MightyPen

It's already been said in the thread, but it bears repeating. There are no fixed, universal male or female identities. Stop trying to raise sons according to some kind of Sons template, and daughters to a Daughters template. Just raise them to be capable, expressive, as unafraid as possible, and let them be whatever unique human beings they are.

Really?? This is like saying "I can't reconcile the fact that some people like hamburgers, yet it's wrong for me to force one down someone's throat." The power play in BDSM/50 Shades is voluntary on both sides. Either party could call a stop to the play at any time; they just CHOOSE not to. As long as the choice is there, it's legit. Rape is about taking choice away. Rape culture is about dismissing the validity and importance of a woman's right to choose.

And that's exactly the danger, isn't it? Now that many clients are scared a companion's intuition becomes more important, and intution can be wrong or misled. These are risky times: exactly the opposite of the law's claimed intention. Grr.

Sad tidings, Aquatouch, as lessened by your absence will lie these fire-lit halls of Midgard.* Go with the strength of Mjolnir, and be as true! *Earth

Absolutely Cristy. But the Irish "Troubles" stemmed from a division not just between the two political entities of Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland, but between the Protestant and Catholic identities of their respective populations. There were intensely religious factions within these groups; and Protestant pastor Clifford Peeples, the leader of the Orange Volunteers, justified attacking Catholic churches as part of the conflict because they were "bastions of the Antichrist". An interesting read: Religion, Identity and Politics in Northern Ireland Was the Irish conflict a holy war? Absolutely not. But neither is the battle fought by ISIS. They use religious language as a recruiting tool with conveniently absolute language. But their leader's ambitions are specifically and publicly stated to be for political control over the Middle East. Other than that -- the spread of Islam is fine with me. Christian, Muslim, Jewish -- they're all fundamentally (haha!) the same. The more the merrier, if it helps them form strong communities and they live within the law.

During the 80s and early 90s I recall that many Irish youths were joining the IRA, and money flowed to that terrorist organization from Irish communities scattered throughout the West. I wouldn't be surprised if a number of "radicalized" Irish Canadians and Americans went over to Ireland to join the cause. I don't remember anyone recommending special "peaceful true Catholicism" classes for Irish youths at the time. It's needless xenophobia that explains the difference. Don't worry; if you're not interested, your participation is not required.

That's good in a way, but it also helps perpetuate this silly state of affairs. It's not helpful when the answer to "is this legal?" is "no, but you probably don't have to worry about enforcement." We need the law to be sadly applied, then challenged and revealed to be ridiculous. It doesn't help for it to be left in the background threat, waiting to be spring on people next time the wind changes.

Yeah. I'm particularly troubled by the article's hedging about the concept that women who might freely choose prostitution, and trot out: "many... have no meaningful choice but to do so. Ms. Bedford herself stated that she initially prostituted herself 'to make enough money to at least feed myself.'� This is only an issue if you start out with sour disapproval of the work in the first place. Consider the following: "Mr. Smith says that he initially started working as a carpenter primarily so he could feed himself and his family, and only later came to enjoy the full-time work and devote himself to building a successful renovation business." See... "had to do this or starve" could be said about almost any job, but we're not condemning people for finding other ways to support themselves instead of starving. If you think it's too bad that people HAVE to work at all, that's one thing... but to save that pity for only a few jobs reveals more about the author than the subject. This kind of selective blindness of some people to their own inherent biases as soon as they move out of the mainstream is striking.

Cool! You're right, by the way, about the quality of... um... Cherubic Frankenstein. Hmm... I wonder, can we write "roll in the hay" here? I till remember Terri Garr in the movie: "Roll, roll! Roll in the hay!"

