Bernie Sanders should be the next President. I think that, President Obama seems to think that, and you don't seem to object.
However, I am not sure why you seem to continue to think that you can hack my phone, lie about me and promote sexual and other types of violence. It's sickening, and the participation of women in misogynist posturing does not make what you're doing less misogynist or less destructive.
"Mental illness" does not categorically cause mass shootings. The glamorization of violence and lack of gun control do.
That's a picture from today of part of the first page of the New York Times's website.
People who can't or who choose not to understand what distinguishes the word "Yes" from the word "No" should not be in college until they do understand those words. You are supposed to be an intelligent newspaper; please stop acting as if telling men not to rape women is such a monumental task that requires so much particular tact that we'd all better tread carefully about it so that young men don't get psychologically traumatized by being told that women have rights.
I read the article. It could be worse, although I don't know that the picture that the New York Times has advertising it could be.
While it's good that there are colleges that are discussing consent with students, this is what the article didn't mention:
It's better not to get physically involved with people before you know them. You don't know what might happen; that's true for men and women. Men are at less risk of being raped during heterosexual encounters with people whom they don't know than women, but they're not less at risk for getting sexually transmitted infections or other types of problems.
Why not tell people that it's better to try to get someone's phone number if you meet him or her at a party and are attracted, rather than to initiate or consent to physicality the night that you meet? If you don't know how to ask for someone's phone number, or politely and firmly decline someone's request for your number, you also aren't ready for college; you're not ready to graduate from junior high school.
There are a lot of situations that can be avoided by refusing to be rushed into being physical with someone. Just asking for someone's phone number can be a screening process; a woman who has a boyfriend whom you don't know about and with whom she argued before she went to the party where you met her might hesitate when you ask for her number, a man who is planning to get you into a room so he and his friends can rape you might do everything that he can to get you out of the party and into an isolated part of the house rather than to give you his number.
If you get someone's number and then call him or her when the party is over and you're both sober, you will have had some time to think about what you're doing. It is a certainty that a party with a lot of people of college age at it will be a party where some of the people are attracted to each other; it is not a certainty that any of those people will like each other when they get to know each other.
Another thing that I didn't see the article mentioning was encouraging college students to TALK TO EACH OTHER a lot for weeks or even months about what their attitudes, values and expectations about sex are before they do it. When you SPEND A LOT OF TIME TALKING to someone before you start a physical relationship, there is much less chance that you will have a misunderstanding with that person about whether or not you both want sex.
When you spend time getting to know someone, you can also decide if there's something about the person's past that makes you feel nervous or that signals that you should take the relationship slowly. For example, say that there's a woman whom you have pursued without much success for several weeks. One night, you run into each other and she asks if you'd like to spend some time with her at her apartment. If, on the way to her apartment, she tells you that she just wants to make out, and you say "I'd love to make out with you," you should not spend any time of the subsequent hours with her trying to get her to have sex with you. If, in the morning, she has trusted you enough to tell you that she doesn't have as much of a sexual past as you might think that someone her age would and that's because she had some psychiatric problems, you should not then manipulate her into having sex with you and then tell all your friends "This crazy woman keeps writing me letters" when she doesn't know how to deal with it. If you weren't afraid of her psychiatric past when you were in her bedroom, because you're at least 6 feet tall and she's not 5'7", you have no reason to be afraid of her months later when she sends you letters just because she's upset, when she's just venting her feelings and not threatening you verbally or physically.
If your parents have a lot of money and another house in a warm state where you'd rather spend the winter, it is not the fault of the woman who recognizes that you didn't exactly date-rape her but that you're not entirely a good guy if you tell your parents "This crazy woman has written me lots of letters," and hope that your parents will tell you that you should temporarily leave the cold state where you met her and you both live because the cultural assumption is that people with psychiatric histories are always dangerous. (Correct that hypothesis about how you spend the winter on the beach and also got a brand new car, if it's wrong.)
When you get back to that cold state, and you park your new car practically in front of her apartment, and take out an ad in the personals section of the free, local newspaper telling her how beautiful she is, and go to a bar that's next to her apartment building so that you're outside with your friends and pretending not to see her one night when she's walking home, whatever it is that you're telling the girlfriend that you got after her and who doesn't understand why you never called the police to get "the crazy woman" to stop writing to you before her letters tapered off is probably not the unvarnished truth.
Also, the millions of dollars that you always knew you'd inherit from your parents and that the "crazy" woman didn't know anything about for years after you met her BECAUSE SHE NEVER STALKED YOU OR EVEN DID AN INTERNET SEARCH OF YOUR NAME TO FIND OUT ANYTHING ABOUT YOU should not be the reason that people believe you and not her about what happened. That shouldn't be the reason that she's mistreated when everything happened, or more than a decade later, especially when she's doing nothing to you and what you said about her is the basis of persecution of girls and women around the world initiated by governments, corporations, media, and a bunch of other multimillionaires who also were attracted to her and never even got to meet her because they almost instantaneously shocked and repulsed her by how rude and gross they are.
That's a picture from today of another part of the first page of the New York Times's website.
One of the things that people who like to diagnose other people with mental disorders like to say is that people with mental health problems don't understand what's around them. Wouldn't that assumption also imply that only people who aren't mentally ill will understand that the New York Times is telling people to molest children?
Copyright, with noted exceptions, L. Kochman, January 9, 2016 @ 10:51 a.m.
