The only place of those three that i have even been remotely groped was Paris.

I lived in Boston for a long time, and the train cars are big and never too packed, so i find it hard to imagine being groped on the T.

In New York, I've noticed people squishing when they shouldn't be, to get onto the train car, and often I suspect they squish just to be in contact with another human being (most often a woman).

"To live off a trust-fund requires $2 million": This is simply untrue. You did not source this categorical claim, but given a rate of return of 5%, someone could easily live on a portfolio of, say, $700,000. ($35,000 per year.) Want a lower rate? How about 3%? With a million bucks, you'd get $30,000 per annum. Still lower? With $1.5 million and a rate of return of 2%, you'd still be at $30,000. Not a mint, certainly, but definitely enough to live on, and far less than $2 million."

Well, now, I guess it depends on where you live, don't it? $35,000 won't get you very far in most places. Sure, you might have a crummy apartment somewhere, and even though you have oodles of free time, you can't really go on vacation or to lots of other things, like sports games, theater, etc., because you don't have enough money. And in some places, $35,000 won't even get you a habitable studio.

Point is, when you derisively refer to someone as a "trustafarian," it's not only the existence of a trust fund that is implied, but a certaain kind of lifestyle. And for that lifestyle, you need some money, i would say at least $80,000. No one who lives in some crummy development and eats ramen noodle is truly a trustfund baby or worthy of any envy.

So, yeah, you need at least $2 million.

I fall in love at least once a day with some woman I see or meet. Yesterday, it was a Korean woman in a dry cleaning store. Today, it was a redhead in a hair salon. That's how it works, for all of us.

-tyler durden

Fascinating. Now if I remember correctly, you are married and have children (i think it was a few girls).

1) So, how do you reconsile your wife with these women you "fall in love" with?

2) According anti-feminists like yourself, you are already cheating on your wife, you are the scum of the earth, you've broken your covenant wtih god, etc. etc. Feminists, on the other hand, tend to be more open-minded, more aware of the complexity of human emotions and conflicting feelings. It's traditionalists who talk in absolutes, who don't care about subtlety or complexity, who live in the black & white world of harsh, dogmatic morality.

Bottom line, if you want to reconcile your love for random beautiful women and your love for your wife, you're probably gonna use arguments and ideas that have come out of the feminist movement, not the anti-feminists.

Possible guesses:

- Bombing Iranian Nuclear Installations - the ships already have their "prepare to deploy" orders.

- Bombing North Korea -- unlikely, because they don't have oil.

- Osama bin Laden Caught - a perrenial favorite.

- Saddam Guilty Verdict -- currently expected right after the election, i'm sure the US could finagle something to make it a few days before the election, and definitely guilty, which means the death sentence to be executed within 30 (and no appeal. Yeah, this is what we call "justice".)

- Of course, the voting machines stuff -- the most distressing and depressing, and not completely unlikely.

Because any such consent contract, to be enforceable or valid, must have some sort of excape hatch i.e. a provision for withdrawing consent. Otherwise, suppose a man or woman changes his or her mind in the middle of the sex act, should the other person, still wanting sex, be able to continue? Of course not. So, even if such a written contract didn't have such a provision, a court would imply it (surrogacy contracts work the same way - the birth mother must have an escape hatch).

So the contract would be meaningless, since no one could say "well, he signed the contract" because it's the present consent that matters, not consenting to it 1 or 5 hours ago.

I suppose that if someone showed up and decided to kill only boys, that should be a hate crime too.

Or to kill a straight man for being straight.

Or to kill a white woman for being white.

Wanting that this event be treated like a hate crime doesn't preclude the above being hate crimes as well.

Also,

1) Motive and thought do matter, murder isn't just murder, as someone mentioned. In our legal system, we have many degrees of murder, where we police the thoughts of the murderer. That's also why we have manslaughter, and criminally negligent homicide. All those categories address the state of mind of the murderer.

2) I personally don't believe that "hate crimes" should a separate category. Premeditated is enough culpability. Hate is a right we have (free speech and free thought).

A note re the rich boys

Hypatia, I believe that most of the guys charged were working class boys on Athletic scholarships - people just assumed they were rich and priviliged, it fit the sterotype better.

-- blackpaw

Oh, blackpaw, no! a hundred times no! Yes, they were all recruited for their lacrosse skills, but from where? VERY preppy private schools. They are from New Jersey and Long Island, from very rich towns, live in multi-million dollar homes. Their pappies are very rich investment bankers and financiers, and their mommies are stay-at-home moms (is this the wrong time to say that maybe being brought up by a stay-at-home mom isn't all it's cracked up to be?)

I don't think I need to explain this one at all.