This Day In History

[This Day In History]

6 hours ago, Illjwamh said:

1182 - Valdemar I of Denmark dies upon the destruction of his final horcrux.

Not to mention his Heralds.

6 hours ago, Illjwamh said:

1191 - Berengaria of Navarre becomes Queen of England upon her marriage to Richard the Lionheart in Cyprus. She will never see England. Come to think of it, she doesn't see much of Richard, either.

Not a direct comment, but mention of someone being "of Navarre" brings back many happy memories of Ladyhawke. :-)

6 hours ago, Illjwamh said:

1784 - The Treaty of Paris, wherein Great Britain acknowledges the independence and sovereignty of the United States, goes into effect. But there's no fireworks because we got our independence when WE say, not when YOU say.

I thought England recognized the independence of the United States in 1783?

*looks it up* Wow, that's a lot of time between the agreement being made, and both parties ratifying and exchanging ratified copies.  Slow travel indeed!

[Story Friday, May 10, 2019]

If Liz *is* marked, and has a magic ability, she's obviously not telling Ashley about it.  Perhaps she'll be mad at Ashley for not sharing, and then realize she's being hypocritical, and tell Ashley about her spell, whatever it is.

[Story Wednesday, May 8, 2019]

13 hours ago, ChronosCat said:

For one thing, bragging about being the most good individual around is not the sort of thing one would expect the most good individual around to do. For another, when used seriously "goody-two-shoes" is an insult, usually directed at those perceived as self-righteous - not exactly a title most people would want to fight for.

Goody Two-Shoes didn't start out that way....

[Story Monday, May 6, 2018]

1 hour ago, hkmaly said:

Just little reminder:

... because Dan addressed it on twitter. Well ... sort of addressed it:

 

Huh.  Maybe she *is* building up reserve power via her hair again.

[Favorite Quotes]

"While the question itself wasn't necessarily stupid, it's clear the circumstances that apparently led you to have to ask it certainly were."  -Doc, The Whiteboard webcomic

[Story Monday, May 6, 2018]

Hmm...if Ashley is currently "the definition of average" in terms of power level, and she absorbed power from the "diamond" shards, does that mean that before that point she was significantly below average?  Is this the magical equivalent of Flowers For Algernon (except hopefully without the downer ending)?

As for dragon-specific elements to her magic, we really don't know for sure yet, do we?  We may have to wait until she can at least, say, cast a spell or two.

Revenge on Bad Tom?  From the girl who's so innately good it kept Pandora from marking her?  She may fantasize about turning sexist men into women, but she knows actually doing so would be a terrible thing to do, and she's too nice to actually do something like that without permission.  Now, can we think of ways for her to get Bad Tom to voluntarily agree to be turned into a woman?  Fanficcers, start your laptops!

[Story Monday, May 6, 2018]

We know Dan is a fan of the Dresden Files books, and Harry has a set of rings which store up a little bit of kinetic energy with day-to-day movement, releasing it when he wants to punch extra-hard, and he uses his necklace for magic pretty regularly.  At least two female wizards have more decorative jewelry which also have magic powers.  I could definitely see Dan including that sort of thing in his own universe.

As for Nanase's outfit, I'm picturing the long sleeves as being kinda see-through, like stockings or a thin leotard would be.  I know I've seen stuff like that as a base layer in real life, with enough of a top over it for modesty's sake.  And I like the idea of her skirt being a kilt!  Maybe she's got a UtiliKilt?  I have one of those, won it in a raffle, and they're quite comfortable and have pockets to boot!

[NP Monday, Apr 15, 2019]

4 hours ago, hkmaly said:

... the idea was that the risk is usually sex, not rape, especially not violent one. You are talking about worst cases which rarely happen.

Cases which happen all too often, and are, sadly, far from the worst case.  (Incestuous abuse, for example....)  And if the sex is without valid consent, then that *is* rape.  

4 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Note however, that I don't believe societal isolation is necessary result of sex. Seriously, WHY our society works so hard on traumatizing girls who had sex? Especially in case of rape, where the trauma from rape itself should be enough. Maybe, when you are proposing big changes like outlawing drunk sex, you could work on this as well.

Humanity has been working on it.  There's a lot more awareness of the problem, which is the first step in fixing it.  Considering that we're coming from women-as-chattle, to laws which said a woman couldn't be raped by her husband because she was not allowed to withhold consent (which were still the law until surprisingly recently), I'm hoping that we'll continue to improve, despite the setback of the hundreds of ultraconservative judges put on the bench for life in the last couple of years....

4 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Actually, I don't and I think you have pretty skewed ideas about how much concentration is required on safe driving. For start, while driving, you often have less than second to react, I don't think you need to be this fast for rejecting sex.