No, no lambasting at all -- I'm right there with you in noticing that sometimes the filter has unintended consequences and catches perfectly innocuous expressions because some piece of them triggered the filter. I think it's partly a case of the mod's filter design erring on the side of caution, because the potential downside of getting it wrong is so absolute. And partly it's just a filter over-reach that the mod might fix if you let him know about it. I gather from other posts on this subject that innocent word combinations can be allowed, if the mod is aware of them to flag them to the system. The filter is definitely smarter now than it was when it first kicked in. I'll disagree with you that it's "blind" censorship at work here though -- just censorship that needs glasses, and is still working to find just the right prescription. ;)

That's true. So there always has to be a worthwhile aim in mind to justify the costs that come with censorship. In this case, it's because this site needs to unmistakably separate itself from the purchase of sex or carrying ads for such services, as both are now illegal. I'd rather have a free and open CERB than a censored one. But I'll take a censored one (temporarily, I hope) if the alternative is no CERB at all.

Better a BBW ALLY than a BBW ENEMY! The rest of the post, though, I found a bit icky. (Well, okay, more than a bit.) If this is a recommendation, you should put this in the Ottawa recommendation section. If this is a stealth ad/shill... please don't do that.

Yiiiiii! Really!? That's a hard one to wrap my head around! Now, Niska on the other hand... he had a certain style about him. Still evil, but... style.

Dogs!! In this I'm just like Cristy. Dogs are awesome little bundles of liveliness, affection, alertness, curiosity, devotion, and even forgiveness. I love my own dogs, and meeting (most) new dogs. And on a cold winter's afternoon or evening, they also force me to go outside for a walk when I might otherwise stay in -- which I'm sometimes grumpy about when preparing, but never regret once I'm out there. Which is the other thing that make me happy: a brisk Canadian winter's day (provided you're dressed for it) on a path through the woods with fresh snow all around. And especially that moment when you appreciate not being stuck in a home or office, preoccupied and away from the world, with your head in a computer screen... and instead take a long, deep breath of real fresh air. Joy!

Think that's bad? Try getting a fetish photographer for your kinky wedding featuring SP bridesmaids! WORST.OF.BOTH.WORLDS.

Hooray! Congratulations Katherine, and thanks.

Yup, that's right. And one of the ways you know that is: the zombies have never, ever changed. Not in the entire run of the show. They behave now exactly as they did in the first episode. We've learned nothing new about them or the origins or nature of the apocalypse since the end of the first season at the CDC. (The closest we came was in Season 2 when Rick revealed what he'd been told there -- which was't much anyway.) Since the zombies are stuck being a stubbornly static foil to our characters, the only thing left to watch with any interest is... the characters, as they adapt and form relationships and gain and lose people. Another demonstration that the vast majority of people watch and read stories not primarily for the "facts", but for the emotions. Additional Comments: I remember one particularly unbearable 6pm-9pm class, and several times trying to keep myself awake and engaged by picking up whatever sugar I could afford from the vending machines during the break. I can STILL remember the taste of machine hot chocolate and cherry Nibs. *shudder* Not sure why that didn't render me undead on the spot.

I thought I had addressed that with my first post in this thread. The short version: the events in France are primarily about the rule of law and the repudiation of murder as a recourse when offended or trying to control the behaviour of others. That the trigger was the expression of an idea is important, and also worth discussing, but secondary. It's because I value the rule of law that I'm Charlie, not because I think all speech at all times is sacrosanct. Re. Dalhousie: the hateful expressions by the male dental students were ugly and miserable but legal, otherwise we'd be talking about jail or fines for the offenders. Nobody is calling for jail or fines. But the students were in violation of some additional standards to which they were were subject: the codes of conduct of the university itself, and the professional standards of various Colleges of Dental Surgeons. It's under those standards that the students are being assessed. Violating the former has several possible penalties, including expulsion. Violating the latter has several possible penalties, including being denied the privilege of practicing in that College's province. The students knew these risks when they engaged in their behaviour, although they seem foolishly to never have considered that they might be found out and judged for their actions. Now, I think, they know better.

