So, in light of all of the stuff going on here: http://nextstepcake.tumblr.com/tagged/consent%20shaming%20debacle , I feel like I should speak about some of my experiences. So what follows is mostly me just explaining some of my experiences, as an asexual, with sex. (not sure if I need any trigger warnings- its about a positive, consensual sexual experience)
![madamethursday:
[Image: A black coffee cup with the words on the side: “If this was another country we’d have to tell you that this coffee may be hot. Good thing this is Canada!]
writeswrongs:
irollforinitiative:
favabean05:
truthandglory:
assbanditkirk:
whoa canada
someone needs to turn down that sass level
Two things to know about Canada!
We are smart enough to know hot things should be hot.
We are sorry if you don’t
A few things you need to know about this hot coffee case:
It wasn’t an issue of the coffee being because no fucking shit coffee is hot, but McDonald’s had over heated their water to 250 degrees Fahrenheit. That’s 121C. Not just hot, but really FUCKING hot. Your fancy Starbucks lattes are brewed to 150 degrees.
The 79 year old woman had this cup of 250F (121C) coffee between her legs when it spilled so 250F (121C) coffee spilled on her genitals
She got third degree burns…on her genitals. THIRD DEGREE.
She had to have skin grafts to repair the damage
When she sued McDonald’s, it wasn’t for millions of dollars, it was for $20,000 to cover hospital costs and court fees. 20-fucking-thousand.
McDonald’s settled and changed their heating policy, but not before making her sign a gag order keeping her from talking about this case
So she had to live on hearing little shits like you call her stupid and money-grubbing, and other horrendous stuff because she dared ask the company in the wrong to fix what they fucked up.
I know I’ve reblogged this before tonight but so help me god, I will keep reblogging this with the proper information so everyone can maybe learn not to be an asshole. Like I said before, next person to mock this woman can have 250F (121C) water poured on their dick or lady dick and see how you like it.
So sit the fuck down, Canada.
Slow clap it out for the hot piece of sass that is my rp partner.
shit you don’t hear
Thank you, oh wonderful person, for laying down the facts. I just want to scream when people make fun of the plaintiff from Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurants because goddammit, McDonald’s not only was heating the coffee too hot, but it was too damn hot for the cups that they were putting it in. This cup basically exploded on this woman, okay? She didn’t spill it, the cup ruptured. Because the company had their coffee at an unreasonably fucking hot temperature.
McDonald’s was totally and utterly negligent under the fucking LEGAL definition of negligence, which is:
1. Owing a duty of care to a person (meaning: having a responsibility to act reasonably to prevent harm from coming to customers or “business invitees” who they have invited onto their premises to do business with them or in the case, who they’ve asked to come to McDonalds and buy their food and drinks)
2. and Breaching that duty (meaning: They failed to act reasonably to prevent that harm because they HEATED THE WATER TO A FUCKING OUTRAGEOUS POINT, a point beyond what the cups they gave customers could handle)
3. So that the breach causes (meaning: the heating of the water was the actual and proximate cause of the injuries, which is just saying that not only did the hot water cause the injuries, but if not for McDonald’s overheating the water and supplying lousy cups, the injury would never have occurred)
4. Actual Harm (meaning: the burning of someone’s legs and genitals is definitely a form of harm).
This woman met every single legal criteria and all she wanted was enough to cover her medical bills. And yet people want to run their mouths without knowing any of that.
So, whoever manufactured this cup can just shove it where the sun don’t shine.
Just to chime in with other noteworthy facts:
The only reason the case ever went to court was because in response to her demand for $20,000 (to cover medical expenses) all McDonald’s offered was $800. This means McDonald’s probably could have negotiated an amount far, far, less than $20,000. But they didn’t budge at all in negotiations, so the plaintiffs decided to go to court over it.
The reason the case is noted is that the plaintiffs lawyer, after showing how resoundingly unreasonable McDonald’s was (see above), suggested the jury award punitive damages (which are supposed to deter people from being incredibly unreasonable) equal to one or two days worth of profits from coffee. The jury thought it was a great idea, and that turned out to be $2.7 million dollars. The judge decided that was too much and reduced it to $480,000.
Some people like to hold this case up as a poster case of frivolous lawsuits, because they focus on the $2.7 million number. But the justice system worked as intended- and that number was reduced by the judge.
Given that cases of companies preparing coffee at unreasonably hot temperatures happen all the time, it seems that if anything the $480,000 wasn’t enough.