I'm less sure about walking straight.

If you're not ever sure that someone who can't walk straight is too impaired to give valid consent, I'm not sure we're ever going to agree.  And the biggest sign of poor judgement in a drunk driving case is the very fact that the person got into a car and started driving when impaired!  If you're drunk enough to think that's a good idea,  that *proves* you're not making safe choices.

4 hours ago, hkmaly said:

The problem is that you automatically assume that sex is something which man takes from woman. That's not true. It's easy to see someone was mugged, because the victim has less money and the one who committed crime has more. It's not so simple with sex. There usually isn't any physical evidence for anything else than that the sex happened.

That's because I'm talking there about the real world.  In the real world, the power imbalance is almost always an older man pressuring a younger woman/girl into having sex with him.  And we're not talking about whether there's *proof* a crime was committed, we're talking about whether a crime *was* committed.

4 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Yet you specifically said that a WOMAN being drunk doesn't make ok to rape her ... as if man being drunk would make ok to rape him.

Now you're just deliberately trying to twist what I said, and it doesn't speak well for your position that you're resorting to rhetorical manipulations like that.  Again, real world here, men rape women vastly more often than any of the other possible combinations, so that's the example it's most useful to talk about, but I would have thought *all* rape being evil would go without saying.  Apparently I actually need to say it here or you'll try to imply I'm saying otherwise: what I'm saying applies to anyone raping anyone.  No loopholes, it's evil.

4 hours ago, hkmaly said:

I never said that.

That being young and rebellious is an excuse to commit rape?  Well, your argument seems to be that having sex with someone who's drunk is somehow a normal teenage rebellion and thus okay.  I'm saying that committing this crime is still a crime, and youthful rebellion is not an excuse as the vast majority of teens manage to rebel *without* taking advantage of someone else's impairment to have sex with them without their consent, ie rape them.  "Kids are gonna do it anyway" is not a valid reason to say it's okay fir them to commit a crime, because *not* all kids do it, just like not all kids sell drugs or mug people.

4 hours ago, hkmaly said:

I would really like if the young and rebellious had something else to rebel against than actual laws. Way to rebel which would not include committing crime.

I'd really like for them to rebel without committing crimes, too.  The difference here is, you seem to be saying that the answer is to just say that what they're doing isn't a crime, instead of working on keeping the crime from happening.

4 hours ago, hkmaly said:

The teen pregnancy peaking at 18-19 is good. Should be the same as the age with minimal amount of medical complication. In worst case, the age with lowest amount of medical complications for teen pregnancy is 19 (because at 20 she's not teen anymore).

But it *isn't* the age with the least medical complications.  Saying "after that, they're not teens anymore" doesn't mean "hey, they'd better hurry up and get pregnant now before they aren't teenagers anymore."  That's ridiculous.  They should look at their own situation, level of maturity, financial status, etc. and the fact that, medically, their own bodies aren't done maturing until about age 24, and pregnancy before that is higher risk than waiting until they're done growing up themselves before they take on the obligation and commitment of spending the next ninteen years minimum being 100% responsible for the health, well-being, safety, and safe maturation of another human being.

(And if you're talking about having children you're usually talking about having more than one, so add several more years on to that.)

4 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Now, we should move the left of that peak to higher ages. Ten is definitely not good age for pregnancy, no matter if we consider the amount of medical complication or anything else.

Do we even have to address whether it's wrong for children to be having sex, let alone becoming pregnant and taking on responsibility for the life of another human being?

4 hours ago, hkmaly said:

During education, you have relatively lot of free time and lot of people your age around. Ideal opportunity to start relationships. After education, you are supposed to start working. You will have much less free time, the stress of new environment, and there will be less people around you and even less in your age.

So, it would be ideal for girls to start relationship during their last education step and after graduation be far enough in pregnancy noone would consider weird she won't start working.

You seem to think we're talking about a couple of years here.  Becoming a parent means raising the child, not just having them, and that takes eighteen years plus ten months pregnant.  It's the biggest responsibility a person can take on.  A person with a career and some experience with shouldering lesser responsibilities is far more capable of doing a good job at it than someone who hasn't even finished growing up themselves.

4 hours ago, hkmaly said:

The moment the girl ... well I guess she would be already woman at such point ... starts working, the pressure on her to postpone pregnancy more would rise. For her employer, the ideal time when she should get pregnant is never.

As if that should be the sole consideration.  How about at the other end of it, when a woman is now thirty-seven, and ninteen years out of date in what she learned way back when she was in school, and now she's trying to get a job now that she's finished raising those kids you were so eager for her to have at eighteen.  What employer is going to find her a more ideal hire than someone who's up to date and full of energy and enthusiasm?  Might as well not bother with her going to school before having those kids, then she could start making babies at fourteen, there's always time for high school later....oh, no, you want women to go to college so they can find a husband, that's right....

