Letters to the Editor
RammyH
Published Letters: 79 Editor's Choice: 1
-
melthough....eesh
[Read the article: The shoe love that has no name]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Longtime lurker, first-time poster...
Melthough you are firing off a lot of derision and contempt at people who own a bunch of shoes.
"Jobs are necessary, but I wouldn't choose the kind that required me to wear heels during any part of the hiring or working process. Not the industry I chose..."
Must be wonderful to have that sort of control over all aspects of your life and career, but maybe there are people out their whose need to work in a particular industry (perhaps the best job for the money so that they can adequately provide forr themeselves and their families) calls for a certain standard of dress. It wouldn't be much of an economy of all 250 million of us worked as park rangers or freelance potters, etc. Not to mention that you also dismiss millenia of human culture in which costuming/decoration/etc. have been used as means of expression - personal and socially.
"My friends and family members can't afford fancy weddings or funerals or cocktail parties. That's the way we live."
Not affording things - that sounds like a great way to live. I don't need a fancy cocktail party 24/7 but its nice to dress up every now and then and have fun night out on the town. Anyone else so like-mended shouldn't need your derision.
"Also, it wouldn't hurt to consider where your shoes come from, how it comes about that you are able to have so many when some people have none, and the kinds of resources you are using (up) by living the way you do. There are a lot of people in this world, and you are only one of them."
If you live in the first world and enjoy its collective resources, resources varied and rich enough that you can choose to live in some sort of faux-harmony with Nature, then you don't get to judge your fellow first world citizens who choose by need or desire to express their first-world wealth in more outwardly a manner. Some choose to use the status and wealth afforded them by the country of their birth and residence in outward displays of wealth - others choose to use this same wealth to emulate some sort of bs version of life that is closer to Nature or off the grid - but you're the same priviliged and more-than-your-share resource using S.O.B. as the rest of us.
Hi Salon!
-
Fetboy's definition of Consent
[Read the article: Roundup: Mistresses ruin corrupt Chinese official]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Fetboy, In NYS your second example, of the sleeping boyfriend with the woody, that'd be considered rape in New York, as it's penis/vagina intercourse from someone who is incapable of consent.
The only sticky wicket with your specific example is that they may or not be some sort of caveat that's applied to long-standing sexual partners in said situation. In other words my wife and I are likely not assaulting each other when we sleepily grope each other in the middle of the night and try to get it on. Or actually get it on.
In your example remove the implied long-standing sexual aspect of the relationship (not boyfriend but hook-up or stranger) and the girl deciding to hop on that "woody" and have her fun would very much be open to a full on rape/sexual assault charge. In NYS anyway.
-
Fetboy's Proof...
[Read the article: Roundup: Mistresses ruin corrupt Chinese official]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It wasn't my intention to provide proof of said act ever having occured or if occured then charged and bought to to trial.
Just that by a reading of NYS' definition of rape/sexual assault, the above scenario would count as assault.
The penis isn't that complicated an instrument. Guy on his back, passed out-unconscious-in coma-deeply asleep, get him hard, insert into cavity of your choice. Viola, according to NYS you've just likely raped a guy.
That's all I got.
-
Hey Vibrocount..
[Read the article: Kids gone wild]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]what's the harm with the kids being on tv? I understand in general the need for and the concern over how CBS went about getting these kids tutorless and filmed 24/7 for 40 days is non-kosher...but in this instance what's the harm?
Tricksy as it is, if Kid Nation were an actual summer camp - then no problem right? There are obviously adults everywhere, just off camera and kids don't have to do shoolwork during the summer, so why have tutors, so the only difference are the cameras. Again CBS being tricky, but if the kids are cool with being filmed, and the parents are cool with being filmed and its not interefering with their school schedule, what's the fuss?
This isn't a 3 year old being kept up until 3am every night while shooting a vampire flick in Prague, and no one's feeding little moppets u[ppers so that they can crank out one more dance number - what's the harm?