Furthermore, these kinds of cases are tossed out all the time before even being given a trial, because of judges who have bought into the whole “well the coffee was hot and you should have known” bullshit that McDonald’s spewed.
So the next time someone is talking about a lawsuit and calling it frivolous, remember the kind of lies and mischaracterizations spread about this case by people who want to ensure companies aren’t liable for being incredibly unreasonable, and then double check the facts of the case they are talking about. Because this isn’t the first (and won’t be the last) time a case was held up as frivolous when it really wasn’t.](http://24.media.tumblr.com/63c7d587060bc3932f2992960d00face/tumblr_mlh0fefx7J1ql2603o1_500.jpg)
[Image: A black coffee cup with the words on the side: “If this was another country we’d have to tell you that this coffee may be hot. Good thing this is Canada!]
whoa canada
someone needs to turn down that sass level
Two things to know about Canada!
- We are smart enough to know hot things should be hot.
- We are sorry if you don’t
A few things you need to know about this hot coffee case:
- It wasn’t an issue of the coffee being because no fucking shit coffee is hot, but McDonald’s had over heated their water to 250 degrees Fahrenheit. That’s 121C. Not just hot, but really FUCKING hot. Your fancy Starbucks lattes are brewed to 150 degrees.
- The 79 year old woman had this cup of 250F (121C) coffee between her legs when it spilled so 250F (121C) coffee spilled on her genitals
- She got third degree burns…on her genitals. THIRD DEGREE.
- She had to have skin grafts to repair the damage
- When she sued McDonald’s, it wasn’t for millions of dollars, it was for $20,000 to cover hospital costs and court fees. 20-fucking-thousand.
- McDonald’s settled and changed their heating policy, but not before making her sign a gag order keeping her from talking about this case
- So she had to live on hearing little shits like you call her stupid and money-grubbing, and other horrendous stuff because she dared ask the company in the wrong to fix what they fucked up.
I know I’ve reblogged this before tonight but so help me god, I will keep reblogging this with the proper information so everyone can maybe learn not to be an asshole. Like I said before, next person to mock this woman can have 250F (121C) water poured on their dick or lady dick and see how you like it.
So sit the fuck down, Canada.
Slow clap it out for the hot piece of sass that is my rp partner.
shit you don’t hear
Thank you, oh wonderful person, for laying down the facts. I just want to scream when people make fun of the plaintiff from Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurants because goddammit, McDonald’s not only was heating the coffee too hot, but it was too damn hot for the cups that they were putting it in. This cup basically exploded on this woman, okay? She didn’t spill it, the cup ruptured. Because the company had their coffee at an unreasonably fucking hot temperature.
McDonald’s was totally and utterly negligent under the fucking LEGAL definition of negligence, which is:
1. Owing a duty of care to a person (meaning: having a responsibility to act reasonably to prevent harm from coming to customers or “business invitees” who they have invited onto their premises to do business with them or in the case, who they’ve asked to come to McDonalds and buy their food and drinks)
2. and Breaching that duty (meaning: They failed to act reasonably to prevent that harm because they HEATED THE WATER TO A FUCKING OUTRAGEOUS POINT, a point beyond what the cups they gave customers could handle)
3. So that the breach causes (meaning: the heating of the water was the actual and proximate cause of the injuries, which is just saying that not only did the hot water cause the injuries, but if not for McDonald’s overheating the water and supplying lousy cups, the injury would never have occurred)
4. Actual Harm (meaning: the burning of someone’s legs and genitals is definitely a form of harm).
This woman met every single legal criteria and all she wanted was enough to cover her medical bills. And yet people want to run their mouths without knowing any of that.
So, whoever manufactured this cup can just shove it where the sun don’t shine.
Just to chime in with other noteworthy facts:
The only reason the case ever went to court was because in response to her demand for $20,000 (to cover medical expenses) all McDonald’s offered was $800. This means McDonald’s probably could have negotiated an amount far, far, less than $20,000. But they didn’t budge at all in negotiations, so the plaintiffs decided to go to court over it.
The reason the case is noted is that the plaintiffs lawyer, after showing how resoundingly unreasonable McDonald’s was (see above), suggested the jury award punitive damages (which are supposed to deter people from being incredibly unreasonable) equal to one or two days worth of profits from coffee. The jury thought it was a great idea, and that turned out to be $2.7 million dollars. The judge decided that was too much and reduced it to $480,000.
