Explaining Consent to Feminazis

[grbb]

Women do let you grab them by the pussy if you're a star. So be a star.

I do not see any non consensual meaning there. I mean you can sort of push it.

If he said, women let you grab them by the pussy if you're a murder convict than it may means something non consensual.

If women will let you grab them by the pussy if you're paying, it's still consensual.

If women will let you grab them by the pussy if you're a star, not only it's consensual, it's consensual even under feminazi standard so what's the fucking problem.

 

[emilynghiem]

grbb I think the point you are trying to address is if people will FORGIVE a person or not for doing something.
People may FORGIVE someone they don't want to pursue charges against, and may FORGIVE a celebrity for doing it. Or it can go the other way, if there is more money in charging and suing them.

Either way, forgiving and letting it slide is still NOT the same as "consenting" to be grabbed like that in the first place, without permission or understanding in advance.

Many rape victims are known not to press charges for personal reasons, but that doesn't mean they consented to the rape.

 

[The Great Goose]

Machiavelli the prince

 

[aaronleland]

 

[PurpleOwl]

Women do let you grab them by the pussy if you're a star. So be a star.

who should be a star?

 

[The Great Goose]

you idiot.

 

[grbb]

So the word "let" could mean forgiving. It could also mean consenting.

From the context it looks like it means consenting.

What makes you think it means forgiving?

Notice that sex is a far less serious issue. It is no longer inseparable from reproduction. Paternity tests, contraceptive, and so on ensure that men cannot simply fuck and run no matter what. Mere inappropriate touching is causes light damage compared to looting, burglary and robbery.

 

[emilynghiem]

So the word "let" could mean forgiving. It could also mean consenting.

From the context it looks like it means consenting.

What makes you think it means forgiving?

Notice that sex is a far less serious issue. It is no longer inseparable from reproduction. Paternity tests, contraceptive, and so on ensure that men cannot simply fuck and run no matter what. Mere inappropriate touching is causes light damage compared to looting, burglary and robbery.

grbb in general, people "let" people get away with things even though they don't agree.
if someone "lets" you pay a loan back late, though it inconveniences them and they didn't agree for it to be late,
it was better than not getting paid at all so they forgive it. But they never consented to that.

That's just life experience that letting someone do something is not the same as consenting to it.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

This is not an appropriate topic for the CDZ. Thread moved

 

[miketx]

In my opinion, most of the feminazis are so ugly no one in their right mind would touch them with a ten foot pole.

This is most likely why they are so opinionated. If Trump, or for that matter, any man would grope them they would feel whole, stay home and cook and clean and keep their nasty hole closed.

 

[emilynghiem]

In my opinion, most of the feminazis are so ugly no one in their right mind would touch them with a ten foot pole.

This is most likely why they are so opinionated. If Trump, or for that matter, any man would grope them they would feel whole, stay home and cook and clean and keep their nasty hole closed.

Dear miketx sadly a lot of times it's the other way.
Because men abuse women, that can cause them to turn to fearing and hating men.
And seek love from people they can trust and turn to women.

 

[The Great Goose]

feminazis are lesbians. You will never reason with them that THEIR women actually want and belong to men.

 

[emilynghiem]

feminazis are lesbians. You will never reason with them that THEIR women actually want and belong to men.

The Great Goose
Husband and wife are supposed to submit one to another in Christ.
It is only when the husband agrees to receive Christ as authority,
then through that authority does the husband become of the head of the family and the wife the partner.
But if there isn't that agreement, no, the man does not have authority over the woman.

Similar with govt. If officials agree to follow the Constitution,
this authority is what gives them power to enforce laws on behalf of people.
But if govt is not following the laws, and the people take up this
authority and invoke it, then it's the people enforcing the laws who bear authority.
Then we the people use that to rebuke our govt to enforce the laws.

It's an equal relationship where we share responsibility for the laws
though our roles are different.

 

[The Great Goose]

feminazis are lesbians. You will never reason with them that THEIR women actually want and belong to men.

The Great Goose
Husband and wife are supposed to submit one to another in Christ.
It is only when the husband agrees to receive Christ as authority,
then through that authority does the husband become of the head of the family and the wife the partner.
But if there isn't that agreement, no, the man does not have authority over the woman.

Similar with govt. If officials agree to follow the Constitution,
this authority is what gives them power to enforce laws on behalf of people.
But if govt is not following the laws, and the people take up this
authority and invoke it, then it's the people enforcing the laws who bear authority.
Then we the people use that to rebuke our govt to enforce the laws.

It's an equal relationship where we share responsibility for the laws
though our roles are different.

Yes but try telling that to a lesbian.

 

[emilynghiem]

feminazis are lesbians. You will never reason with them that THEIR women actually want and belong to men.

The Great Goose
Husband and wife are supposed to submit one to another in Christ.
It is only when the husband agrees to receive Christ as authority,
then through that authority does the husband become of the head of the family and the wife the partner.
But if there isn't that agreement, no, the man does not have authority over the woman.

Similar with govt. If officials agree to follow the Constitution,
this authority is what gives them power to enforce laws on behalf of people.
But if govt is not following the laws, and the people take up this
authority and invoke it, then it's the people enforcing the laws who bear authority.
Then we the people use that to rebuke our govt to enforce the laws.

It's an equal relationship where we share responsibility for the laws
though our roles are different.

Yes but try telling that to a lesbian.

