to see what strangers will do? How many are adult enough to 'do the right thing'.

From where a lot of you guys stand it seems you approach it like a one dimensional dichotomy between traditionalism and feminism, putting a lot of emphasize on small differences and ignoring the core shared principles values and world view they build upon. In the mean time I can't decide what's worst - the fox news sound bite collection or the letter - poison spread thin to a lot of people or poison focused on a few at high dosages.

traceur, are you suggesting the letter I linked to in post #245 is concentrated poison focused on one person?

I hope I misunderstand you, but either way, I'd be interested in hearing you expand on your remark.

The point of this thread is to point out gender inequality.
It's not about celebrating the fact we're all human and share the same values.
I don't post cat photos in the dog thread.

Also, although most of us know eachother's gender, I don't think many Dwellars react to general posts in a way that reflects that. This forum is pretty much a level playing field in that respect - I think there are more cultural differences here than gender issues. This thread helps to contain and isolate them. Not saying they can be stripped from every day life, where pretty much every Dwellar faces them, but it saves having some of the more off tangent thread drifts.

thread drift is a feature of the cellar, not a bug.

now that that's out of the way, I have read and reread your post Sundae, and I'm at a loss as to what you're trying to say. which is par for the course for me but wildly out of character for you. can you comfort the poverty of my understanding, please?

Sorry V, I was responding to traceur. Dodgy internet connection at home, often have to save and repost.
I should at least have addressed the response to him.

I thought the letter you posted was well written and well phrased. I was actually in two minds all the way through whether it was written by a mother or a father. Which shouldn't matter, but the fact that it came across as gender neutral is a reflection of how I think the majority of men think.

And yes, I love thread drift on the Cellar. But you have to admit it sometimes makes individual posts you want to find tricky :)

thank you Sundae, your clarification makes it much clearer.

:)

I am not saying there isn't inequality between genders, I am saying there isn't that much of a difference between how traditionalism and feminism approach those differences:
They are both aged old traditions that exchange the value of women's agency for the value of women's wellbeing, rationalized by much of the same process, each a semantic framework that makes sense from a very narrow perspective and no other, and is reliant on compliance with that perspective.

The only reason feminism had to become more dogmatic was because traditionalism also exchanged men's well being for agency, which makes the deal "make sense" externally without having to focus your mind on the perspective of one gender only as long as you view it in terms of the shallow exchange but without understanding the connection between liberty and well being - because without agency the factors of your well being has to be presumed rather then chosen and without a value of your own well being your agency doesn't actually benefit you. Feminism broke loose of that part by separating agency and responsibility, which meant it had to rely on people been compliant with a much narrower perspective.

At the core, they are both reliant on our psychological tendency to anthropomorphise life itself as if it was a parental figure, on a much more subtle way then monotheist faith (Although in the case of traditionalism the two often come together).

Take for example your answer to the actress quote in your post: You aren't wrong, that it's not her fault, and you aren't necessarily right in thinking the question she is asking herself when she's giving those answers is a question of fault to began with.

Personally I am more like her, my reaction to trauma is to find ways to explain what have I done to get to that point and what I could have done differently, how can I change to avoid it. It is at the core wishful thinking seeking to regain a sense of control to not feel helpless. The question "Did I deserve this" doesn't come to my mind, it's not really part of my framework.
From this perspective, taking responsibility away doesn't free you away from "fault", it's taking away your sense of control - it doesn't help to heal but makes you into an eternal victim.
The framework of fault comes into play when you think in terms of "deserving" - as if life is a parental figure and when bad things happen to you it is a punishment for being a naughty child.

You are right that it's not her fault, but the reason there is value in taking away fault depends on this very specific framework, and it's not one that is universal for all humans.
And yet if you look at the comics from bigV - the feminist "fight against entitlement" which it views as the core of traditionalism - that sense of entitlement comes from the other side of the exact same coin: You have done something good, now Life should fulfill it's promises to you (But she can't because she's too busy going to therapy since your gandparents named her Life).

This is why - from a gender egalitarian perspective - while at it's best feminism might just be another word for gender egalitarianism, most of the time it's traditionalism's identical twin arguing over which side of the toast to spread the jam.

Because that kind of crappy vilification of male sexuality can give medieval Catholicism a run for it's money, and she decided not only to instill it in her son, but to help convince a few others to do the same to their children - probably nothing close to as many viewers as fox news has, but potentially a lot more destructive to those it does impact.