Some people like to hold this case up as a poster case of frivolous lawsuits, because they focus on the $2.7 million number. But the justice system worked as intended- and that number was reduced by the judge.
Given that cases of companies preparing coffee at unreasonably hot temperatures happen all the time, it seems that if anything the $480,000 wasn’t enough.
Furthermore, these kinds of cases are tossed out all the time before even being given a trial, because of judges who have bought into the whole “well the coffee was hot and you should have known” bullshit that McDonald’s spewed.
So the next time someone is talking about a lawsuit and calling it frivolous, remember the kind of lies and mischaracterizations spread about this case by people who want to ensure companies aren’t liable for being incredibly unreasonable, and then double check the facts of the case they are talking about. Because this isn’t the first (and won’t be the last) time a case was held up as frivolous when it really wasn’t.
(via hoidn)
A week or so ago I met a nice Tumblr person who was asexual, yet had no knowledge of Tumblr’s asexual community. The reply I got to an asexual post was along the lines of “I’m not alone”.
I’m sure we can all relate to that, so I’ve decided I’d like to start a…
I am also asexual, and while I intended this blog to be about asexuality these days I pretty much don’t post anything except the occasional responses to random stuff.
I like this post, but I disagree that it’s the ‘asexual community’ - ‘zucchini’ and ‘queerplatonic’ were coined by the aromantic community, not the asexual, and I have encountered the same relationship hierarchy in the asexual community as in society at large. I think the distinction between these two things is an important one to make, since they’re often conflated as being the same.
Uh, as someone who was there when those two words were coined and who played a role in popularizing them, I would like to point out that those terms were hashed out in asexual blogs and coined by an asexual person. They came out of a specific series of conversations that was largely being had by people who were both asexual and not classifiably romantic. And those conversations themselves were heavily influenced by reactions to the way that asexual communities classify people according to romantic orientation.
So no, I think it is absolutely accurate to say that those terms were coined by the asexual community, and that the aromantic community as I see it growing and changing owes a lot to ideas and modes of discourse that originated in asexual spaces. While I’m very happy that it has grown from that basis to include aromantic allosexual people, it pisses me off to see someone argue that those terms don’t originate in asexual communities. They happened in asexual spaces first for a reason, and you don’t get to overwrite that even if those concepts are central to the community that came later as a direct response to those conversations.
Oops, I’m sorry. I actually wasn’t aware of that. I’m going to delete my previous post’s commentary, because I was mistaken.
I still think there’s an unfair relationship hierarchy that’s often seen in the ace community, but I wasn’t aware that these terms came from it. My apologies.
Apology accepted, and thank you for being so gracious about it! For the curious, this thread is where those terms originated—everyone in it except for SlightlyMetaphysical identified as asexual or in one case demi at this point, and Slightly had previously identified as asexual for a long time before that and then blogged at asexual curiosities. For a long time, when people would pass the term “zucchini” around they’d link it to this post of mine. In fact, I note that my blog is linked on aromantic aardvark’s list of resources—but its original focus was asexuality, not aromanticism, and I don’t technically identify as aromantic. (I have since decided that I don’t think romantic/platonic is a useful way for me to categorize relationships and that romantic orientation isn’t a useful reference point for my emotions, so I don’t bother with it too much.) In fact, to my knowledge the term “relationship hierarchy” was coined by Captain Heartless, himself an asexual person.
I don’t know what aromantic communities are doing lately, because honestly I’ve gotten really bored with discussing alternative relationship styles—my queerplatonic triad is going nicely, and I’ve said basically everything I have to say on the subject over at Writing From Factor X already—but I think you should probably be aware that the entire foundation of aromantic discourse grew out of asexual a/wtfromantic communities, and lots of the ideas therein came directly from asexual spaces. “Some asexual people have unfortunate relationship hierarchies” is absolutely true, but that does not negate the fact that when I was beginning to have these conversations in 2010, literally the only people having them were either ace or heavily steeped in ace culture.
Arguably, the entire idea of an aromantic community could not have arisen without an asexual community to come up with the idea of being aromantic in the first place. While the idea of affectional/romantic orientations as distinct from sexual orientation isn’t actually entirely an ace invention—the bisexual community has a similar and older idea, and I’m not sure whether ace communities independently invented it or borrowed it from there—ace communities have put a lot of intellectual energy into elaborating the concept, and “aromantic” is certainly a category that first appeared as an asexual extension of the idea.
