@SkookumTree's banner p

SkookumTree


				

				

				
3 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2023 January 21 01:36:22 UTC

				

User ID: 2117

SkookumTree


				
				
				

				
3 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2023 January 21 01:36:22 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 2117

Did the shark eat the rest of your fish, leaving you just the head? If so that is both funny and fucked up. You fight an epic battle with a shark only to get a fish head you throw back overboard.

Tate is...well. A less than savory role model. If you were being charitable to him he is LARPing as basically a villain. And that's a charitable interpretation of him.

It is possible to maim someone for life while causing injuries that are very unlikely to be life threatening.

That too is a feature: some level of [assholery - power/Chadliness] gets you cancelled.

Yep. And you can also have WILDLY different cultural norms. I knew a West Virginia redneck whose mom was fat and liked it cold. Redneck preferred it warm. He'd tell his mom 'come on ya walrus it's fucking cold in here'.

He and his mom got along well. Mom's a nurse, he made good and went to Harvard.

This is actually pretty interesting. Making it so only guys with social capital get to date. I just don't like the State doing it.

Laws catch the little sharks while the big ones just bull through. Maybe this is a feature designed to catch horny persistent careless-at-best individuals that aren't Chad.

I'm guessing you didn't simply cut the line but actually defeated the shark or at least old man and the sea'd the fish.

I have heard it said that Alaska Natives respected the deeds of one Christopher McCandless, for his attempt to live with the land. Arguably he was a dumbass, but he put his money where his mouth was. The pointlessness of the Hock is itself the point. It's a feature, not a bug.

Freezing to death is a possibility. Eaten by bears is unlikely and if I manage to start a forest fire with a foot of snow on the ground I should be dubbed the Human Torch.

This is kind of my point. Joe Average has like ten partners in a lifetime. If he's more or less prudent he has let's say a 99.9 percent chance of not sticking it in someone that might not be able to consent. That's probably going to keep him out of trouble. Not so for Brant.

Yeah. I corresponded online with /u/rhirhirolls from Reddit during the spring and summer of 2017. She'd had sex with her father after lengthy family discussion with her parents; at the time she maintained she was fine. She wrote the most eloquent and most revolting defense of incest I ever read. Not an unintelligent individual.

The military is always looking for recruits, and for those with a more lethal view of blood sport there’s always Ukraine.

And for those of a more introverted or solitary bent...or for those that don't have the stomach for the moral injury of war...there's always the trackless wilderness of Alaska in late winter.

Yep. Human sexuality - IMO - is pretty disgusting. That goes for both men and women. To deal with it is to endure this disgust for bonding or for the glory of the next generation. This is admirable.

St. Paul was basically right about human sexuality.

Also, more straight guys should dispassionately and stoically accept that they may get stabbed by crazy girlfriends. If they die, they were weak or something and basically take the crazy GFs out of circulation for at least a while. If they live, they've learned valuable lessons. Their suffering was not in vain: it was arguably for the greater good.

Or: you can leave a stack of firewood and a cash box and turn a profit. Some people will steal firewood, but they won't (usually) go as far as stealing the box or your entire supply of firewood.

I think it came in on the basis that maybe 1% of marriages were wretchedly bad.

I wonder how much of that was also due to decreasing prevalence of disease death and maternal mortality. In 1820 a drunkard or shit tier husband might be convinced to shape up by the woman's male relatives, or by community pressure, or something like that. If he didn't, he might or might not meet an unfortunate accident or get sick, and healthy men got sick from disease a lot. Or the woman just died in childbirth. In 1920, disease and childbirth death weren't as common and so covert homicide was a bit more difficult. Also people were a little bit more atomized especially in large cities.

Stupid young 16 year olds are going to threaten to run away or kill themselves or other stupid stunts if their parents interfere with "True Love".

Mutually assured destruction, motherfuckers. See you after the cops brought you back from running away. Or in the hospital after your suicide attempt. Or the morgue.

That seems arguing for making consensual sex with a mentally unwell person count as statutory rape, or at least I feel this is a valid interpretation.