Or do you mean for her to enter the workforce when her kids enter school?  Pregnant at eighteen, two or three kids so another seven or eight years, now you've got a woman who is both several years out of date and has school-age kids who will demand her time and attention, who is an unknown quantity who, like any new hire, may or may not work out, may or may not stick to this career.  If you're strictly talking about what's best for an employer, wouldn't it be to hire someone just out of school, who can devote themselves to learning the ropes, figure out if this is the career for them and have some self-confidence and commitment, and who doesn't start having children until they've got some experience at the job and has the hang of it, and can thus divide their time more effectively without their job suffering as much? 

4 hours ago, hkmaly said:

I think there is already enough about commitment and too much of sex education is "don't", which makes no sense. I agree with the rest, though.

Pushing abstinance is not the same as talking about the emotional impact sex and relationships can will have, and how to make sure a relationship is a healthy one.  Telling kids "don't do this fun thing" is a lot less effective than giving them the tools to make good choices on their own.  The most important tool is believing in themselves, in their own self-worth and abilities, that there's so much more they can do than just finding a guy willing to have them and start making babies.  Then you teach them how to protect themselves if/when they do make that decision, with real, accurate information, not a bunch of scare tactics.

4 hours ago, hkmaly said:

The most important thing to say about BDSM is not "that's perverse" - that's not even true. The most important thing is "establish a safeword".

Of course!  Again, I would hope this would go without saying.  "Kinky" hasn't been a diagnosis for a long time now, they got it out of the DSM shortly after getting "homosexuality" out of there, too.

4 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Which I don't think to make sense. If they are so rich, they should be rich enough for nanny. Also, having child shouldn't be embarrassing.

Again, real world vs ideal world.

4 hours ago, hkmaly said:

I hope you are not arguing being poor is valid excuse for kicking your child out when she needs you most. Also, this might be case where little more socialism - I mean support from state - wouldn't hurt. It's in no one's interest for someone clever enough to college not finishing it.

Here you go, trying to twist what I say again.  Of course kicking your kid out is wrong.  We were talking about financial realities there -- either the girl (or couple) are kicked out in their own, which is horrible but might save the parents' tenuous grasp on solvency, or her paernts support her and the baby financially, which is a huge burden and likely destroys any chance they had of getting out of poverty.  And it would take a lot more socialism to give everyone aproper safety net, to allow the young mom, or young mom and dad, to stay in school and keep everyone well fed and healthy.  Which I am wholeheartedly in favor of, but we're not there yet.

4 hours ago, hkmaly said:

In other words, exactly the "how the society and her parents reacts to teenage mother". She needs help, not punishment. And the baby shouldn't be punished either.

Wholehearted agreement here.

4 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Oh. Ok, that's not what I imagined those teenage parties. For start, those out-of-college boys will hardly still be teenagers. Also, sounds less like lottery and more like "every year I get more experience and bigger advantage over fresh girls".

It's one thing to not ask about age on party. It's another to deliberately invite guests in way which makes average age for girls lower than average age for boys.

That is, nevertheless, the most typical situation for teen pregnancies.  Underaged girl, older guy.  Average is something like early twenties.

4 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Waaait ... while in many countries teenager aged 18 or 19 can legally buy alcohol, in US the limit is 21. Isn't it also illegal to sell them alcohol? Shouldn't be?

It's illegal to give them alcohol except if you're their parent, let alone sell it to them.  And it's illegal for a teen to give it to another teen after their parent gave it to them, no loophole there.  Doesn't mean teens don't get ahold if it anyway, usually either by going to parties where someone is providung alcohol, or getting into their parents' booze.

4 hours ago, hkmaly said:

On the other hand, if it would help reduce situations like this, maybe the limit should be lowered.

Like, it shouldn't be easier for 23 years old non-relative to get drunk with teenager than for two teenagers to get drunk together.

Again, you seem to be saying, this bad thing is against the law, let's change the law so that it's not illegal instead of trying to keep the bad thing from happening in the first place.  Children shouldn't be getting drunk and having sex.  Wherever you think the cut-off should be, I'm pretty sure you don't think ten-year-olds should be getting drunk and having sex, and wherever the line is, someone is going to cross it.  The question is, what do we do with the situation when someone does?  Do we say, oh well, kids will be kids, and let it happen, or do we do what we can to protect children, from themselves and from predators? 

[This Day In History]

On 4/2/2019 at 10:21 AM, Illjwamh said:

1118 - Baldwin I, the first crusader King of Jerusalem, dies. Crusading, of course.