From my perspective, again, I’m really glad that this is a useful concept for allosexual people, and I really like the idea of aromantic spaces broadening to include and welcome them. I think that’s very important, and I want those ideas and words to form a welcoming space for anyone who needs them. But I would like the fact that the groundwork for that set of ideas grew up in asexual spaces to be widely known, and your mistake this afternoon seriously worries me that this might not be the case. To someone who spent a lot of time early on working with those ideas, it feels really disrespectful to think that the place my community had in these discussions could be forgotten like that.
I’m shocked that anyone could dig out that old post of mine! But yes, for reference, I’m pretty sure I got the idea of relationship hierarchies from a conversation with David Jay one day at some event we were doing on campus (but it also builds off a lot of older queer theory, from long before the ace community). That was then hashed out with the other aces in town, and after a long time I ended up writing the post above. At the time I was definitely approaching the concept from the position of asexual and aromantic (or at least WTFromantic), but I was definitely thinking it would have broad applicability- probably for just about anything someone could possibly call “queer”. At the very least, I’ve always felt like it’s something that is very relevant for polyamorous relationships- I kind of assume that polyamorous communities must have a similar idea?
Also, as someone who has not paid any attention to the asexual community for something close to 2 years now (with exceptions for the few tumblrs I still follow from back in the day), it’s kind of neat to see that the romantic orientation idea actually has separated from the asexual community, just like we were always saying it should/would (I remember at workshops always having to explain “hey! this could be a useful idea even for people outside the ace community!”).
And I still don’t know if I should call myself aromantic or just WTFromantic, or something like that. :/
(Source: nextstepcake)
- where does dorian gray buy his clothes?
- at forever 21
dorian gray jokes just never get old
OMG
don’t know if Captain Heartless will see this, but
I have heard this before. Now if only I could remember some of the other Dorain Gray jokes I heard…
“SEXUAL ABANDONMENT is what happens in a sexless marriage. In legal terms it is called ‘Constructive Abandonment’ and is considered grounds for divorce, at least in the United States; in other countries it falls under ‘Unreasonable…
So a brief search on Westlaw led me to a supplement (“New York Jurisprudence”) that says this (constructive abandonment leaves one entitled to divorce) is the case for New York law. It’s going to vary by state, but I wouldn’t be surprised if this applied in most states. If anyone cares, according to this supplement (and thus, in NY at least) the party looking for divorce must have repeatedly asked for sexual relations and been refused, and all the cases involve this going on for more than a year.
There’s also a note about how if a wife rejects sexual overtures because of a husband’s violent propensities and assaultive behavior then it’s not grounds for divorce.
And for what its worth, something like this would only apply if a party is seeking divorce- if both parties in a marriage consent, presumably neither would try to end the marriage. Of course, if something happened, one party could lie and say they were getting the divorce for the other reason.
Also, family law is awful.
EDIT: Just to make it clear, all I did was effectively the equivalent of a google search and clicking on the first thing that comes up. I know nothing about family law, and did almost no research here, so I could be horribly wrong. A family law lawyer would know this far better than I would.
(Source: stream-of-c0nsciousness)
Jerk Geniuses — Feminist Fiction
Is anyone else sick of the jerk genius?
You know the one. He’s unprofessional, lazy, selfish and rude, and even makes frequent sexist and racist remarks against the people around him, but that’s OK, because he’s a genius. He’s the best…
I’m sick of that character type (it’s one of the reasons I’ve been possibly unnecessarily skeptical of Elementary), but I’m not sure the Sherlock in Elementary is some subversion? At least no more than other versions (see: the first episode of Sherlock, where his flaws would get him killed had Watson not intervened- in fact, Sherlock does very little to actually solve the mystery in that one, other than unintentionally acting as bait). In both shows, their partners call them out on it, but its not like anything comes of that (hence the trope).
In fact, the relationship/characters in Elementary seems to be developing only when Joan (or Holmes) intentionally crosses the others’ boundaries, which I find incredibly creepy. The show is pretty much saying “Want to get to know someone? Invade their privacy! Push them on things that they say they don’t want to talk about! Ignore their emotional boundaries! It’s okay, because they are a recovering drug addict/you are a genius so violating their boundaries and privacy just so you can get to know personal and compromising details is totally justified!”. If Holmes wants to tell you about himself, he’ll do so. If Watson wants to tell you about her love life, she will. If you are so curious, you can ask, and perhaps actually earn their trust- it’s their life, you don’t get to take it over by subverting their boundaries. And seeing both characters intentionally do this makes me really uncomfortable.