So it looks like I did not misunderstand you. But we do not agree on what constitutes "vilification of male sexuality". Let's take the talking points as a starter, hm?

Are you ok with this "rule"? If the girl is very drunk should it be ok to have sex with her?
Like the one before, this one is on a continuum. There's coyness, shyness, reluctance, resistance, defensiveness, hostility, aggression, etc. I concede that it's a judgement call. But the answer is more communication for more clarification, not damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead.
I doubt you'd consider this "rule" a vilification of male sexuality. But I'd appreciate your honest answer; passed out girls are off limits, sexually, agreed?
Even this one doesn't rise to the level of vilification of male sexuality. This is not poisoning her son. AT BEST, an encounter like this is a temporary pleasure, and the downside is a hole with no bottom. If "she" doesn't want to, then "I" don't want to.

And I don't have any problem at all with any of the "go" signals from the letter, I doubt you do either.

I'd be happy to reinforce these points to my sons, and my daughter, when it comes to sex. Poison them? pfffft. Hardly. Teaching respect for one's intimate partner is not poisoning them. At the very least, it's planting the seeds of the Golden Rule.

OMG! Bill Cosby's turning over in his grave and he's not even dead yet! There was a time when hammered and nailed went together like soup and sandwich. We're witnessing the end to a way of life.

Dude.

You're seriously overthinking this one here, and missing the whole point as a result. The comics are making analogies about what consent and the absence of consent look like. Just because a familiar situation exists, that is *not* the same as consent. You might have gotten the point that "playing cards/getting a tattoo/cooking breakfast/etc" were all analogies for having sex, but I think you've missed entirely the gender neutral quality of these illustrations. This advice, this demonstration of what consent does *not* look like are valid for any and all genders on any side of any of these exchanges.

Now, you may well cry that since the link uses the word "rape" that the comics are about men not raping women. So what? Men should not rape women. Nor should women rape men. Nobody should be raping. Rape==bad, ok? But you'd have to be blind to not see that the vast majority of rape is by men. So, whatever. Call it an overreaction by the feminist fight against entitlement or whatever. No character in any of these comics should feel entitled to what they were expecting. Entitlement is the anti-consent. Sex without consent is trouble, even if you do get laid.

You are not entitled to demand other people to stop thinking about things just when they've reached the exact same amount of thought you have invested into them :p:

Seriously though - Overthinking is something that can happen when there is an urgent action to be done based on the thought... It doesn't really work when it comes to analysis unless you are trying to get someone to agree with a thought that you don't want them to think more of it because then they'd figure out why it's wrong. Don't underthink overthinking.

Yes though - that is the psychology I was talking about. I am not sure what to say other then that, it seems I was using the exact meaning you had in mind as my example.

It's not the rules - it's in the introduction, the frame in which they are presented in.

How do you feel about sex without consent?

An exceptionally traumatic experience people shouldn't inflict on other people.

But if you want to convey that as the entire meaning of the letter, then I call bullshit. That's like saying that me teaching my son to be honest with people is the same thing as carefully explaining to him how the poor goys grow up in a culture lacking financial scrutiny and it's our responsibility as Jews to make sure we do not accidentally scam anyone. <- One of those is clearly loaded with a lot more meaning then the other.

no, no, no. I want to convey that as the entire meaning of the *comics*.

each one introduces a situation where something (sex) might happen then illustrates how the situation itself is not consent. You described them as Each of those comics illustrates a scenario taken straight out of "traditionalism" and points out why it's not consent.

We agree about sex without consent. I'm just not sure we agree on what constitutes consent and what does not constitute consent.

Again, you are just reiterating the very same meaning I was using as an example as part of a larger piece...

What is the problem exactly? You don't seem to express any disagreement with the context I was using them in (Other then considering it "overthinking"), just an insistence that you are not sure I understood what it meant and then reiterating the very meaning I used it as...

You highlighted in bold me describing it as "the feminist "fight against entitlement" which it views as the core of traditionalism", and now reiterating that you view you it as the core of traditionalism..

In what way do you feel it doesn't fit the context I was using it in? Do you disagree that the comics is an example of the feminist self-perceived fight against entitlement culture which it views as the core of traditionalism? Is it merely that you dislike the specification "which it views" or the quotation marks around "fight against entitlement" and thus acknowledging it as a matter of framing rather then pretending it to be a clean cut description of reality? We seem to be getting stuck in the conversation and I am not sure what is it exactly that we're stuck about...

