RoR: Forum

Luke,

Since I'm also working off of second hand knowledge, I'll just tell you that I interpreted the purpose of the festival as an attempt to dispel the whore/virgin mentality, i.e., women are expected to act like whores in bed (or wherever sex happens to happen) and virgins otherwise, and if they talk about sex in the "wrong" place they're whores (out of bed, which is "bad"). Adams' column was a prime example of that mentality, with the women at UNC beings nymphomaniacs and whores because of a public discussion of women and sex.

Sarah

Post 41

Thursday, November 3, 2005 - 12:44pm

A Google search found the archives in the campus newspaper of this event:

http://www.dailytarheel.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2005/10/27/436057f1393d5?in_archive=1

Games like "Pin the Finger on the Clit" sound humorous, but leave me wondering if a male version called "Slap the Palm on the Shaft" deserves a day of its own. Of course, to get this far with a partner requires either excellent romance skills or large amounts of alcohol. We know which route the Greek Houses and dormitories encourage.

Post 42

Thursday, November 3, 2005 - 12:56pm

I just read the article and my mouth fell open. Maybe I didn't understand. Did I get it right?

Are some people trying to build a vibrator museum on a college campus with official funding from the college?

Dayaamm!

That's really progressive education. Makes Dewey look like a piker.

Michael

Post 43

Thursday, November 3, 2005 - 1:31pm

Luke:
     Your post #20 pretty well sums up my perspective after reading back to Mike's original column.

     May I add: The purpose of 'official' PC is to penalizingly-insure that some officially-favored group's self-styled representative (superficially-accepted/-recognizable by their skin/'gender'-appearance/avowed-rel-belief/whatever's-new) does not get their feelings hurt, thereby causing them to perceive an 'insult'-by-proxy, hence, putting into effect any 'laws' useable to silence the insensitive feelings-hurter, who presumably has no feelings to hurt by any 'retaliation', verbal or official.

--- PC means, in short: don't criticize PC-issue advocates; this is the MAIN thing that they have absolutely no toleration for. (The very-close SECONDARY thing is to never criticize [most especially, satirically] their own in-house critics. )

    Mike Adams' original column may have been a bit too satirical re the upcoming get-together event (the event clearly oriented to ignorant-college(!)-females-only). However, given the knee-jerk threat-response from Rosemary DePaolo, his follow-up column at his own site...well...it's to die for. Talk about ROTFLMAO-OL!!! Turnabout's definitely fair play, indeed. --- Btw, her official title really is "Chancellor"? As Neo would say, "Whoa-h!" Will "Emperor" be a new position there soon, or was Mike being satirical in this title-ID also?

LLAP
J:D

P.S: If the term 'cunt' is acceptable (if not praiseworthy), then why are the terms 'nymphomaniac' and 'whore' considered 'inappropriate'/insulting/denigrating/'offensive'/dis-likeable/non-approved/etc? Granted, if masturbation was the ONLY subject at the...coming together...'whore' might be irrelevent, but...I'm confused on this.

(Edited by John Dailey on 11/03, 1:56pm)

Post 44

Thursday, November 3, 2005 - 2:23pm

Is there anyone out there who needs help in 'recognizing' their orgasm?

Post 45

Thursday, November 3, 2005 - 3:03pm

Robert Davison, be careful -- that sounds like an offer for "help" from you!

Post 46

Thursday, November 3, 2005 - 5:25pm

Edit:
which certainly is not the case trannies
I don't understand this comment. Could you please explain?

Sorry Sarah, left out the all important preposition 'with'...with trannies. In other words, they have no such misfortune as hadicapped people do.

Post 47

Thursday, November 3, 2005 - 5:29pm

What, pray tell, is 'mental abuse'?

Post 48

Thursday, November 3, 2005 - 5:43pm

Jody,

"Mental abuse" is the misguided attempt by some select posters on Solo to sound intelligent.

//;-)

Michael

Post 49

Thursday, November 3, 2005 - 5:50pm

Michael-

LMAO...now it's all very clear! Yes, there should definitely be a law against that.

Post 50

Thursday, November 3, 2005 - 5:54pm

Jody asked:

What, pray tell, is 'mental abuse'?

Let me illustrate concretely, up-closely and personally, though briefly -- and, I warn you, fictionally but hurtfully:

Jody, you goddamned worthless redneck piece of shit. You fucking cocksucker. You queer-ass mother-fucker living in fucking Annie-Randy fantasy landy. Who in the hell do you think you are? You're just a pathetic loser like all those worthless piece of shit losers on that damned fag-ass loser Perigo's SOLO-SEX site. You're just there because you want to suck dicks, you closet fag! My horse has his log waiting just for you, you reject-from-hell backwards-ass country fuck.

