Douva

The way I understand it, differences in the levels of the hormones testosterone and serotonin between men and women, combined with the difference in size between the amygdala region of the male and female brain cause significant, inherent behavioral differences between the sexes. Women are inclined toward predictability, stability, security, caution, and steadiness. Men are inclined toward change, opportunity, risk, speculation, and adventure. Women are also generally more nurturing, sensitive, tender, and compassionate. Men are generally more stoic and less emotional. Obviously every person is unique, and there are examples that go against the norm, but these are the basic emotional characteristics that define men and women. What I object to is the notion that men are immature, uncontrollably impulsive, selfish, weak, and stupid. It is this later school of thought that suggests that all men are, at heart, rapists in waiting. It is this philosophy that says men don't respect women because men don't treat women the way women treat men. The truth is, men and women treat each other the way they are naturally inclined to, and this does not make either side better or worse than the other. It certainly doesn't mean that men are all animal aggressors who must but be stopped or changed. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

Really??? So, if I give consent to have sex with someone but I change my mind in the middle of it because they tell me that they stole all my money, they have a VD, they mess around with animals, or whatever other reasons I might have, I have to let them finish? That's disgusting. I didn't say you had to let him finish. I just said you shouldn't be able to prosecute him for rape if he does finish. If he forcibly detains you, you should be able to prosecute him for sexual assault, but you agreed to let him put his penis inside your vagina, so in order to prosecute him for rape you would have to show that he both had reason to believe you no longer wanted his penis inside you and that he failed to remove it in a timely fashion. How exactly do you prove that? As you stated yourself, rape is already hard enough to prove. Shouldn't we set some sort of criteria at which point it is no longer "rape?" Should you be able to prosecute your boyfriend for rape because he doesn't "pull out" in time? For that matter, why is his responsibility to stop if you're the one who wants to end it? You're the empowered woman; if you want him to stop having sex with you, take your vagina someplace else. If he wants to remain in place and hump the air, that's his business. Why is it the man's responsibility to walk away? Like I said, if you're talking about a man pinning you and forcing you to let him finish, that's a different story. That should definitely be prosecuted, but it should probably be called sexual assault instead of rape, since you did consent to sexual intercourse. No, that education would be useless. The best education for women is how to prevent rape (ie, stay in groups, don't walk alone at night, never take a drink from a stranger.) How the heck can you teach a woman who to have sex with???? The best education for men is to teach them that forcing a woman to have sex does not make you a man, "no", "stop," and no answer means that you should not have sex, and report to the police if you hear one of your buddies talking about forcing a woman to have sex. So teaching women that there are consequences to agreeing to have sex with a man is useless? You're against teaching women to "think before you fuck?" Many are not learning that lesson. Is this a blanket statement about all men? Are you saying most men are sexual predators or rapists? Or are you simply referring to the small percentage of men who actually mistreat women? #1 If a woman has a history of "bad men" she will be less defensive and more open to "bad men" in the future. No, I don't understand how lightly men are asked to tread these days, because I do not see most men treading lightly. What men are you hanging out with? How would you like the majority of men to behave differently than they currently do? Should we all be more like women? Then, you should wait until you hear a definite, "Yes, I want to have sex with you." The girl never gave consent (which, in some states, is already rape at that point), and she only spoke of not wanting to be there. Plus, I believe there were many facts in the case that were not told in the first post of the thread (ie, I'm pretty sure that she did say she no longer wanted to have sex....I think there's a link to that story somewhere in this thread...) We were discussing the issue based on the posted article. If you have new information to add, please present it, along with your sources. That might change the direction of this conversation completely. I'm not at all concerned about being accused of rape. What I am concerned with is living in a country where our every move is scrutinized by the legal system while the threat of prosecution lingers around every corner. I'm worried about living in a country where men are expected to behave more like women because that is what is socially acceptable. I'm a nice guy. I hold doors open for women, I defend women's honor, I don't approve of jokes made about women's appearances, and I don't rape women. But I do believe we have to be careful that we don't start promoting promiscuous sex and declaring every man a rapist in the same breath. --Douva I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