<Insert Baldwin brothers joke here>

On 4/2/2019 at 10:21 AM, Illjwamh said:

 

1502 - Henry VII's son and heir, Arthur Prince of Wales, dies. Let's hope his younger brother is up to the task. Also, why does fate keep conspiring to keep us from having a real King Arthur?

Dang, I hadn't thought of that.  Now I really want one of the current princes to name a kid Arthur.  Hmm....*checks current lines*...here we go, 25th in line for the throne is Arthur Chatto, son of Lady Sarah Chatto and grandson of Princess Margaret.  If all of her sister Lizzie's branch were to suddenly no longer be in the running, somehow, then there'd only be five more ahead of him!

On 4/2/2019 at 10:21 AM, Illjwamh said:

1930 - Haile Selassie becomes Emperor of Ethiopia. You know what? Maybe it's the weed talking, but I'm getting some serious messiah/god vibes off this guy.

 

I love the idea that there was an independent Empire so recently in history, that managed to stay that way even during the big colony grab around the previous turn of the century.  Downton Abbey overlaps with that era!

On 4/2/2019 at 10:21 AM, Illjwamh said:

2005 - John Paul II dies after 37 years. A lot of the world's Catholics have never known another Pope.

I remember the very first Beloit College Mindset List had an entry for, "There has only ever been one Pope."

On 4/4/2019 at 3:44 PM, Illjwamh said:

1841 - William Henry Harrison dies exactly one month after being sworn in as U.S. president. He spent his entire time in office with pneumonia. Thus his remains the only administration with fewer accomplishments to its name than the current one.

Alas, if only it were true that the current administration isn't accomplishing anything.  What he's accomplished is to ram through an astonishing number of judicial appointments, all ultra-conservative, throughout the entire federal judiciary.  Most of these appointments are for life.  He has shaped the rulings of the court for generations to come, and through that ensured that conservative causes will find favor in court cases of all sorts for the next several decades. 

On 4/4/2019 at 3:44 PM, Illjwamh said:

 

1875 - Czech composer Bedřich Smetana's Vitava, also known as Die Moldau, premiers in Prague. I don't really have anything funny to say; I just really like it. Y'all should give it a listen.

 Wow.  Thank you for recommending that!

On 4/2/2019 at 10:21 AM, Illjwamh said:

1923 - Warner Bros. Pictures opens. They will eventually be responsible for such cinematic masterpieces as Battlefield Earth, Catwoman, and The Adventures of Pluto Nash.

We can forgive a lot if a studio gives us some halfway decent adaptations of favorite books, maybe even an original series of sequel movies after that.

On 4/2/2019 at 10:21 AM, Illjwamh said:

1925 - A far-right party in Germany establishes its own private paramilitary force, and this apparently does not alarm anyone.

Gosh, good thing it hasn't gotten that bad in this day and...nevermind...

On 4/2/2019 at 10:21 AM, Illjwamh said:

2013 - Roger Ebert dies, leaving us all to our own devices when it comes to knowing what movies are good. I'd say we're not handling it very well.

My favorite was his getting together with the computer science department at the University of Illinois (alma mater to us both) in order to throw a big birthday party for HAL 9000 on the day which was given in the novel 2001: A Space Odyssey as the place and day HAL was first activated.  Ebert hosted the showing of the movie in the old Virginia Theatre, which not only has a huge screen and antique seats, but an organ which rises up from below the floor in order to accompany silent movies and is thus one of the coolest theaters I've ever had the pleasure to patronize.  It eventually led to Ebert's Overlooked Film Festival happening there on a regular basis, albeit after I had moved away.

On 4/7/2019 at 1:34 PM, Illjwamh said:

On April 7 in History:

30 - Near as we can figure, this is the day some bleeding heart rabble rouser named Josh is crucified for what amounts to rocking the boat. Sad. I bet in another year or so no one will even remember him.

Considering what's been done with/to his teachings and name, you can either say he *has* been forgotten, or that he'd probably prefer he had been.

On 4/7/2019 at 1:34 PM, Illjwamh said:

1141 - Empress Matilda becomes the first female ruler of England, albeit mostly in name. She is not to be confused with her mother, Queen Matilda, or with the wife of King Stephen (with whom she fought a war for control of the kingdom), also called Queen Matilda. God dammit, Europe.

King Henry I had one legitimate child, who he declared his heir, and all his noblemen swore loyalty to that heir and their successors.  When Henry died, Matilda was in Normandy, where she had property, and in her absence a bunch of the noblemen broke their vows and stuck up a big NO GIRLS ALLOWED sign and declared they'd rather follow her cousin Stephen.  

