Bad_Witch

Religion. Because child marriage. Anyone famous enough now a days to want to marry a child would be dropped like the flaming piece of shit they are. But the "average" child fucker who knocked up the 13-year-old. Well, we can't have any bastard children running around. Because of marriage laws in America...why yes, this does mean if a child is married off to their abuser there was no crime.

That shit's been going around my neck of the woods too. I don't remember a questionnaire being apart of it, just propaganda bullshit.

This is such a man answer devoid of how reality has played out over the years...or is even currently playing out in the here and now. Based on the notion that since you, personally, may have an understanding of what consent is and how it works every man does and by some logical deduction the laws would reflect such notions. You are aware that there was a time when martial rape wasn't even a thing. It wasn't recognized under the law, and most people....especially men, firmly believed that a husband couldn't rape his wife because from the moment she said "I do" the idea of consent for sex was a given at any point when the husband wanted it. Hell, there are still laws on the books because that is how recent it is. Do you believe that the marriage vows intrinsically gives consent 24/7/365? That a wife can never not consent to sex? Would you say this is a change in how consent works over the generations? If you do, then how is it illogical to suggest that a man might be trained to believe of consent in one time period then be trained that that consent wasn't inherently given during another? Or would you rather discuss the notion that a woman inherently gives consent just by showing up? How many times has a woman been cross-examined because she was assaulted/raped at a party? Both in the legal system and in the court of public opinion? How many times have women had to listen to bullshit spouted, predominately by men, that since she knew alcohol would be served it was her fault since she consumed so much. It was her fault because she chose to go to the damn party, and only a woman who wanted to have sex would put herself in such a situation. How many fucking times? How many fucking times in 2018? The idea that men spouted, that men somehow believed, that since the woman was there she was consenting. She wanted it. Or would you rather discuss how the clothes she chose to wear meant she wanted to have sex? That her choice of attire somehow was a signal for consent? Do you think what a woman wears means she consents...because there are a lot of fucking assholes who still believe this. Or, perhaps, you might wish to discuss the type of job a woman has? How many times are woman told they should expect certain types of behavior because of their jobs? The waitress at Hooters who constantly gets her ass slapped by assholes, who think since she works there she must want her ass slapped. How many times are women told to just put up with it, for the sack of their fucking job? Guess she consents hunh? She could choose not to work there. It's not like she has bills to pay or anything...nope, she wants he ass slapped. So, we've covered the idea of consent as it relates to what social activities she attends, the clothes she wears, and the type of job she has. Do you want to argue that these activities were never a notion of consent? Or would you rather argue that these activities still give consent? It has to be one or the other....unless the idea of consent has changed over time and the social clues of a bygone era no longer apply. Or would you like to discuss the rather new notion that instead of "No means no," that has been around for about 20 years, what we should look for is a "Yes, I would like to have sex with you." Ya know since the idea of a woman saying no was somehow foreplay and the man just needed to break down her defenses...and that's not really how it works. But hey, an entire generation was taught that, and now we are trying to teach a new generation something different. Of course, I could just bring up some recent rape cases where men either get completely off, as in the link I originally posted where the very idea of consent was so foreign to the law the rapist was found not guilty, or just say Brock Turner, cause everyone knows his name by now and there is no way his victim could have given consent, or Jeffrey Epstein, who got such a sweetheart deal for trafficking and raping underage girls because that just pisses me off, or this asshole https://www.cbsnews.com/news/brian-varela-sentenced-to-34-months-in-prison-for-raping-alyssa-noceda-dying-from-overdose-today-2018-11-16/ who raped a girl, as she fucking died, and got rid of her body. Real winner there. Wonder what he was taught about consent, not that he fucking cared about consent anyway. Less than three fucking years for raping a woman as she was dying. Gee, I'm so lucky to be a woman living in 2018 where I don't have to deal with the barbaric notions of consent from yesteryear, and all men know not to stick their dicks into a woman unless she says yes, and when a man doesn't follow those rules the courts and laws with be there to service justice. Wait....what the hell am I saying? No, I don't. But then we still live in a country that allows children to be married, even especially when a crime has been committed and the marriage magically makes the crime go away. Sorry, I can't buy the idea that everyone knows what consent really is, and how it works, when we live in a nation where a child, a young child, a child that might not even have gone through puberty, can be married. Nope..America still has not fucking clue how consent works. And I didn't even touch in the idea that people are really fucking bad at reading body language.

Oh he knows better. He only said it to set me off. He was laughing the whole time. It's a game he likes to play...how far can I push this until mom smacks me upside the head. He wasn't serious and knows how to treat a girl.