I would imagine a fairly large percentage of young men and a fairly large percentage of young women have experienced a situation where the lines of consent were in some way blurred or complicated. I would also imagine that the nature and outcome of those experiences differed greatly according to gender.

I'd go further and suggest that there is statistically likely to be a fairly large percentage of dwellars who have experienced situations where lines of consent were blurred or complicated. And again, I imagine those experiences differ according to gender.

Chances are, if studies over the last quarter of a century are in any way indicative of real patterns of behaviour, that the percentage of women who have experienced such situations is likely to be much higher than the percentage of men: such studies suggest that men who rape usually start very young (teens) and repeat the offence. In particular young men who admitted in surveys to getting a girl drunk to the point of insensibility, or spiking her drink, with a view to having sex with her while she was unable to rebuff them (a depressingly high percentage amongst college students as I recall - that number drops drastrically as soon as the word 'rape' is used - suggesting again that they do not consider it to be rape) also often said that they have done this multiple times and would use the strategy again. Likewise, men convicted of rape and serious sexual assault are often shown to have raped or assaulted multiple times before conviction. The percentage of women who have experienced rape or sexual assault meanwhile is still very high.

The vast majority of men do not rape or sexually assault women. But - enough do to create a really serious problem. We have spent centuries telling women not to get raped. We're still doing it - look at the above comments by Chrissie Hynde. The police are often completely onboard with the notion that some girls are just asking for it - and that boys will be boys. How else did the police in Rocdale and Burnley come to the conclusion that 12 year old girls, groomed and serially raped by a network of middle-aged men, were willing prostitutes? Time and again, talking heads on tv and columnists in newspapers beat out the 'how not to get raped' drum. It's how we dress, it's how we do our hair, it's what streets we walk down and at what time, it's how we may give mixed messages, it's the invitation we somehow stamped on our tits before leaving the house. Ignoring, usually, the fact that the vast majority of rapes are not stranger rapes but committed by people we know. We can take every precaution in the world, but if your rapist is also your lover/husband/father/boss/neighbour/friend - then keeping a curfew and dressing in a burkha won't help us. Case in point: in countries where women cover up and are barely seen on the streets without a male chaperone women still get raped.

A group of lads at a party were faced with the prospect of a schoolfriend passed out from drink and instead of helping her they stripped her, fucked her - with objects in every orifice - filmed it on their mobiles and passed the video around their friends. (I'll try to find the news story but it's from a year or so ago). They didn;t consider what they had done to be rape - because rape is when you jump out of the bushes, knife in hand and force a girl tpo the ground. This wasn;t that - she was just drunk and they were drunk and leery. They used her like a blow-up doll. UIn thatmoment, that girl had no humanity in their eyes. That is scary. That they felt quite happy having that on their fucking phones - with no concept of it being evidence of a crime is scary.

For a few years - a very fucking few years - we've begun to have a conversation about consent. Not rape - consent. Because we have as a culture embraced for a very long time a fairly narrow definition of rape - up until fairly recently, for example, it was not considered possible, in law, for a husband to rape his wife. By marriage she had already given consent. There is still an air about rape that suggests that it isn't really rape unless it is forced sex by a stranger. The boys who passed that girl around like a doll and then happily passed the video of it with their friends have a different notion of what rape is. That is a conversation that needs to be had. It's not one we've been having for very long. Oh sure - we've always had societal and legal sanctions against rapists - and most people, male and female, consider someone who rapes to be beyond the pale - most men subscribe to the idea that rape is wrong. But if we don't know what rape is - if only that kind of rape is wrong, and this other thing that totally dehumanises and brutalises the victim is not rape then what do we do about that?

We teach our children not to bully. We teach them not to hit those who are weaker than them. We teach them all sorts of things about being a good human being. Why not this?

Did you miss my first entry in this thread?
TL:DR men get raped as much as women do, by both men and women, they just don't know that it's rape, but still express the same post-traumatic symptoms (Although she annoyingly doesn't provide a citation to the last bit). If you examine it more closely, you'll notice that while males are slightly more likely to be the offenders, as with almost every other crime, the ratio of female to male offenders is actually more leveled then a lot of other crimes. Relatively to the world of criminal behavior, rape would be one of the least reasonable crimes to attribute to males only.

I would not be shocked if there are women here who have raped and have never stopped to consider it rape, and society gives them absolutely no reason to think otherwise, in fact it justifies their actions - since supposedly men always want sex. Which brings me to the next bit...