The resulting civil war, known as the Anarchy, is the setting for an excellent mystery series featuring Brother Cadfael of the Monastery of St Peter and St Paul in Shrewsbury, a city near the border with Wales.  Cadfael fought in the Crusades and then became a sailor for another decade, seeing the world and collecting medicinal plants and knowledge of their use, before settling into a sort of retirement as the monk in charge of the gardens.  His knowledge of the outside world and his keen mind help him solve a delightful series of mysteries, starting with A Morbid Taste for Bones and One Corpse Too Many.

I pay you back for Die Moldau with Brother Cadfael.  (And if you just can't stand to read a book, some of them were adapted for TV with Derek Jacobi in the lead, which should tell you how cool they are!)

 

(to be continued....)

[Things That Make You Happy]

On 5/2/2019 at 7:04 PM, Zorua said:

What's better than getting a new house is finally moving all your things into the new house. As of two days ago, the last storage unit has officially been emptied.

Now comes the matter of finding out where to put this stuff...

You've obviously put it somewhere.  The next step is finding the energy and time to find another more organized place to put it all, rather than just letting it stay where it is now....

[Changing Medications (Level of Trust Required)]

Glad the news was relatively good.  We'll all be waiting for you to get fitted out with bionic feet that let you run really fast in slow motion. ;-)

Please tell me I'm not the only one old enough to get that reference.  I've bern hanging out with the younger techs and kennel staff too much lately, they don't get the simplest refs.

[Things That Are Just Annoying]

On 5/2/2019 at 2:02 PM, mlooney said:

New roof, new heater, new a/c, new owner.

What does that add up to? $25.00 more per month starting in July.

I've seen rents go up by that much even without any improvements being made.  Sounds like you got a pretty good deal, assuming you can still afford to live there with the increase.

On 5/2/2019 at 2:02 PM, mlooney said:

On the good news front, however, I renewed my lease. I don't know why I worry about that as much as I do, but It's good to know that I have a roof over my head until July 2020 at a price I can afford.

Congrats!  I hope you continue to enjoy a safe and comfortable home.

[NP Monday, Apr 15, 2019]

13 hours ago, hkmaly said:

No, because in such cases the outcome could be death or serious injury of both the drunk driver and basically anyone else.

So the only difference is that in rape, the victim is the only one whose life is put in danger?  Pregnancy and its complications, sexually transmitted disease, violence used to subdue, psychological trauma , societal isolation....not to mention the rapist's lawyers dragging her name through the mud trying to convince a jury that she was too slutty to believe it could possibly be rape....so you can add suicide to the list....  Gosh, I guess if the one committing the crime isn't also in danger, you're saying that makes it *less* serious?

Quote

(Also, still, while driving drunk is crime basically everywhere, there are still discussions about allowing small amount of alcohol.)

There are debates about what level of alcohol consumption equals impairment.  The more studies are done, the more effect is found from even small amounts of alcohol.  The criteria has gone from being able to walk straight, to lower and lower levels of alcohol in the blood, as we learn more about what is and isn't safe.  So, can we at least agree that if you're too drunk to drive a car safely, you're too impaired to consent to sex?

Quote

In other words: we don't need to change laws for the teenagers who already DON'T engage in highly risky behavior. We need solution for the ones who DO, and preferably some other solution than locking them all in jail until they are no longer teenagers.

Don't lock up the ones who engage in risky behavior and become victims, lock up the ones who commit the crimes against them.  It's no different from a man walking home drunk from a bar who gets mugged.  The fact that he was drunk doesn't make it okay to mug him.  The fact that a woman is drunk doesn't make it okay to rape her.  The mugger and rapist should both go to jail, whether they were themselves intoxicated when they committed the crimes or not.

Likewise, being young and rebellious is not an excuse to commit rape.  My point citing statistics of healthy behavior was that there are plenty of teens who manage to avoid committing rape, so trying to use youth as an excuse for it doesn't work any more than saying they should get a pass on mugging or burglary because "boys will be boys."

Quote

Did anyone bothered to split that statistics by year or was there political pressure not to? Also, you can look at it from angle that females 15 to 19 years old are just so healthy nothing else is endangering them.

You have a pretty skewed idea of how immortal young people aren't.  Or maybe of how dangerous pregnancy can be.

Quote

(Although it would be serious problem with my idea if the age teenagers are most rebellious might be BEFORE the ideal age for pregnancy, which seems quite likely ...)

Yes, teen pregnancy starts as young as ten years old, and peaks at 18-19, ages at which they are still prone to medical complications, as well as social and emotional ones.  (I say peaks because it drops off at 20-24, not technically a teen anymore but still in the college age group we were discussing.)

Quote

The direct correlation between age and amount of birth defects starts definitely before age 30. Women who successfully remained virgins during education usually postpone the pregnancy well past that.