I'll probably catch some flack for saying this, but I don't think the legal system should declare sex after consensual penetration rape, even if the woman changes her mind. It is simply too difficult to prove and opens up the door to too many highly questionable criminal prosecutions. If a woman says "stop," and then a man ejaculates before he can pull out, does that constitute rape? A better alternative might be to teach young women to be very careful about when and with whom they agree to have sex. And no, I don't think that is akin to saying women shouldn't dress provocatively or walk alone at night. Men are always told to use discretion about what they say to a woman, how they touch a woman, whether or not they have the woman's consent, etc. Is it too much to ask that women use a little discretion before letting men sexually penetrate them? Do we really need the standard to be "let them start fucking you, and then decide if you really want to do it or not?" I'm not saying there aren't scenarios where a woman might try to end a sex act and the man physically detain her and force her to let him finish, but I think these types of situations should be handled on a case-by-case basis, and possibly handled as sexual assaults, instead of rapes, without setting such a dangerous legal precedent. I understand that a history of abuse by bad men has made women more than a little defensive, but I don't think a lot of women understand exactly how lightly men are asked to tread these days. If this is the path we are headed down, perhaps "abstinence only" sex education really is the best plan. Instead of worrying about social diseases, maybe we should be warning our children against any sexual act for which mutual written consent and specific government sanction have not been issued. I also feel that this whole scenario is another case of people not understanding that men and women really think and function differently. Men are not nearly as intuitive as women. While a woman might hear, "I need to go home," and think, "he wants to stop," a guy would probably hear the same thing and think, "yeah, me too; we'd better hurry and finish." If you really want to stop having sex, say, "Please stop. I no longer wish to have sex with you." Don't start dropping hints and then accuse your partner of rape. It's crap like this that makes me glad nobody wants to have sex with me. --Douva I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

Don't forget there was more than one X-Games in CA - and Rob was in most of them. I'm not sure if you're speaking literally or figuratively, but Rob Harris was only in the first X-Games (then called the "Extreme Games"). He won in June of '95 and died six months later while shooting the famous James Bond Mountain Dew commercial. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

I don't think dropping skysurfing from the X Games had anything to do with "spectator sports." The X Games earns most of its revenue from advertising sponsors gained by televising the events. Entertaining local fans is a secondary concern. Have you ever tried to watch downhill skiing? It has the same limitations--You get to see the competitors for about two seconds; then they're gone. If I recall correctly, the skysurfing events were filmed with live air-to-ground feeds and broadcast on Teletrons for the fans. The official reason given by ESPN for dropping skysurfing was that it didn't have the million-plus fan base they were looking for. Other sports, like street luge and speed climbing, would also soon be dropped. The X Games started out as a venue for the less mainstream sports, but commercialism (be it good or bad) soon turned it into simply a venue for the newer mainstream sports, such as skateboarding and BMX biking. Skysurfing was, in my opinion, a great sport to watch on TV. There were usually three camera angles covering the jumps--the team camera flyer who flew in sync with the surfer and matched his moves, an ESPN camera flyer who covered the teamwork between the surfer and his camera person, and a helicopter shot that provided a great perspective of the speed involved. I still think skysurfing is a great artistic event. It's like watching wakeboarding and snowboarding and figure skating at 120mph, with a very serious time limit. Prior to the 2001 X Games, ESPN debated including freeflying as an event, but after the 2001 X Games, skydiving was dropped altogether. Obviously there was a serious priorities shift and restructuring from within. If you want to hunt for it, ESPN still has up the web page where you could vote in 2001 on whether or not freeflying should be included (I came across this page a couple of weeks ago). Oh, how the mighty have fallen. --Douva I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

Anybody who was really a kid in the 80s remembers that Goonies 2 was only a video game; not a movie. There was no sequel to Goonies (the quintessential film of the children of the 80s, generally only appreciated by anyone who first saw it prior to puberty) made during the 80s. There are currently plans to make a sequel to Goonies featuring the now grownup child actors who starred in the original. --Douva I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

I had to vote for The Rookie but only because my name is in the credits. I was the equipment manager for the baseball coordination department (I'm sorry; no autographs.) --Douva I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

Improve monitor visibility by cleaning the inside of your screen.... (Not recommended for cleaning your work monitor, your mother's monitor, or your prudish wife or girlfriend's monitor.) I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