As of the 31st of august 2015, rape by women is still not legally considered rape. You are complaining that the legal definition of rape by males is too narrow, when the legal definition of rape by females is non existent and offers little to no legal protection at all.

If oranges are legal protection from non-consensual sex, you are complaining that your gender is at a special disadvantage and the victim of not having enough oranges and only getting some of their oranges pretty recently, when in fact your gender's basket has almost all of them while the other gender has a basket with only one orange (Sexual assault by other males), which is actually more recent.

Do you understand what a limited perspective that stance requires? "I don't have as many oranges as I could, this isn't fair", while you are virtually the only one who has them in the first place. This is the complete blind fold to male victims, and the perfect demonstration of how the school of thought views the well being of one gender is a lot more important then the other, leaving the equality of the dictionary definition as nothing but lip-service.

Again, this is far from the same thing as "teaching them not too rape":
Do you really not see the difference?

If a woman has sex with a man without consent it is a serious sexual assault (by law).
That's more than women were offered within marriage for the span of years Dana was writing about.

...The same was true for either genders, a spouse of either genders not getting some was socially treated as a crime (though legal consequences varied - usually it was just grounds for divorce).

Treating this as a gender only issue only proves to demonstrate that while giving lip service to equality, at it's core feminism is an expression of gender-exclusive empathy and about placing the well being of one gender above the other. And it has won - this is what we do as a society - both men and women care more about women.

Depends actually - in practice it's almost never gets prosecuted, especially when you consider the study I linked and use it as as a measurement for how frequent rape by women actually is.

Not so. I am complaining that our definition of rape is too narrow and that consent is an issue that needs to be discussed. I also, as it happens, think that the lack of recognition, in law and in society, of rape against male victims and rape by female perpetrators (as indeed with domestic abuse) is appalling and in urgent need of redress.

I must admit, those stats are new to me. I was always under the impression that number of male victims of rape and sexual assault were significantly lower than that of female victims - still far too many of them, and probably more than the figures would be able to reflect. I also was under the impression that male victims of rape were more likely to have been raped by male perpetrators.

I'd need to take a closer look at the article. I'm mildly suspicious - then again, I am mildly suspicious of the figures from the end of the extreme that make it seem like every other woman has been assaulted. This despite the fact that a majority of the women I know in my life have experienced sexual assault of some kind.

It comes down to the same problem of determining whether the surveyed were honest and whether there was some selection bias.

There is a definite need for peer review, which we have for sexual assault by males on females and some by male on male but very little in female on male and none when it comes to female on female (And I know victims of this personally, so it's definitely there). Specifically peer review that uses the same definitions reliant on non-consent and asks about the acts themselves.

I also think we'd get better results and less of a selection bias if it was part of a larger study, perhaps including the questions in a survey about crime or heath or dating culture, and not with taglines like "National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey ".

Equality?

Oh, we're doing that? Sure, I can go with that....

http://www.cliparthut.com/clip-arts/...ics-410703.jpg
http://i3.mirror.co.uk/incoming/arti...use-graph1.jpg


https://cdn-embed.wimages.net/04f99d...0e533c3-wm.jpg
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...f0b0cbfec9.jpg
http://en.wikimannia.org/images/thum...hunting-19.jpg
Ah, nostalgia... Did not used to feel this lame.

That domestic violence in the UK is from a place where they define yelling as violence, if the yelled at complains :haha

I think you have the cellar confused with facebook.

christ how dya think I feel? I felt a girl's tit from behind in 3rd form age 14 without her consent





and now it turns out i'm a rapist

I know how you feel. brought flowers, took her to Stokesay Castle way up in Reading for a meal that was 70% of my paycheck, she ordered very expensive wine, got back to her place, played kissy face, got naked, and she passes out. WTF?
I didn't go to jail, although I may go to hell, but call me what you want, I ate it and I'm glad, hear me, glad. http://cellar.org/2013/dog.gif

Trapist? I ain't even Catholic. http://cellar.org/2012/nono.gif

Hey at least you remember most of it.

I unconsciously raped someone from which I remember about 2 seconds of me waking up to her riding me before I passed out again, but hey, she was pissed drunk too and I'm the dude, so... Thank you feminism.

Ok fuck it, I am opening this shit up.

On the surface, feminists can quote the dictionary definition and thus claims feminism is inherently against such things because they are unequal. In practice, it is CAUSING them.