Not necessarily.  Waiting until college graduation is usually age 22, assuming four years of undergrad and no skipped grades.  I graduated vet school at 25.  (And one of my classmates went into labor with one baby during finals our first year, and was due any minute with her second at our graduation ceremony, not exactly relevant but not exactly not, either. ;-)

Quote

Also, especially in US, I think the major cause for high amount of STI is low sexual education, namely that teenagers are not being told enough about condoms. On the other hand, in context of alcohol use, I have some doubts that two drunk people are able to 1) remember to put condom on 2) actually do it correctly.

I agree that we need a lot more education, preferably about all different forms of birth control and disease prevention.  Discussing issues like emotional commitment and risks, variations of attraction and expression, safe sex and safewords, etc. would be great, too, while we're at it.  And, being too drunk to operate a condom is another sign of being too drunk to give consent.

Quote

And regarding lower education levels and poverty, I think that's not caused by pregnancy but by how the society (and her parents) reacts to teenage mother.

There are practical reasons.  Any new parent will tell you having a baby is exhausting, physically and emotionally.  Unless they go to a high school with a nursery, child care often forces kids to drop out.  Except, of course, the rich ones, who would traditionally be sent on a Grand Tour of Europe until the embarrassing situation was resolved and the baby safely adopted out, at which point they'd return to school and try to pretend they'd had a grand adventure.  Meanwhile, the poor girl's family either kicks her out or drains their meager college fund paying for diapers and onesies instead of tuition, and the girl ends up having to get a job to support herself and her offspring instead of going back to school once that might be possible.  Lower education level plus extra expenses equals lower income and less savings, equals worse poverty.

Quote

That suggests the parties teenagers are visiting are not major part of the problem, no matter how drunk they get there.

It is if that's where the young girls meet the older guys.  Inexperienced high schoolers being invited to a college party where there's handsome older college boys and booze, and possibly some guys who are out of college, the young girls feel flattered, like they're being seen as grown-ups and desirable, even if they are naive and only pictured kissing those older men, not going any farther.  And, again, one drink leads to lowered judgement leads to more drinks, until they're too drunk to consent but prime targets for those who don't care about such things.

Quote

... damn ... we are getting not just offtopic but dangerously so, don't we?

Eh, it's kind of nice to see an intelligent, ernest discussion of an important topic, especially as the boards seemed a bit slow lately.  :-)

[Story Friday, May 3, 2019]

8 hours ago, Tom Sewell said:

17 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

I think that we have proof here that Dan has thought about abortion at least once. But it's a touchy subject, and since he hasn't brought it up again in seventeen years...

He seems to have mentioned it only as an example of how sleezy and undesirable a location the dojo was in.  That tends to imply either a low opinion of abortion in general, or a realistic idea of how difficult it is to find a location for a health care facility which provides health care to poor women (the rich ones can easily travel to fancy hospitals which provide the same health care services but don't get nearly as much shit for it).

[Story, Wednesday, May 1, 2018]

2 hours ago, Scotty said:

If it was just the green hair, it'd be easy to assume burnout, but her eye colour also changed, which we never saw happen to Nanase (or Ellen after the copy spell team-up) so there was definitely something more to what happened to her.

We may not have seen it, but just about every time it was discussed by someone knowledgeable, they mentioned hair and eye color as potentially changing magically.  I've been waiting for it to be eye instead of hair on someone for a while now!

[NP Wednesday, May 1, 2019]

2 hours ago, hkmaly said:

... not only I don't play Sims, I suspect I wouldn't enjoy it. Of course, my quota of games I enjoy Dan to parody might be already spent ...

I never said you did, I was giving an example of a game I play which Dan hasn't done any comics about.

[NP Monday, Apr 15, 2019]

1 hour ago, hkmaly said:

Any law which only works when people follow it is bad. Law MUST deal with people NOT following it. And while putting all teenagers in jail may be appealing to some, I consider it bad idea: either jail will be so bad experience they will be affected for whole live ... or worse, it fail to be that bad and they will conclude breaking law is not that big problem.

So, having personal rule to not have sex with drunk people may be good idea, but having it as law is not.

Should we apply the same logic to drunk driving?  Society did for decades -- "That's just how kids are, whatcha gonna do?"  Then, we decided that risking the lives and safety of others is NOT okay, and anyone who drives drunk is committing a serious crime.  And you know what?  Highway fatalities and automobile related fatalities went way down.  The vast majority of people quit doing the stupid, reckless behavior once they were told it was not okay anymore.  Teenagers included.