Except it isn't. How we understand things is based on what we are taught and the conditions in which we are raised, both at home and society at large. Young people, both men and women, are going to apply their understanding of the situation in the song to what they know. So it is entirely possible for someone to not understand the context of the song and still understand consent and because of that conclude that consent wasn't given in the song. However.... Take dating advice. Do you know the number of times I had to take my sons aside and reteach them some stupid idea and older, male family member taught them. Boys, like girls, are most likely to ask the family members of their gender for dating advice. It's just the way things are. It's natural. The number of times I had to tell them....no just because she didn't leave the date early, or she let you walk her to the door doesn't mean you can go in for the kill. They would ask how do you know if a girl wants you to kiss her, and the overwhelming advice from these men was basically if she didn't leave she wants it. No, that is not how consent works. Just ask her. That's just an example. I shudder to think how many young men are given bad advice on what consent is. Because of that, one may not understand the song, or understand consent, and conclude that is the way things are supposed to go. Now as for you last point....well men are stupid. Especially in this regard. How many times does a man claim he doesn't know when consent is given? Is that all men? Of course not. But then again I came across a lovely rape case out of Indiana, https://nypost.com/2018/12/05/woman-tricked-into-sex-with-boyfriends-pal-exposes-loophole-in-rape-laws/ but because of how rape laws are written, often without the pesky notion of consent, the man who openly admitted to committing rape be fraud was acquitted. So, first let me say no this young man has no fucking idea what consent is, or worse knew he didn't need consent to get his dick wet...and since my youngest son was close by and heard my "What. The. Fuck." and asked what it was about, and I told him, and his first words were to get under my skin because I just didn't beat him enough and he felt like he really needed a beating were "What state is that? I need to move there." He's not moving anytime soon. He should be able to walk in a couple months. Young men are stupid. For the funny, and to get under mom's skin, they will remain within arms reach when spouting bullshit.

It has nothing to do with ingesting too much moldy rye bread, or anything like that. It has to do with the generation listening to the song today is about 2 generations removed from the original meaning. In the same vein that it would have been scandalous for a woman to spend the night at a man's house, a man she isn't married too, it is just as much unthinkable that a woman today spending the night at a man's house would even raise an eyebrow. A lot about society has changed since 1944, and expecting the generation of today to listen to this song and apply a concept that is foreign to them is foolhardy at best. Even explaining the idea to them and expecting them to just nod their heads and shrug their shoulders and act like it's okay is ignoring why they find the song so offensive in the first place. In this case you're attempting to demand they not only acknowledge the original meaning but also apply that same meaning today and to just ignore the troubling parts. At it's heart, the main problem people have with this song are two lines and how they affect the meaning of the song. "Say, what's in this drink?" and "The answer is no." A generation that doesn't bat an eye over a woman spending the night at a man's house but was taught to watch for assholes putting a roofie in their drinks are having alarms bells going off. Why should we expect anything different? They should be concerned over the idea that someone may have put something in a drink. That notion may have been absent in the song's original meaning....but meanings change over time. Then she tells him the answer is no and people in support of this song are defending the song by saying..."she didn't really mean no. She wanted to stay but social norms of the time were telling her she should leave so she really didn't mean no." See any problems with that defense? Amid the entire rape debate is the notion if a woman doesn't want to have sex she should just say no and the guy should stop. Does the man stop in the song? Nope. You can say people can be offended but that doesn't mean they're right, and continue to ignore the reason they are offended and also not be right. In 1944, this was a song about the social norms and the woman really wanting to stay and looking for a reason. In 2018, especially if this song was written now, it's a song about a woman who says no and keeps getting hounded by the man until she finally gives in, at best, or a song about a woman who was roofied and forced to stay. Not exactly ideal. There is a reason many songs of yesteryear don't get a lot of play on the radio, expect on dedicated oldies stations, and that reason is the meaning of those songs has been lost with the passage of time. The original meaning of "Baby, It's Cold Outside" has been lost. It had a long run....really long run, but it's time for it to retire. The original meaning isn't coming back. Honestly though....I can't wait for someone to play this song backwards. If the 80's taught me anything it's that that is the only real, true way to find the actual meaning of a song.

I know! It was mine too. I could have watched an entire season of return to Murder House. Now I can't bring myself to rewatch the ep knowing none of it mattered.

That could be possible since the season skipped around so much. The thing that pissed me off was realizing the witches never returned to Murder House. Sure I'm happy Constance didn't commit suicide, but that means Moira, Tate, and Violet didn't get their happy endings.

According to the article, the station didn't just pull the song because they felt it was rapey. They received a complaint about the song that asked for it's removal. That one complaint wasn't enough to pull the song, but after reviewing the lyrics, the station posted a poll asking it's listeners to vote. The majority of listeners voted for the song to be removed. That's the free market+democracy at work. You can't get more American than that. About the song itself, it isn't a Christmas song. There is no mention of Christmas at all. It's a winter song about two people stuck in a snow storm/blizzard. Why so many stations drag it out at Christmas, and artists use it on their Christmas albums, is mind-boggling. Even the original meaning is about something stupid in society at the time. The best take away is the the woman is trying to find a way to save her reputation, because staying at her boyfriends for the night, IN THE MIDDLE OF A SNOW STORM/BLIZZARD, might cause some people to think she's a loose woman. The man makes a point of stating she might die. The snow has really piled up, and the woman is torn between staying, in the safety of a house, and leaving, braving the storm. It's a stupid song born from stupid ideologies.