And perhaps on a more technical issue, I’m really really annoyed with how often Holmes in Elementary commits illegal searches and seizures and no one seems to care. I’m not sure any of the people he’s caught would be sent to jail, and the local DA would be pissed at the department for these shenanigans. Holmes literally follows his own laws. But apparently no one cares, because he’s so genius (actually no one cares because the writers are terrible and have to keep relying on the “we are going to ignore all rules because omg so genius”. Which is really my problem with the show, and probably every other show on television). I don’t mean to sound so negative- I have been watching Elementary (I’m only 1 episode behind, I think), but I just feel like the writers are lazy. I mean yeah, someone had the good idea to cast Lucy Liu (but not as the main character- we couldn’t have that?). But that doesn’t mean the show is great in other ways.
(Source: downlookingup)
This- this isn’t possible. No one could seriously write this. Someone must be trolling fox.In a nutshell, women are angry. They’re also defensive, though often unknowingly. That’s because they’ve been raised to think of men as the enemy. Armed with this new attitude, women pushed men off their pedestal (women had their own pedestal, but feminists convinced them otherwise) and climbed up to take what they were taught to believe was rightfully theirs.
Now the men have nowhere to go.
But what if the dearth of good men, and ongoing battle of the sexes, is – hold on to your seats – women’s fault?
You’ll never hear that in the media. All the articles and books (and television programs, for that matter) put women front and center, while men and children sit in the back seat. But after decades of browbeating the American male, men are tired. Tired of being told there’s something fundamentally wrong with them. Tired of being told that if women aren’t happy, it’s men’s fault.
Contrary to what feminists like Hanna Rosin, author of The End of Men, say, the so-called rise of women has not threatened men. It has pissed them off. It has also undermined their ability to become self-sufficient in the hopes of someday supporting a family. Men want to love women, not compete with them. They want to provide for and protect their families – it’s in their DNA. But modern women won’t let them.
It’s all so unfortunate – for women, not men. Feminism serves men very well: they can have sex at hello and even live with their girlfriends with no responsibilities whatsoever.
MEN ARE TIRED.
This is real. It isn’t even possible to include all the great parts of this article because the whole article is amazing.
This is real and on Fox News.
First you bitch around that you have a ‘pretty-much-two-party’ system (at this point it’s not ‘pretty much’ it IS a two party system) and then you post how each vote that is not Obama is practically Romney.
How the fuck do you think a…
And the reason strategic votes work like that (arguably, the reason we have a two party system) is because we have a winner take all electoral system (as in, there is only 1 seat to win in the presidency or any of the legislature elections). The only way individuals contribute to this is that they vote strategically, which would be silly to fault them for.
I’m not sure what someone is saying if they think getting a bunch of people to vote for a third party will makes us no longer have a 2 party system. It won’t. It might mean that for a year or two our system would be shifting, but it will settle back to a two party system, because that is the strategic thing to do. Most likely if a third party wins a massive share of the vote (even 10%), one of the major parties will adopt a lot of its policies and gain its votes. Theoretically this should NEVER happen, because the parties are sophisticated and strategic enough to notice the polling before that massive voting occurs, and annex enough of the third party before then (see: republicans and some libertarians). It’s called coalition building. If your plan in voting for a third party is to try and get that party to win, that’s pointless. If your plan is to send a message to the major parties that you believe that party’s issues need to be adopted by a major party, then voting for a third party makes perfect sense.
We don’t have a parliamentary system, so all the coalition building is done before elections, based on polling data. That means a third party will almost never win- and if one does, its because one of the two main parties is being incredibly bad at strategy, and will probably be replaced as a major party soon.
some musings inspired from a private conversation I was having a while ago, about the difference between sex and gender:
In the usual usage, as I understand it: “sex” refers to more “biological” characteristics; it refers to the m/f designation assigned to someone at birth based on…
I’ve wondered the same thing. But generally I get the impression some people have some kind of internal notion of gender identity, which seems as strange to me as sexual attraction. It seems incredibly bizarre to me that people would have something like that, but I’ve had people adamantly insist that it exists. What I tend to think of when I need to explain it is the normative force behind statements like “man up”. If someone didn’t conceive of themselves as a man, that statement shouldn’t have as much of an effect on them. But this could easily be getting gender roles mixed in to things.