You seem to think that every teenager is an uncontrolled mass of hormones, but they're not.  They're intelligent human beings and the vast majority of them do NOT engage in highly risky behavior.  If half of teens have had sex by their 18th birthday, that means that half haven't, and of those that have, about three-quarters had sex with a steady partner or spouse, not a casual acquaintance or stranger.  Even by age 20, about one-quarter were still virgins.  It's also well-documented that young women who have had sex are far more likely to have done so with a much older partner, hardly a situation of equality and unpressured consent.

1 hour ago, hkmaly said:

the medical fact of direct correlation between age and amount of birth defects, maybe we as society should change how we sees teenage pregnancies. 

Bzzzt!  Teenage pregnancies are at high risk for low birth weight, premature labor, pre-eclampsia, not to mention lower education levels and poverty.  Worldwide, complications related to pregnancy are the most common cause of death among females 15 to 19 year old.  In the US, almost half of new cases of STIs are college age or younger.

[NP Wednesday, May 1, 2019]

Yeah, where's Dan's opinion of The Sims?  I'm sure he could do a great parody of their need bars and various social interactions.  Not to mention the game occasionally trying to make you do something mean. ( "Become Enemies with another Sim."  But I don't want to be mean enough to make someone else hate me!  "Weren't you the one deleting the pool ladder two releases ago?"  ....I've matured since then? )

[NP Monday, Apr 15, 2019]

24 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

Maybe, but I still think it's unfair to assume every man has the mentioned level of skill.

Which is why the rule should be, don't have sex with drunk people.  If you want to have sex, don't drink.  That way there is no question of whether you were too drunk to consent, or whether your partner was.  It's no different from the law which says you can't drive a car if you're drunk -- sure, maybe driving while drunk would be fun at the time, but the potential consequences aren't worth the risk.

[NP Monday, Apr 15, 2019]

On 4/17/2019 at 5:56 PM, hkmaly said:

Sorry, I know that it's sexism, but I still find hard to imagine that sexy girl like Nanase trying to have sex with someone could result in as bad experience as rape usually is.

Rape isn't about sex.  It's about control.  Being raped by a good-looking guy is *not* less evil than being raped by an ugly one.  It's having something done to you and being unable to stop it, losing control of your own body, having your choices taken away from you.

On 4/18/2019 at 11:42 PM, Scotty said:

Even in Canada there's the question of consent and a lot of cases being drunk is not valid consent, if one side was drunk and the other wasn't, there'd be no question the the person drunk was taken advantage of, but if both sides were drunk, who's at fault, who's the victim, if one side were to claim rape, the other side is now on the defensive and it's be difficult to prove otherwise because the act occurring is certain, but they'd have to prove they didn't go start drinking with the hopes of scoring with someone.

It's not like both side could get charged with raping each other, but examples like this one suggests that if two people are too drunk to keep their hands off each other, all it would take is for one of them to later, when they're sober, to be disturbed enough by what happened to claim rape and the other person would be up the creek without a paddle.

I would think one important factor would be if one of them got the other drunk with the intention of getting them to the point that they would do things they normally would not do.  Having grown up in a college town, there are a lot of girls who would go to a party just wanting to have fun, and a lot of guys who would go hoping to get a girl drunk enough that they could have sex with her.  It's not necessarily inherent to the individual people, it's a cultural indoctrination.  

If a person is not intending to have sex, but decides to have just a couple of beers, they may not be drunk enough to lose all inhibitions, but they may have lost enough control to make it easier to convince them to try a taste of a delicious fruity alcoholic drink, and to drink the rest of it once they've tasted it.  And that drink makes it easier to get them to take the next one.  Some people are expert at judging just when to stop feeding a victim drinks, and start caressing and kissing and turning their uncontrolled thoughts in another direction.  People observing from the outside are very bad at judging when someone is too drunk to consent.  And if the victim complains afterwards, the rapist can claim they were drunk, too, and it's nearly impossible to prove they weren't if enough time has passed that their blood alcohol would have dropped.

[Story Friday, May 3, 2019]

Tedd might know her as "Dad's secretary is named Lavender" from phone calls and casual conversation, or he might have gone to his dad's office a few times and know her as "that Uryuom who works for Dad," or even, if he was the right age, "that totally sexy may-have-helped-inspire-FV5 Uryuom who works for Dad."

Would Tedd have gone to her dad's office?  Or is his job too super-secret?  Hmm, come to think of it, who looked after Tedd while his dad was at work when he was little?  I've seen no hint of a beloved nanny or au pair or day care or anything, so it's pretty wide open.  Maybe Lavender used to take care of him when Dad had to work.  Tedd was very matter-of-fact about Will and Gil, didn't seem surprised to see aliens Uryuom-Americans talking to Edward in that flashback, and Edward didn't appear to be trying to keep them hidden from Tedd, or worried about Tedd seeing them.  I get the feeling Tedd grew up a part if his dad's world, at least in an ancillary way.  