Take this one:
https://cdn-embed.wimages.net/04f99d...0e533c3-wm.jpg

Personally, I relate to this. i am a 6'4 foot man and was physically abused by my wife on a weekly basis because I refused to lay a finger on her. I did not get help, and I probably would have been arrested myself if I tried.

Whenever someone posts one of these kind of posters in public:
http://40.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lj...2hgfo1_500.jpg

You see it, and so do little kids. About half of those kids are going to grow up to be men, raised with such a vilification of violence against women that they'll be psychologically locked from defending themselves if needs be, and a smaller portion of these kids will be cops, which is how you create this:
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...f0b0cbfec9.jpg

To be raised and brainwashed to not defend yourself even when getting beaten because its from a women, institutions staffed by people who think one problem is more important then the other, not to mention raising policy makers to create the ridicules situation which is the state of shelters. This is the position every single one these kind of campaigns are putting our boys in.

You can not defend only members of one group without enabling it to do the very thing it is defended from with no risk of retaliation. You can not make an issue gender-exclusive without enabling systematic gender-based exploitation. You are not merely "solving half the problem", You are creating more of it, in gross mutated form ...And feminism does this to fucking everything, including these very campaigns.

There are many things that say one thing but demonstrate the other. I.E:
"I am such a mess, sometimes I don't even use coasters while drinking" <- says your a mess, but demonstrates your a neat freak.
"I give so much to others and don't get enough in return" <- says your a giving person, demonstrates that you view it as trading.
"I am sorry, but.." <- No, no you aren't.

Feminism has evolved to be among those things. You can not fight for gender equality while fighting to define it within a a framework that requires the complete and absolute discriminating against any perspective or experience outside that of your own gender.

Supposedly to prove a female surfers can be both accomplished and sexy.
But I wonder why the two can't stand on their own? Would she feel the need to climb a mountain, drive a race car, or parasail, in a little black dress?

That looks ludicrous.

Okay, so maybe she can do all that shit in a little black dress.

She didn't even try to walk across the sand in heels...:yelsick:

I don't know, in the right context heels could be pretty useful:



:p:

Heels are good, is a stupid fantasy.

don't be jelly, we can have bouncy shock absorbers too:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_-SRYPec0ur...00/bounce3.gif

As a gender checkpoint, do you see the glass 4% full or 96% empty ...

From: Catalyst. Women CEOs of the S&P 500. New York: Catalyst, April 3, 2015.

• Mary T. Barra, General Motors Co. (GM)
• Heather Bresch, Mylan Inc.

• Ursula M. Burns, Xerox Corp.

• Debra A. Cafaro, Ventas Inc.

• Susan M. Cameron, Reynolds American Inc.

• Safra A. Catz, Oracle Corp. (co-CEO)

• Lynn J. Good, Duke Energy Corp.
• Marillyn A. Hewson, Lockheed Martin Corp.

• Ellen Kullman, EI DuPont De Nemours & Co. (DuPont)
• Lauralee E. Martin, HCP Inc.
• Gracia C. Martore, Gannett Co. Inc.

• Marissa Mayer, Yahoo Inc.

• Sheri S. McCoy, Avon Products Inc.

• Carol Meyrowitz, TJX Companies, Inc.

• Beth E. Mooney, KeyCorp

• Denise M. Morrison, Campbell Soup Co.

• Indra K. Nooyi, PepsiCo, Inc.

(As of April 2014, I think these companies represent >50% of the US corporate $

But CEOs are like congress critters, all smiles and pretty for the corporate brochures/business magazines. But they're puppets, while the man behind the curtain has his fist up their ass. :crone:

Fisting, for the boardroom as well as the bedroom...

That sounds like something that could be a common dream for women to have, one of those that should have it's own chapters in psychoanalysis books for dream meanings. "Doctor, I keep dreaming someone puts their hand deep into my vagina and then controls me like a puppet". It probably means she needs to get the hell out of her current relationship.

That's dark, man. Even for you, that's dark lol.

Hey! What do you mean by "even for you" ?! :p:

It's called a baby, and it controls her for the rest of her life.;)

Na, that only works for pokemon

http://img-cache.cdn.gaiaonline.com/...cs/pikachu.jpg

Come the end of September, the following political ad will make sense being in this thread...

What would you expect from A. Dick. :haha:

Helen B. Andelin? That's a man, baby. :eyebrow: