Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - PowerMan72

Main / Re: Most Men Beat Women
Oct 17, 2013, 10:33 PM
My grandmother is WWII generation, so this shit reaches back at least that far. Damn.
Main / Most Men Beat Women
Oct 17, 2013, 01:00 PM

So sayeth my 89 year-old grandmother . . .

"Most of the men I know beat women."

Forget about all the men at church, family members, friends and acquaintances, whom she has known for years who DO NOT beat women. Evidently, this includes me. When I asked her directly, her response was "You don't have a wife or girlfriend." And she stuck to her guns and repeated this awful slur when I challenged her on it.

Saturday 08/31/2013
Christina Hoff Sommers -- DOJ Tramples Free Speech & Due Process on Campus
Eagle Forum Radio Shows - Phyllis Schlafly

Link to MP3 File
Oral Sex Study: Can Cunnilingus Ward Off Infidelity?
Posted: 07/03/2013 4:47 pm EDT  |  Updated: 07/05/2013 11:35 am EDT

According to a recently published study, one of the reasons men perform oral sex on female partners may be to minimize the risk of infidelity.

The study, published late last month in the Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, sought to discover why men perform oral sex on women, since the act does not lead directly to reproduction.

After surveying 243 adult men in heterosexual relationships, the researchers deduced that cunnilingus is used to discourage women from cheating, a theory the authors refer to as a "mate-retention strategy."

The research suggests that men perform oral sex on their female partners in order "to minimize the risk of their partner's infidelity by increasing her relationship satisfaction."

The study has garnered some negative reactions across the web: An article on The Gloss wondered why the researchers aren't "questioning the evolutionary advantage of oral sex for men? Isn't that purposeless, too?" And writer Kate Gilbert pointed out that perhaps men perform oral sex because it's pleasurable: "Sorry science guys -- sometimes things are just meant for fun."
Introductions / Re: Hello, nice to be back!
Sep 21, 2012, 08:05 AM

Welcome back Mad Hatter!
Main / Why Are So Many Births Unplanned?
Jul 25, 2012, 01:40 PM
*** Link to Slate Article ***

Why Are So Many Births Unplanned?
By Amanda Marcotte | Posted Wednesday, July 25, 2012, at 3:00 PM ET

Speaking of how women end up being single mothers, the National Center for Health Statistics, which is part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has released a new report detailing the surprisingly complex realities of planned and unplanned childbirth. Unplanned births hit a low in the mid-'90s but have been creeping up again and now constitute 37 percent of births. Cohabitating women, who are more likely to have unplanned births than married women, have become a bigger chunk of the overall birth rate, shifting from 14 percent of births in 2002 to 23 percent in the 2006-2010 report.

With contraception's universal popularity (99 percent of women who've ever had sexual intercourse have used it) and the option of abortion (43 percent of unintended pregnancies end in abortion), one does have to wonder why women keep having so many "oops" babies. Turns out that the situation is complicated, defying the easy "women are stupid" or "women aren't careful"  rationales that have traditionally been so popular:

Researchers asked women who were not using contraception at the time they conceived about their reasons. They found that 35.9 percent said they did not think they could get pregnant. Additionally, 23.1 percent said they would not mind if they became pregnant, 17.3 percent said they had not expected to have sex, 14.3 percent said they were worried about the side effects of using birth control.

Eight percent said their male partner did not want to use birth control himself, and 5.3 percent said their male partner did not want them to use birth control.

It seems strange that so many women think they are infertile, but looking at the combination of social silence on the topic of contraception and a pop culture that portrays people having contraception-free sex with relatively few pregnancies makes it easier to understand. Additionally, it's important to understand that the concept of planning parenthood is a relatively new one, and older magical thinking that puts pregnancy and childbirth in the realm of fate won't just disappear that easily. The belief that women who plan for sex are dirty sluts must also have something to do with why so many women turn up pregnant because they wouldn't prepare for the possibility of sex. And unfortunately, we're still seeing a chunk of unplanned pregnancies resulting from men who reject whatever is going to interfere with their mighty seed, but thankfully that number seems pretty low, comparatively. (And there are of course women and men who are careless.)

What's really interesting is that this particular survey engaged the question of ambivalence about getting pregnant, something 23 percent of the noncontraception-using women experienced. Ambivalence is a normal part of all human experience, and many just roll the dice and let chance make decisions for them. Women have absorbed the belief that they shouldn't get pregnant until they're ready--that's how you get 99 percent using contraception at least once--but in practice, it's really hard to know what "ready" means. Yes, society and many politicians tell you that you must have a ring first, at bare minimum, but our culture also has a lot of myths about how a guy who is teetering on the edge of commitment will become the best husband ever if he gets a push. In fact, that notion was directly stated in the New York Times piece about single motherhood, where Jason DeParle wrote, "Marriage, that is, can help make men marriageable."