.....and I think I've talked myself into a new headcanon....

[Story Friday, May 3, 2019]

Dan's been hinting so strongly about Edward and Lavender, I'm not even sure it's enough of a reveal to warrant an "Oh, snap!" at this point. :-D

I'm glad to see Tedd's dad is getting a little joy and, ah, relaxation in his life.  I hope it helps him to deal better with his offspring's gender fluidity.  I'm *really* hoping that the eventual Talk between them winds up being similar to the one between Tedd and Elliot, where Tedd finds out she's been worrying for nothing.

Hmm, which will come first, Tedd telling her dad she's gender-fluid, or Edward telling Tedd about him and Lavender?

[Story Wednesday, Apr 24, 2019]

16 hours ago, CritterKeeper said:

 I'm not even sure now would be the time to get into Ellen's origin story and Tedd's magitech. 

 

15 hours ago, Scotty said:

She already learned Ellen's origin story,

In very, very broad strokes, but I'm sure they'll be filling in at least some details eventually.  I just don't think she'll be ready to hear more about it yet.  As it is, I'm betting her first meeting with Ellen when she knows about her origin will be very weird for both of them.  (Does Ellen know that Ashley knows as much as she does know?  Was she completely aware of everything?  I need to go re-read....)

15 hours ago, Scotty said:

however learning Grace's origin story wouldn't be a wise choice.

Agreed.  They definitely don't need to get into the secret-lab-Damien-violence aspects.  I'm not even sure she needs to know Grace is part space alien yet, just that she's a strong magic user.  Grace will probably find it awkward and stressful to continuously lie by omission, though.

7 hours ago, hkmaly said:

I think some catgirl form might be sufficiently non-threatening even if you offer it to Ashley. Gender change, well ... everyone accepted gender change on first party, but frankly, we are not sure if Ashley would feel like switching to men. Her fantasies mostly involves men switching to women, not the other way.

She may or may not get far enough along to want to experience magic herself, Ellen's beam or Tedd's FV5 wand or whatever.  But seeing Tedd switch back and forth casually during the party would be pretty minor.  In her state, even that may freak her out at first, but hopefully with enough liking it to counter that.  She did say the more contrast the better for her, though....

7 hours ago, hkmaly said:

And yes, Susan's fairies. Definitely good idea. Unless she unsummons them. Except she may not be there, so we will need to manage with Nanase's fairy and Fox.

Yeah, Nanase's fairydoll spell is another fairly benign one, as long as she doesn't get into details like Fae Punch and feeling their pain when they're destroyed.

7 hours ago, hkmaly said:

I'm pretty sure Edward and Arthur Arthur would agree it's NOT good time for showing her Tedd's magitech.

Actually, given that Arthur specifically asked that Ashley study magic under Tedd, I would be very surprised if he didn't assume she'll be exposed to Tedd's magitech in the process.

4 hours ago, hkmaly said:

It's one thin[g] if she knows there are vampires. It's another if she is told that the half-immortal wizard they were talking about teaches Nanase, Justin, Grace and Ellen, is Tedd's godfather and Diane's father and Susan's ... ancestor.

Actually, finding out that a wizard does something so mundane as teach history might be reassuring.  It's all in the presentation, I suspect.

Basically, I feel this party should be much more about Ashley getting to know Elliot's friends and becoming comfortable talking with them in general.  Talking about magic in particular can wait, and is likely less threatening done one-on-one at a later time.  A little bit of active magic, just to make it clear that they all know about magic and would be comfortable talking abot it, but definitely *not* making magic the center of attention.  Unless Ashley really wants to get into it now, of course, and even then better to keep to relatively safe stuff.

Although, if she's really fearful, mentioning Nanase's Guardian form might be reassuring.

[Story Wednesday, Apr 24, 2019]

I don't think it's a good idea to overwhelm Ashley with too much magic at this party.  She's already a bit freaked out.  Let her get to know everyone as people first, maybe start a few friendships, and mention that everyone there knows about magic so if she wants to tak about it with any of them, it's okay.  Maybe a couple of non-threatenng bits of harmless magic, like Tedd switching between boy and girl, or Susan letting little Nase and San charm her with their adorableness.  I'm not even sure now would be the time to get into Ellen's origin story and Tedd's magitech.  Let Ashley get used to this stuff in a non-threatening way first, and once she's calmed down and relaxed, then start introducing other, weirder stuff.

[Changing Medications (Level of Trust Required)]

I know I've been a bit AWOL, BUT it's been a little while and I'm wondering how things went with this?  Were they able to culture whatever bug is in there and get you on the right antibiotic to save the bone?  Can they take out just the affected bone and leave the rest of them?  How are you doing after surgery?  Anything we can do to help you get through the recovery?