Throwaway05
14hr ago
The only problem here is that "abuse and rape" were trivially redefined as "doing anything I don't want to do that exact minute" one unit of Planck time after.
Okay then this is the problem. Fix that instead of letting men violently rape their wives.
It's not freaking rocket science.
I don't know why people here consistently successfully diagnose problems but then refuse to suggest anything other than the most extreme, stupid, or unethical solutions.
Yes feminism and modern gender politics seem to have caused problems. The solution is not going to be rape.
Throwaway05
14hr ago
That's not proof the old system worked better. What if the reason the new system sucks is social media, and the old system would have been even worse in the modern world?
Religions do not get to decide that their adherent (or even non adherents) are not impacted by laws. This is always a civic disaster. The entire project of western civilization was moving away from this.
Throwaway05
14hr ago
I get what the author was trying to do with these two books, and while I'm doubtful he has the skills to actually pull it off,
Worth noting that the author has a previous book series about time travel that does some very elegant and intricate stuff, while the writing has some issues the managing the complex plot is not one of them.
Throwaway05
14hr ago
Freedom? I believe in the freedom to not be forcibly penetrated without legal recourse when I am explicitly not consenting.
Your freedoms end when your fist (or penis in this case) touches my face is a classic line for a reason. You haven't really presented any evidence that any modern people would consent to marriage if it implies a reduction in legal rights, particularly this one and even if fine with it the state does plenty of things to protect people from certain kinds of mistakes or abuse. Domestic violence is an area where people are strongly interested in expanding these protections because even in the modern world some women will let themselves be beaten because they feel they have no other options.
Also, where's the evidence that marriages were happier back in the day? Fiction shows many examples of women celebrating the death of their spouses because of abuse that they couldn't escape. The inability to leave because of restrictions on divorce or alternate options does not imply happier marriages, it implies more human suffering.
If you want to encourage stronger bonds you have plenty of options that don't empower sexual or physical abuse.
There are plenty of ways to encourage the strengths of marriage that don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. What you are arguing for is frankly morally abhorrent.
You might imagine a world that did in part exist in the past where the husband is a decent man and works all day and comes home to a woman who sees sex and domestic tasks as her duty. And those people do exist today. But your moral and legal infrastructure has to account for the guy who is fresh out of prison, has children with three different women, smokes on the couch all day and beats the shit out of his wife for a thousand and one reasons or no reason at all.
Throwaway05
15hr ago
but there is a stable morality that states spouses owe each other some degree of sex but at the same time abuse is unacceptable.
Don't have any objection to this idea, and in general to an idea that consent is a more complicated construct in the setting of marriage, but that isn't what OP is saying.
Throwaway05
16hr ago
I mean if you say "marriage requires allowing your husband to abuse and rape you" then marriage will be banned overnight. This is not an improvement. Women have rights now and the reality of domestic violence is now something that isn't covered up by society. That genie is not going back in the bottle.
Therefore this idea is a failure of pragmatism if that's your goal.
Additionally what you are saying is really incompatible with most historical and modern interpretations of Judaism and Christianity, perhaps not Islam though, I don't know.
Ultimately it sounds like you want women not to have any rights or protections anymore, perhaps purely to maximize fertility perhaps for other reasons. If that is not what you want to advocate for then consider the ramifications of what you are choosing to focus on.
Throwaway05
18hr ago
Marriage was better before the 1970’s.
Citation needed. Inability to leave or resist domestic abuse is not "better."
So you think the government should stand in-between marriage vows? I don’t want the government in my bedroom with my wife.
Where in your marriage vows does it say that your husband has the right to rape or abuse you without legal recourse? Marriage is a predominantly religious social contract that does not supersede regular laws.
Third way
If your interest is in marriage as a religious entity I have so many questions. Do you believe in a separation of church and state? Why this religious thing and not all the other religious things? Can you find a reputable religious figure saying this is remotely appropriate or a good idea?
Throwaway05
18hr ago
No, he said the law should have no capacity to intervene in matters between a man and his wife, which is frankly stupid.
Additionally you'd find many people who might be willing to support a different standard for rape in cases of spouses, but violent forcible rate with clear non-consent is simply not that.
Throwaway05
19hr ago
I want you to imagine your sister being brutally raped and assaulted by her husband, beaten within an inch of her life, torn up inside, even if she gets a divorce she won't be able to have children again or walk ever again.
And what you aren't going to be mad about it because she was married?
If that's what marriage is to you then the majority of the country will demand it be banned.
Throwaway05
19hr ago
But I do not believe the law should be involved in the relationship of a married couple.
So if a man beats his wife while she screams no please stop until she loses her voice and then he penetrates her and she spends the next three days crying and covered in bruises and bleeding from a torn vagina no crime was committed?
Throwaway05
19hr ago
but I also don't give a single shit about the Limoges town hall. If burning it scares the elite, then I support burning it.
You should. Things like beautiful historic public infrastructure are the pieces that tell us we can work together and have a shared heritage.
Burning them down doesn't say "I'm serious" to the elites and others, it says "I am stupid, shortsighted, and my complaints can be dismissed out of hand and the whining of petulant violent children."
The response of elites and conservatives is seen here, the above is the good outcome, realistically many want literal death in response.
There's little protest value and a tremendous amount of further destabilization.
Throwaway05
19hr ago
For example I don’t believe a husband can rape their wife. But by US law they can go.
So if a woman calmly and reasonably says "no right now," with a good reason (perhaps an injury or disruption to the specific anatomy), and makes it clear that she considers it important to the point where she will divorce her husband and take the kids away if he violates her clear express wishes..... that's not rape?
Throwaway05
2d ago
I feel like the framing of your question needs some reconsideration. Countries always claim to care about rules based international order, and then never actually do if they need something. This is not new. Our ties to Europe are deep except the Europeans don't care for their treaty obligations, are lately nearly useless allies, and claim that our relationship with them is now over because Trump is bad. Why spend American effort on helping them?
The impact on the conflict with Iran is uncertain. You could easily make this deal with hidden concessions involving that.
In the moment right now the US needs to loosen restrictions to help our economy and everyone else's. We can put it back later.
People are going to scream and blame America and Trump no matter what we and he does. That further incentivizes doing this, especially as a temporary measure.
It's also a fantastic move if you want to punish Ukraine for not following Trump's requests. You might not like that strategy but it is a good implementation of it.
Throwaway05
2d ago
The first few episodes and their melancholy nature really, REALLY hit for some people depending on where you are in life.
I know multiple people who became emotional wrecks. That generates a lot of love and investment in the show even if the rest of it goes in another direction.
Throwaway05
2d ago
TV Trops? Shit I'll be back in a few months.
Throwaway05
3d ago
These are the details I crave!
Throwaway05
3d ago
Hi! I work in healthcare and I think that's the most likely explanation and I know a lot of "successful" moderates who feel that way also. Even got a hispanic hard left doctor to admit it.
Throwaway05
3d ago
Terry Jones's education into medieval history proved invaluable when they were writing Holy Grail, to the point that it's sometimes been called one of the most historically accurate films with a medieval setting.
I would very much like to know more.
Throwaway05
4d ago
That would be fair except for two things:
-
Even with DM1 as a comorbidity getting really really sick at his age is rare (he's under 40 and looks healthy!). It would be even more weird for him to be so sick that he couldn't briefly clean himself up from a hospital bed or his home office and be like "I'm working from home but I'm caring about you Texas." Most of the things that get you that sick at his age would take much longer to recover from (if ever).
-
Disappearing like this is functionally unheard of and would be an automatic DQ in a less friendly media environment. Anyone in politics who is the least bit non-biased admits this. I can't think of another time this has happened. No, Mitch disappearing is not the same category of thing at all.
I've seen some smaller points that I know less about - for instance supposedly he claims he was at home doing work product but no work product has been made available.
It might be helpful to add that I've been on the other side of this - I've taken care of celebrities and so on and seen the PR spin on what they are up to, it happens often enough even when the reason for the medical care is unexciting or merely mildly embarrassing.
Throwaway05
6d ago
Yeah, hypothetically could keep him out of it for a long time but really would be weird.
Throwaway05
6d ago
yeah absolutely the whole thing stinks
Throwaway05
6d ago
This seems like a fancy pants kinda place so their risk tolerance and procedures may be different but usually once you've seen someone (and evaluation and recommendations would likely be considered treatment for this purposes) you can't comment at all.
Throwaway05
6d ago
I will say this. Medical ethnics are actually pretty good in that we're not getting tons of leaks about the drugs politicians are taking.
I mean I have personal knowledge of a few politicians and it is usually exactly what you'd expect - people using cocaine because of course. Sometimes Adderall.
Throwaway05
6d ago
I think the most likely explanation is that he had a mental health crisis and was admitted to a psychiatric facility. This would explain the lack of access, flu and other explanations would not preclude statements (even if he looked like ass). Even if he was in jail someone would leak it and someone else would be accommodating. Psych stay is strict.
He could have had a really bad medical event theoretically but it's hard to imagine what.
The other two explanations I heard was that it was some sort of 4D chess bait the Republicans thing, or he was secretly flying around doing fundraising (which, why would that stop updates?).
Weird all around.
The denial from the rumored place could be revealing depending on the phrasing, do you have it? I haven't seen it.
Christianity does not support abusing your wife.
More options
Context Copy link