In the early '90s, skydiving (okay, mostly skysurfing) was receiving pretty decent coverage on ESPN. This ended about the same time the X-Games dropped skydiving from the lineup. Apparently, street luge and lawnmower racing are huge draws, but skydiving doesn't quite have the audience ESPN requires. Also in the early '90s, skydiving started receiving a more positive portrayal on the big screen. Point Break brought modern skydiving to mainstream audiences, followed a few years later by Drop Zone and Terminal Velocity. The advent of modern computer graphics quickly turned cinematic attention from amazing stunts to amazing computer generated characters and worlds, and skydiving was replaced by CGI dinosaurs. These days, any skydiving on the big screen was probably shot in front of a blue screen. These things always come in cycles, so skydiving will probably return to public attention at some point. The trick will be for somebody to have the wherewithal to run with the proverbial ball and turn that attention into consistent, positive mainstream media coverage. Blue skies, Douva I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

Cool Hand Luke is my all-time favorite movie. It's the quintessential character driven film. The scene where Paul Newman sings "Plastic Jesus" is one of the best (if not the best) in the movie. Every now and then, I just find myself breaking into the song for no obvious reason. --Douva I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

That is a bad idea. First of all, hitting your attacker in the legs is difficult, and increases your odds of being hurt by him, should you fail, which is likely. Shooting things out of people's hands only happens in Hollywood movies. Read the first post again. I'm an expert shot. And, if you noticed Turtlespeed's post, a precedential case already exists for such an incident. If I killed the attacker, his family's lawyer could use it against me. If I just wound him, I might somehow use it against him. So if I ever become an expert shot, own a gun, have a family and find myself with a knife-wielding madman charging at us, I'd still try to wound the guy. Of course, if I was just a mediocre shot and put in such a position, I wouldn't hesitate to kill someone who was obviously a threat to me and my family, liberal way of thinking and all... Even police officers, who are generally considered "expert shots," don't try this type of sharpshooting in the field--It's just too risky. Shooting a gun out of somebody's hand or shooting them in the leg is a Hollywood idea. If the assailant has a gun, they may use the time gained by a missed shot or a non-lethal shot to get off a shot of their own. There have been several incidents where assailants continued to attack police after being shot several times. As to liability issues, past examples in the U.S. have shown that you are more likely to be sued if the assailant him/herself is left alive to sue you. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

That is a bad idea. First of all, hitting your attacker in the legs is difficult, and increases your odds of being hurt by him, should you fail, which is likely. Shooting things out of people's hands only happens in Hollywood movies. Second, his lawyer will argue that if didn't feel the necessity to shoot to kill, and had time to try and hit his legs, then you shouldn't have been shooting at him at all. And you're more likely to go to jail for an "unjustifiable" shooting. The advice is not to shoot until you absolutely have to, when you fear for your life. And then you shoot to stop the attack, by aiming center mass. As soon as the threat ceases, stop shooting. That includes if the attacker turns and runs away. Then he's no longer a threat to you, so any shooting is unjustified. John, I wasn't sure about you at first, but I'm definitely starting to like you. You seem to know your stuff. That was a very good explanation of why you NEVER shoot to wound. Also, as most experts will tell you, you never shoot to kill. You always shoot to stop. The most effective way to stop somebody is to shoot them square in the chest, so that's what you do. Personally, I'm going to keep shooting until the perpetrator is down (stopped). The first two are going in his chest. If he's still coming, the next two are going to hit his pelvic bone just above the left and right hip. If a fifth shot is required, it's going between his eyes. If you have trouble with the logic of the shot placements, I'll explain it, but I think it's pretty obvious. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

I drove 1126.7 miles (according to mapblast) from Los Angeles, CA, to Lubbock, TX, in about 19 1/2 hours on January 19th, all by myself. I think that is probably my new record. It was my *first* (you don't have to say it) road trip with XM radio. I don't think I can go back to good ol' AM/FM--I'm hooked. As for Texas being so big, when I drive to Eloy from Austin, El Paso is my 2/3 way mark. When I drive to San Diego, El Paso is my 1/2 way mark. You do NOT want to miss an opportunity to gas up on I-10 through West Texas. I decided at one point on the way out to Eloy that "1/2 tank should be plenty to get me to Ft. Stockton" from wherever the hell I was and ended up coasting into a KOA campground on fumes. Scary stuff. --Douva I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