Now, although I meant none of that and apologize in advance to anyone who felt offended by that stream of verbally abusive vulgarity, I hope I have illustrated my point. Imagine dealing eight hours per day or more with someone so verbally abusive and with no tools of self-esteem at your disposal as a spiritual shield. What would happen to your stress level? It would most likely go through the roof. Your self-esteem? Down the toilet.

While I consider this phenomenon of psychological abuse real, dealing with it by law is questionable at best and totally wrong-headed at worst. The best way to deal with it is through private activism aimed at spreading the ideas of Objectivism, particularly the value of self-esteem. There may be instances where a lawsuit to block such abuse is warranted, but I remain very, very skeptical. I am thinking here of the suicidal situations that Sarah mentioned. The better option is to toughen the mind of the target so that such abuse deflects harmlessly like water from a duck's back.

Post 51

Thursday, November 3, 2005 - 6:05pm

Luke-
I've had to withstand many things here at SOLO, but your utter ridiculousness I will not take. As Robert Ingersoll once said of New Jersey, I have decided to leave this site in ignorance.(to any mods out there, I'M JOKING!)

I think something along these lines would be the proper response to 'mental abuse'. How can anyone with any self-esteem be mentally abused. Could a Howard Rourk or a John Galt suffer mental abuse?

Now, although I meant none of that and apologize in advance to anyone who felt offended by that stream of verbally abusive vulgarity, I hope I have illustrated my point. Imagine dealing eight hours per day or more with someone so verbally abusive and with no tools of self-esteem at your disposal as a spiritual shield. What would happen to your stress level? It would most likely go through the roof. Your self-esteem? Down the toilet.

I can't imagine dealing with this for eight hours per day, I would simply leave. My take on this is that mental abuse is a self-inflicted torture.

Post 52

Thursday, November 3, 2005 - 6:29pm

Jody:
     I think that Luke got it wrong. That stuff is 'old' mental abuse.

     Nowadays it's really: "Jody, you closet-PC'r. Accept being outted and 'fess up your secret support of Rosemary's actions and your cash-donations to PETA and NOW. We can read between the lines. That you are even male (nm 'white') is your Original Sin, and you know it; why compound it with staying hidden? You know you'd vote for Hillary given half a chance."

     Now, THAT's 'mental abuse.'

LLAP
J:D

Post 53

Thursday, November 3, 2005 - 6:52pm

Cheez, I reach into the deepest bowels of the most absolutely evil and abusive anger I can muster, and my post raises not even a blink from the audience. I guess I will never make it to the rank of Sith Lord. I had better stick with my day job!

Post 54

Thursday, November 3, 2005 - 7:09pm

Perhaps Howard Roark didn't suffer mental abuse - but how about Steve Mallory?

Post 55

Thursday, November 3, 2005 - 7:13pm

Luke wrote: " There may be instances where a lawsuit to block such abuse is warranted, but I remain very, very�skeptical.� I am thinking here of the suicidal situations that Sarah mentioned.� The better option is to toughen the mind of the target so that such abuse deflects harmlessly like water from a duck's back."

Good enough for adults, was wondering if that was applicable to children whose parents may subject them to such abuse?

Post 56

Thursday, November 3, 2005 - 8:13pm

Jody,

To address your question seriously, everybody has a breaking point. I don't have time right now, but if you look, you will be able to find a copy of the old CIA interrogation (and brainwashing) manual that was released because of the Freedom of Information Act.

I remember skimming it and it did include several "mental abuse" techniques for cracking difficult subjects.

Michael

Post 57

Thursday, November 3, 2005 - 8:15pm

Michael-
Even if these techniques work, there is one difference between them and the mental abuse cases being talked about by people here--the recipients of the CIA methods do not have the opportunity to simply leave.

Post 58

Thursday, November 3, 2005 - 8:27pm

Jody,

People get stuck for many reasons. On the surface, leaving might seem to be easy, but in context, there are many pressures.

It is extremely difficult for a child, for example, to leave his home because of being the butt end of repeated irrational rages from one of his parents - even if there is no physical abuse. The resentment and hatred (or sometimes blinding fear) that this causes is a huge inner barrier for a person to overcome.

There are many examples. The cult mentality of followers is another prime example - how they were induced (but not leaving out their part in it either, both volitional and otherwise, all of which is a HUGE topic).

Michael

Post 59

Friday, November 4, 2005 - 12:59am