Feminists often don't like to talk about women who aren't trying but also are not not trying to get pregnant because there's this toxic, misogynistic myth out there about women who want to "trap" men with babies, even though men aren't actually that trappable. But ambivalent pregnancies are a real problem, both in terms of health outcomes for the babies and long-term stability for the mothers (and fathers). Pushing back hard on the idea that it's a woman's responsibility to turn a man into husband material could help women do better in the long run.
Wow. I don't even know where to begin with this one . . .


Dear Prudence,
My husband is kind, supportive, funny, generous, smart, and loving. However, I feel like I must divorce him. Six years ago, when we were in our early 20s and had just fallen in love, after a night of partying and drinking, he woke me up in the middle of the night and started to have sex with me. I was dozing and still drunk and, yes, I took my panties off myself. But when I realized that it was not OK for him to make advances on me in my state, I pushed him away and ran out. He later felt so bad he wanted to turn himself in for rape. I was very confused and thought at times that I was overreacting and at others that I was raped. We painfully worked through this, but the incident made my husband very reluctant about having sex. This led to an agreement that he shouldn't be afraid of coming close to me in similar situations as long as he asked my consent. This made us feel better and I felt secure again. However, we just found ourselves in a very similar situation. After coming back from a friend's wine tasting we went to bed and he started to kiss me. I liked it and went along, only to wake up in the morning and remember only half of it. Now I am in the same painful spot I was before and I can't fathom how he could have ignored our agreement. Should I just drop it or am I right about feeling abused?

Dear Confused,
I understand the need for colleges to have unambiguous codes of sexual conduct for their young, horny, possibly plastered students. These often require getting explicit permission for every escalating advance. However, if two adults are in love and have frequently made love then each can assume implicit consent to throw such legalistic caution--as well as panties--to the wind. Certainly spouses are entitled to say, "Not tonight" or "Not there," and have such a request respected. But even a married couple who have had sex hundreds of times can enjoy that alcohol might ignite a delightful, spontaneous encounter. Your approach, however, seems to be to treat your sex life as if it is subject to regulatory review by the Department of Health and Human Services. Your prim, punctilious, punitive style has me admiring your put-upon husband's ability to even get it up, given the possibility he'll be accused of rape--or turn himself in for it!--if one of you fails a breathalyzer test. Living in terror that expressing one's perfectly normal sexual desire could end one's marriage, and freedom, is itself a form of abuse. Stop acting like a parody of a gender-studies course catalog and start acting like a loving wife. If you can't, then give the poor sap a divorce.
Main / Re: Does anyone remember me?
Apr 01, 2012, 10:11 PM
I'm not in NH but I'll help if I can.
Main / Re: Savage show
Apr 01, 2011, 04:15 PM

Dude, blowing off Doctor Evil is a REALLY bad idea. It's his sandbox and we all just get to play in it, if you know what I mean.
Edited - Never mind.
*** Link to Article ***

Modern divorce: Wiretapped teddy bears, $120,000 in fines
By Nate Anderson

Digital recording tools are so cheap and simple to use that it's easy to deploy them without thinking through the consequences. A Nebraska mother and grandfather found this out the hard way last month when they were hit with a combined $120,000 penalty for wiretapping after sticking an audio recorder inside a young girl's favorite teddy bear.

Though the mother claimed only to be concerned with her child's welfare, the judge found that the indiscriminate use of the recording device had violated the privacy of numerous people, each of whom were entitled to $10,000.

Looking for abuse

Duke and Dianna married in 2001, had a baby girl in 2003, and separated less than four months after the child's birth. They were divorced in mid-2004 by a Nebraska state court, and Dianna received custody of the child. In late 2007, Duke challenged this order and asked that custody be awarded to him; in response, the state court gave Duke "unsupervised parenting time" with the child. A typically messy family breakup quickly became something else.

Just before Duke's first unsupervised visit, Dianna bought a small digital recorder online. Dianna unstitched a bit of her daughter's favorite teddy bear--known as "Little Bear"--and stuck the recorder inside, stitching the animal back up afterwards. The recorder never left the bear's guts after this, except when the animal was washed. With no voice activation feature, the gadget simply recorded everything that happened in its presence, and Dianna periodically unstitched the bear just enough to insert a USB cable and download the audio recordings to her computer.

She did it, she said, suspecting that Duke was abusing their daughter both physically and verbally. The recording took place from January through the middle of May 2008, when a court hearing over the daughter's custody approached. At that point, Dianna burned all of her stored recordings to compact discs and gave the set to her father, Sam, who transcribed them for her. Some of these recordings were unedited, though Dianna admitted in a later deposition that others were selected to show the "most severe and damaging verbal and physical abuse" of the daughter.