I think you're thinking of Rosie O'Donnell, Dave. She is very outspoken about her antigun views and has caught a lot of flack from the right, including the leaking of the tidbit of information you mentioned. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

I don't believe anybody on that graph to be as close to the libertarian ideal as it shows them. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

Bitter that our nation is being torn apart by what basically amounts to a school rivalry? Me? Never! I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

To be more accurate, I should have used the terms "fascism" and "communism;" however, the word "communist" has been thrown around so loosely in the past that its use instantly congers up images, in many people's minds, of rednecks wearing "better dead than red" belt buckles. Point taken, though. I have edited my previous post to be more accurate and make my point clearer. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

I hate to break it to you, but that's the way of all extremists. Both sides are more concerned with the prosperity of their party than the prosperity of their country. Conservatives and liberals alike try to divide and label and blame, and both sides will defend their leaders and decry their opponents to the end, regardless of the position or the issue. The extreme side of liberalism is communism, and the extreme side of conservatism is fascism, and when you take a long hard look at communism and fascism, they are similarly flawed systems. Take the case of the communists and the fascists battling it out in World War II. The world saw two evil, genocidal totalitarian regimes squaring off like movie monsters in a bad Japanese sequel. Like Godzilla and Rodan, the liberals and conservatives are locked in a constant battle that seldom accomplishes more than leaving everything around them in ruins. Edited to accurately differentiate between social and economic platforms. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

Here is the simplified version: Beginning of cognitive thought - Age 7: Fireman, Policeman, Astronaut, and Super Hero Age 8 - Age 9: Soldier Age 10 - Age 11: Secret Agent Age 12 - Age 14: Stuntman Age 15 - Age 16: National Geographic Photographer Age 17 - Present: Filmmaker I started taking special effects photos when I was five, building pinhole cameras when I was six, writing stories when I was seven, and making short films when I was twelve. Once I realized that I couldn't grow up to be James Bond, the logical progression for me was to try to grow up and make James Bond. --Douva Living the dream; surviving the nightmare. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

One of my favorite things about skydiving has always been that it transcends all social, cultural, political, and religious boundaries. I enjoy having a tight group of friends composed of people who may not agree with me on every issue. Therefore, even though I may be off base about this, I have to question the logic of bringing politics (real politics, not those kooky DZ politics) into skydiving to the point of organizing "conservative" and "liberal" skydiving factions. The next thing you know, our candidates for USPA office will have party affiliations. We have enough of that crap in the real world; let's keep it out of skydiving. Blue skies, Douva D-22772 I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

Have you tried banging a whole bunch of fish and drinking like a chick? I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

But then there's the issue of over-penetration. That's one of the reasons I prefer .45 - because the round is significantly slower, so it won't over-penetrate as much if you miss your target and hit something else. It would suck to have a round go through a wall and kill somebody outside or in the next house/apartment.. Mike That's why I keep my .45 loaded with safety slugs (wad cutters). It limits my ability to shoot through a window or a door (though I usually have a clip of FMJ nearby), but I prefer that one minor limitation to having to tell a judge how I shot through the bad guy, two inches of sheetrock, and a four year old kid. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

I was just flipping around and came acros American Shooter on The Outdoor Life Network, and they were doing an interview with Jeff Cooper (famous handgun instructor) who said that he believes the Colt 1911 is the only gun suitable for self defense carry. I'm not saying I agree, but it was interesting to hear, in light of this discussion. He didn't go into details about why, but the show isn't over, so they may come back to it. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