I'm not sure how to feel about the ending either. For one, Mallory just stays in the past? And remembers everything? The only time they tried this, she came back to the present. Also, since Cordelia died for her, making Mallory the next Supreme and awaking her full powers....did that happen? Are there two Supremes now or what? I need an answer to this damn it! Mallory was the Supreme when she went back in time and if she stays there how does this affect the whole Coven. What the hell happens in Hotel if Queenie never goes? That was kind of important and changes the ending of Hotel. As far as the genetically perfect couple...that one I can actually see. If the spawn of Satan needs to be born and rule as some point, and assuming Micheal wasn't the true spawn, just a spawn substitute because of ghost fucking, I can see the true parents of the spawn of Satan being born for the role. Kinda like Mary was born to birth Jesus. Plus the satanists showing up, like the magi, when the spawn was still a child holds more water. It could be why Micheal was such a fuck up and so easily manipulated. He wasn't the true spawn.

Queenie is capable of using her powers against living things. I think that did happen in Coven, but in Hotel when Ramona attacks Queenie and Queenie uses her powers against her March comes to Ramona's rescue stating that Queenie's powers have no affect on dead things. Ms. Mead is a mixture of living and dead. I think the flesh surrounding the metal body is alive...so Queenie could attack that part of her but the metal part is dead so Queenie couldn't harm that part. Also, in Hotel, Ramona was able to harm Queenie...when she surprised her. Queenie has to want the voodoo doll powers to work or she ends up being the one harmed. Since Queenie sliced Ms. Mead's throat and Ms. Mead didn't die it is possible that Queenie was so surprised, as well as terrified about what was happening, that she didn't activate her voodoo doll powers and took the full brunt of the bullets. Yes, John Henry was among the dead...at least I think so. The last two eps have been sooooo slow.

Do you live in a state that didn't expand Medicaid? That was one of the things that pissed me off about the "talk" about the ACA. People claiming the poor were already covered through Medicaid, it didn't need an expansion, yet for too many states the cut off was well below the federal poverty line for even a single person. Like some earning 80-90% of the poverty line weren't poor when the cut off was 70-75% It kinda sounds like it since to qualify for subsidies one had to earn a minimum of the poverty line...and those in states that didn't expand and therefor weren't eligible for Medicaid yet didn't earn enough to qualify were given a pass and didn't need to pay the penalty. A bandaid put on the ACA when the states won the right to not expand.

It's the mental health that gets me. People can be such assholes. Not treating and just locking them up...who the fuck thinks like that. Assholes. The fluoride thing I can get behind. Not because I think it's harmful, government conspiracy, or some other bullshit, but because in order for it to actually work people need to drink the water. Much is wasted because most of the water people use at home isn't for drinking. It's for bathing, washing clothes, etc. and even when people drink from the tap a certain percentage filters it. Doesn't make much sense to add fluoride to the water at the well only to have the people filter it out at the tap. It would be more cost effective just to give out fluoride tablets. Yes, I know the popular water filters, brita, pure, etc., don't filter fluoride but there are ones that do.

You're not serious? Please tell me you're not serious? If you are serious...start telling these fucking people they should be more concerned about the lead in their water. Whenever anyone states about liberals going on a murder spree, I usually just shrug my shoulders cause that ain't happening. Then this happens and I know exactly who's going first.

Stupid question time...what is jackboxing? I assume some sort of game...

I might too, but only if some one else made it. No way I'm taking food that is already cooked and ready to eat wasting time making dough, forming it into something nice, and waiting even longer to eat. Fuck that.

The one from All Dogs go to Heaven.

I forgot strawberry shortcake. Man, I can smell that shit now. The smell lasted forever. I bet that's where all the cancers coming from.

Teddy Ruxpin...how lazy ass parents read to their kids in the 80's.

The ones I remember are She-ra He-man GI-Joes Care-Bears and a few cousins Cabbage Patch dolls My Little Pony Rainbow Bright

On the left when hubby in bed. When he leaves the whole thing is mine! Then I sleep diagonal

Is this part of paypal's new suicide prevention campaign? "We know financial can get you down, but don't try offing yourself. We will still collect what is owed."

That is a shame. I can only assume you have a magnificent asshole.

One day I will reach this mystical land. Each post gets me one step closer. I have a nagging feeling I will regret it though.

I don't but some people do. I feel sad for them.