All of this material was then turned over to Dianna's lawyers, who submitted it to the state court and waited for a ruling on its legality. In the summer of 2008, the state judge decided that the recordings were not admissible as evidence in the custody trial, since they violated the Nebraska Telecommunications Consumer Privacy Protection Act and were therefore obtained illegally.

On the day the ruling came down, Dianna took the recording device out to her driveway and smashed it to bits with a sledgehammer. She claimed to delete the recordings from her computer, and her father said that he deleted the transcripts from his computer. Problem solved? Not quite.

A right to privacy

Duke was furious about all the surreptitious recording and he eventually sued Dianna and her father Sam in Nebraska federal court, alleging that she had violated not only Nebraska law but the federal Wiretap Act. Federal charges against one's ex-wife--especially charges that involve a teddy bear--aren't common, but the animosity had been building for years after the divorce.

Dianna had previously hired two private investigators to investigate Duke. The first was tasked with finding out where he lived and was asked "to prove he was an alcoholic," as the judge in the federal case put it. The second private investigator was hired in 2007 and apparently placed a GPS device on three different vehicles used by Duke in order to track his movements.

In October 2007, when Duke challenged his ex-wife's custody over their daughter, Dianna "alleged that Duke abused drugs and alcohol and was abusive" towards the girl. To document this "abuse," Dianna had taken a huge variety of home photos of her daughter which were designed to show possible evidence of mistreatment. But Duke hired a doctor to examine more than 200 of these pictures and the doctor concluded, "The fact that this poor girl had to sit through all these photos I find disturbing." According to the doctor, the photos showed common medical issues or the typical bumps and bruises of childhood, but little evidence of any physical abuse.

The bugging of Little Bear, then, was hardly the first time Duke had been the target of surveillance. When Duke filed the federal lawsuit against Dianna in 2009, he also rounded up five other plaintiffs whose conversations had been recorded by the bear. One plaintiff, a cousin of Duke's, at one point had the bear in his van for several days after it was left there accidentally; the cousin, going through his own divorce at the time, was upset that his conversations had been recorded and eventually distributed to people involved with Duke and Dianna's custody case.

Another of the plaintiffs was a social worker who monitored "supervised visits" of children and who had driven the daughter between her parents' houses. The social worker was already unhappy about being involved with the case because Dianna had once tried to "hire someone to follow her outside of visits," but she elected to stay on because the daughter was making "significant progress" during her visits with Duke. Finding out that many of her own conversations had been recorded affected the social worker professionally, as she "stopped taking private cases due to the invasions of privacy caused by this incident."

(The bear also impacted the daughter's life directly, as the daughter left her daycare after the operators learned that the bear had been "bugging" the site.)

In total, then, the case was brought by Duke and five other plaintiffs, all of whom alleged Wiretap Act violations against Dianna and her father. Defense lawyers argued that Dianna could give "vicarious consent" for recording on behalf of her daughter, which would give the recordings at least the consent of one party. But when federal magistrate judge F.A. Gosset III ruled on the case three weeks ago, he pointed out that this was immaterial; the bear had "recorded many oral communications made by each of the plaintiffs" and to which the daughter was not a party. Under federal law, this amounted to a wiretap, and one which the defendants had intentionally tried to use.

The Wiretap Act allows people to file civil lawsuits and to recover either actual damages or statutory damages of $10,000. In this case, the judge hit Dianna with a $10,000 damage award--one payable to each of the six defendants. Her father Sam received the same penalty, for a total payout of $120,000. No punitive damages were awarded, nor was anything given to the plaintiffs for invasion of privacy or mental suffering.

In his ruling, the judge noted that the Wiretap Act has a strict standard which prohibits all wiretapping--even that of a parent looking to hear conversations with her child--unless specifically exempted by the law.

Technology law attorney Evan Brown called the case a tough decision, as "a parent fearing for the safety of his or her child might have strong reasons to resort to eavesdropping to protect the child." Even the judge seemed to agree that there might be some merit to this argument, but he noted that it was for Congress to determine the law, and that the existing law here was clear.

*** Link to the Court's Ruling ***
If you're afraid to dismiss them outright then you can simply ratchet up the pricing - DRAMATICALLY. Blame it on high gas prices, material costs, etc. That always works for me.
Main / Re: Carrie Underwood
Jan 26, 2011, 02:33 PM

You know the Feminazis hate you just because you have a penis right?

And they hate BQ and women like her for actually LIKING weewees.


Just wear one of these shirts! Guaranteed to piss off the feminists.