But what's the principle we're expressing by saying "Je suis Charlie"? a) "All speech must be allowed in all circumstances without consequence." b) "No matter how dire your grievance may seem to you, you don't get to murder people over it." Rex is drawing conclusion a) and complaining that people haven't been following that principle across the board in the past. But I think Rex is wrong and I think a) is wrong (for reasons I've already explained). I think the principle at play here is b). And if we're talking about b), then I agree... 365 days a year.

Moi, je suis Charlie aussi. I don't think there's any doubt we can all climb on board that statement, since people should be able to write or say or draw absolutely anything they want without fear of being murdered by someone they've offended. We can all say "je suis Charlie" with pride and determination to stand up for that principle. On the other hand, freedom of speech doesn't mean you must be able to say anything you want and be utterly free of consequence. If you're a fast food company in the U.S. and you make statements against marriage equality and put money behind efforts to suppress it, you can't sputter with indignation when some of your customers choose to walk away. Similarly, a lot of what Charlie Hebdo has published in the past looks pretty awful and tasteless to me. As many commenters are noting today as they examine Charlie Hebdo's back-catalog, the magazine had an inclination to take swipes at powerless minorities, when the usual targets for the weapons of satire are those too comfortable in their positions of power and privilege. But they seemed within the limits of French law, and if anyone disagreed then they could choose to bring a case. Some laws mandate that some kinds of speech should be outright curtailed in the public interest. You can't be a Holocaust Denier in Canada for example, or try to hold certain kinds of rallies in Germany, without facing legal consequences. Same thing for the Dalhousie students; you don't get to say anything you want, no matter how hateful, without accepting the consequences for the environment you have created, how you may have violated the standards required by your university, or for showing that you can't meet expectations of your future professional organizations. But any repercussions must be legal, and follow a process, and they most certainly can't involve being gunned down in your office. So even if some of what they published was dumb, ugly garbage, it's for the preservation of the rule of law that we should all stand beside Charlie Hebdo and against terror. Few things have made me smile wider than the huge crowd in France on the night of the shootings, with a big illuminated sign "NOT AFRAID".

Is it just about finding a workable name with the board filter? sex worker Huh, nope! (D'oh! That was already demonstrated a post ago!)

Who joke about hate-fucking and raping their classmates and colleagues? You're really going to put a 95% number forward for that? Citation please. Nobody here is saying that is okay. What you've identified there is another example of speech that should have consequences. Not a reason why the Dalhousie students shouldn't face any.

Sigh. Yep, he was Da Man, no doubt about it. If you ever get hold of the book "Bending the Willow" by David Stuart Davies it's a good read and great insight into Brett's approach to the role.

The only sensible solution is to get more intimate in all of your communication: "Dear Armitage, Dunwitch & Whateley, Attorneys at Law: can you please quote me the price to draw up a few contracts, my delicious sweetie-pies? Thanks. Signed, Mr. Hun-hun Bunnycakes." Now all replies will look equally suspicious -- which means they will all look equally innocent!

Yeah. I've actually given up on a couple of posts now because the censor insisted that I had included proscribed words, and I read and re-read my post but couldn't find the culprit. Another post that I did ultimately finish took a while to fix (and the problem certainly wasn't on the word list). I almost included a note at the bottom of that post about "you wouldn't believe how long it took me to post this because..." but it kind of sabotaged the substance of the post itself so I struck it off. And yeah, it's embarrassing to read some of the weird Franken-posts of the past that are now a weird collage of the original text, substitutions of whole and parts of words, and newly inserted phrases. Sigh. I will also say that... this is changing my sense of the place and making me second- and third-guess myself as I post. I'll work on that, since it's up to us to sustain the community if we want it sustained. But I definitely feel an off-putting level of scrutiny and fear, and it makes me annoyed at the fully intentional chilling effect of this messed-up legislation. I also realize that mod will already understand everything I'm writing here and is enormously more frustrated by the whole thing than I am. I'll try to come up with some constructive suggestions so I can help fix the problem instead of just pointing it out.