I own a Colt 1911 Combat Commander. It's a large gun if you're looking for something to carry concealed, but you gain the added stopping power over the more easily concealable 9mm's. A less experienced shooter is going to be more accurate with a 9mm, but with practice you can hold a tight pattern with a .45ACP at 25yds. Colt was the original .45ACP gun, but Glock also makes great .45ACP's (as well as many other calibers, including 9mm). The Colts and Glocks are both great guns, and I can't really recommend one over the other. My 1911 is over twenty years old, but I love it. It features three main safeties--a thumb safety (must be disengaged to pull the trigger), a grip safety (gun won't fire unless somebody is actual holding it), and a half-cock position on the hammer (catches the hammer if something causes it to fall without the trigger being pulled). The gun is carried cocked and locked (hammer cocked, safety on), and when you are ready to fire, you draw, release the thumb safety and fire. The newer models also have a passive safety that disengages the firing pin. The 1911 is thinner than a Glock, so it is easier to carry IWB (inside the waistband). Glock now makes a narrower .45ACP (the Glock 36), but it sacrifices magazine capacity for its narrower width (the magazine only holds six rounds). The Glock also has three safeties, but they are all passive internal safeties. Like the grip safety, half-cock safety, and the pin safety on the 1911, they are there to prevent the gun from firing if it is dropped, and they disengage automatically when somebody holding the gun pulls the trigger. You can draw and fire a fraction of a second faster because there are no safeties to disengage before firing, but you loose the ability to "lock" the trigger. One advantage of the Glock over the traditional 1911 is that the Glock is double action, meaning that the hammer is cocked automatically when you squeeze the trigger. On a traditional 1911, the hammer must be cocked manually before you fire the first round (after that, the recoil of the slide recocks the hammer between rounds). If you wish to decock your 1911, you must pull the trigger while holding your thumb over the hammer and slowly lower the hammer. This can be nerve-wracking the first few times you do it, but after a few tries it becomes pretty second nature. Some manufacturers (including Colt) now offer a variation of the 1911 design in a double action configuration. If I was looking for a new .45ACP, I would definitely consider one of these. Some people like to point out that the 1911 is made of stainless steel and the Glock is made mostly of industrial strength plastic, but from my experience and the people I've talked to, the Glock is every bit as durable (if not more so) than the 1911. There are a lot of 1911 and Glock knockoffs on the market, but the best is always the original. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

I think, for the most part, the people involved in this debate have done a pretty good job of presenting their cases. There has been a little bit of the old "I'm write, and you're wrong, but you're just too dumb to know it" mentality, but in fairness, most of those posts have come from the pro gun side. I would just like to end my involvement in this debate with a brief summation of why I take such a hard-line pro gun stance when my views on most other issues tend to be more moderate. By taking guns out of the hands of citizens, you are taking the ability to defend life and property out of the hands of citizens. You are creating a society completely reliant on a government entity and providing no recourse should this government entity in any way fail. To me, this would be like jumping with a rig that has no handles, just a Cypres set at 2,000.' Sure, a Cypres won't get accidentally pulled in a funnel, and a Cypres won't loose altitude awareness, and a Cypres won't get knocked unconscious if somebody tracks into you, but do you really want to take the ability to save your own life out of your hands? I take comfort in knowing that my Cypres is there to save me if I need it, just like I take comfort in knowing that we have well trained police officers out there working to keep us safe, but I don't want to make jump after jump knowing that I have very little control over my own fate, nor do I want to go to bed every night with that thought. Ideally, the police would be all we'd require, but we don't live in an ideal world. Many of us feel the need to be prepared for the unforeseen, be it crime, natural disaster, civil unrest, or nuclear war. As much as most of us in the civilized world like to think our societies are going to grow and prosper from here to eternity, that is not necessarily the case. Our comfortable existence rests on a dangerous precipice, ready to slide into the abyss at a moment's notice. We can't, like the citizens of Pompeii, be ignorant to the dangerous around us until they wipe us off the map. Maybe I am not as well trained to protect my friends and family as the police or the army, but if the police and the army can't get to us (let's say they're otherwise occupied), I'll do. Today, we as Americans are safer in our day-to-day lives than we have ever been. Contrary to popular belief, drive-by shootings and police shootouts are not happening on every street corner. We live in a virtual utopia compared to the America of two hundred or even one hundred years ago. But we cannot let this increase in safety fool us into believing we are on the path to a true utopia where weapons and violence will be a thing of the past. The truth is, we have no way of knowing where we are going, so like the Boy Scouts, we had better be prepared. Blue skies and peace, Douva PS. If you don't like the Cypres analogy, take a pole at your drop zone and ask who would like to take up bungee jumping. It's been my experience that very few jumpers want to put their own safety entirely in sombody else's hands. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.