It is, more or less. Certainly with mental retardation and possible with schizophrenia. If you're consulting a lawyer regarding your sex life, you had better have a damn good reason to be swimming in those murky waters.

Let's bite the bullet here. We've both got significant experience in the medical field, you more than me. But we both know that even the best psychiatrists aren't perfect. We also know that college age is prime time for development of psychotic disorders and bipolar disorder. So what's the odds, given that, that a woman that is mostly OK but maybe a little manic, maybe just an energetic person that can totally consent...when she has sex with Brand becomes floridly psychotic three days later, winds up in a psych ward, and then truly doesn't recall whether the sex happened before or after she was manic or psychotic?

Hell, it is possible (although unlikely) that someone that is a ward of the state (or otherwise in State custody/guardianship) manages to bust out of their group home or whatever, get to Brand, and seem like a more or less sane and put together person. Maybe 99 percent of the time or even 99.9 percent of the time wards of the state don't look competent, but 0.1 percent of the time on any given day they do, and occasionally they break loose or run away from their group homes to live on Christmas tree farms or follow rockstars or something. Intelligent schizophrenics can cook up at least superficially plausible bullshit from time to time...it is a matter of slinging enough bull feces at enough walls and ultimately something sticks.

The "incel" phenomenon is adjacent to the disability theorists' concept of desexualization: unattractive enough and it is straight up transgressive and gross for you to want sex. At a stretch it might be a special case of it, although that is conflating the likes of Elliot Rodger with decent but lonely people. This applies differently to both men and women, but Bertha in the wheelchair is gross and makes people uncomfortable for having any sexual or romantic desires whatsoever, while her wheelchair-bound twin brother Bob is also a bit creepy.

It involves further scaring the principled and paranoid, while the brazen and unaccountable continue to live life as they always had.

Yes. Let's break it down to a 2x2 quadrant.

Brazen and Competent

Brazen and Incompetent

Principled and Competent

Principled and Incompetent

The brazen, competent people live like rock stars; the brazen, incompetent people get their heads kicked in literally or figuratively. The principled competent people do okay, while the principled and incompetent people wind up like Scott's comment 171 and choose lifelong celibacy.

I suppose this too might be a feature, not a bug; if a Brant gets way too big for his britches and angers the wrong person too many times he might be brought to justice, via the courts or otherwise.

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. If you're talking strict liability...

What I am about to say is NOT to defend this sort of conduct, or to offer an excuse.

Hell. He might wind up having sex with a girl who is actually 15 but has a very high quality fake ID saying she is 21. And she genuinely looks 21 as well, has older friends, and her story superficially checks out. Is this terrible? Yes. Should he have done more due diligence? Yes as well. I've known guys that have had full beards at 14 and could pass for - and were frequently confused for - college students. I knew a 19yo guy that was frequently confused for a teacher, when I went to high school. Long story but he came to the US from Slovakia when he was 12 and needed to be held back to learn English.

No test or person is perfect, and if you wind up succeeding 99.9 or even 99.99 percent of the time at not fucking up and having sex with someone that can't really consent legally because of age or altered mental status, that works great at keeping you out of trouble if you have about ten partners during your lifetime. Not so much for quadruple digits. As such it is arguably morally risky to do this as well...

Yeah. Hell, even if he is being unusually careful to stay out of situations where consent is dubious...and does that successfully 99.9 percent of the time...that still leaves him pretty likely to get into a sketchy situation. I'm thinking things like this guy has sex with a woman that's experiencing a first break of mania or psychosis, genuinely seems fairly lucid and coherent if maybe a little bit hyped, and then three days later is completely out of touch with reality and a week after that has a genuinely poor recollection of things and was told that she had sex with this Brand guy, something she would never have considered when not manic. Things like that might well fool even a cautious, prudent person assessing the situation into thinking that she's just a normal person.

On the other hand, you have the Jimmy Saviles and Bill Cosbys of the world.

Part of it was that we could afford it. Part was our public health institutions being designed a century ago to deal with real pandemics and disease outbreaks.

I am betting that he lacked a formal diagnosis.