Ha ha The Great Goose
seriously, when I brought in Christian prolife activists to speak with a prochoice women's group,
one of the women could not resolve a disagreement (about if "patriarchy" was the solution or the problem) with the Eagle Forum member who said "patriarchy" was the structure of her beliefs and she can't denounce it. I said that maybe the Christian word for the "oppressive negative patriarchy" that feminists are against as abusive is a different term like "Antichrist" which is a twisted abuse of Christian authority, and isn't the positive type that Christianity means.
The Christian said, well maybe that explains the problem.
The next week the feminist came up to me and said she looked this up and thought about it,
and decided the positive meaning taught in Christianity was more like a "protectorate" type of relationship
and she had nothing against that meaning of patriarchal tradition or roles.

So that is one way it can be explained to feminists.
If the male role is supposed to be protectorate type of role and not authoritarian to dictate or control,
then it doesn't have to mean the oppressive abusive type of dominance by males that they are against.

In general when I explain Jesus means Justice and the symbolism of Lord means Law,
then the Authority of Jesus is like "Equal Justice under Law"
and that is supposed to protect all people equally from injustice and oppression.

 

[The Great Goose]

feminazis are lesbians. You will never reason with them that THEIR women actually want and belong to men.

The Great Goose
Husband and wife are supposed to submit one to another in Christ.
It is only when the husband agrees to receive Christ as authority,
then through that authority does the husband become of the head of the family and the wife the partner.
But if there isn't that agreement, no, the man does not have authority over the woman.

Similar with govt. If officials agree to follow the Constitution,
this authority is what gives them power to enforce laws on behalf of people.
But if govt is not following the laws, and the people take up this
authority and invoke it, then it's the people enforcing the laws who bear authority.
Then we the people use that to rebuke our govt to enforce the laws.

It's an equal relationship where we share responsibility for the laws
though our roles are different.

Yes but try telling that to a lesbian.

Ha ha The Great Goose
seriously, when I brought in Christian prolife activists to speak with a prochoice women's group,
one of the women could not resolve a disagreement (about if "patriarchy" was the solution or the problem) with the Eagle Forum member who said "patriarchy" was the structure of her beliefs and she can't denounce it. I said that maybe the Christian word for the "oppressive negative patriarchy" that feminists are against as abusive is a different term like "Antichrist" which is a twisted abuse of Christian authority, and isn't the positive type that Christianity means.
The Christian said, well maybe that explains the problem.
The next week the feminist came up to me and said she looked this up and thought about it,
and decided the positive meaning taught in Christianity was more like a "protectorate" type of relationship
and she had nothing against that meaning of patriarchal tradition or roles.

So that is one way it can be explained to feminists.
If the male role is supposed to be protectorate type of role and not authoritarian to dictate or control,
then it doesn't have to mean the oppressive abusive type of dominance by males that they are against.

In general when I explain Jesus means Justice and the symbolism of Lord means Law,
then the Authority of Jesus is like "Equal Justice under Law"
and that is supposed to protect all people equally from injustice and oppression.

She was only being conciliatory with you because she wanted you.

 

[emilynghiem]

feminazis are lesbians. You will never reason with them that THEIR women actually want and belong to men.

The Great Goose
Husband and wife are supposed to submit one to another in Christ.
It is only when the husband agrees to receive Christ as authority,
then through that authority does the husband become of the head of the family and the wife the partner.
But if there isn't that agreement, no, the man does not have authority over the woman.

Similar with govt. If officials agree to follow the Constitution,
this authority is what gives them power to enforce laws on behalf of people.
But if govt is not following the laws, and the people take up this
authority and invoke it, then it's the people enforcing the laws who bear authority.
Then we the people use that to rebuke our govt to enforce the laws.

It's an equal relationship where we share responsibility for the laws
though our roles are different.

Yes but try telling that to a lesbian.

Ha ha The Great Goose
seriously, when I brought in Christian prolife activists to speak with a prochoice women's group,
one of the women could not resolve a disagreement (about if "patriarchy" was the solution or the problem) with the Eagle Forum member who said "patriarchy" was the structure of her beliefs and she can't denounce it. I said that maybe the Christian word for the "oppressive negative patriarchy" that feminists are against as abusive is a different term like "Antichrist" which is a twisted abuse of Christian authority, and isn't the positive type that Christianity means.
The Christian said, well maybe that explains the problem.
The next week the feminist came up to me and said she looked this up and thought about it,
and decided the positive meaning taught in Christianity was more like a "protectorate" type of relationship
and she had nothing against that meaning of patriarchal tradition or roles.

So that is one way it can be explained to feminists.
If the male role is supposed to be protectorate type of role and not authoritarian to dictate or control,
then it doesn't have to mean the oppressive abusive type of dominance by males that they are against.

In general when I explain Jesus means Justice and the symbolism of Lord means Law,
then the Authority of Jesus is like "Equal Justice under Law"
and that is supposed to protect all people equally from injustice and oppression.

She was only being conciliatory with you because she wanted you.

Funny The Great Goose for more reasons than you think
1. when people hit on me they make it clear.
Because I'm a free speech advocate, people quickly pick up they
can say anything they want to me and in my presence and I will work with them
even if we don't agree. So believe me, I've had all kinds of people hit on me openly and honestly
2. when people Don't agree to reconcile they make it clear
when they do agree they make it clear
when they aren't sure if it's close enough they make it clear
I never met anyone who could lie and say they forgave something if they didn't
they make it clear
they Don't want to talk about something or don't want to DEAL with someone
no, they don't lie about that

So this consensus business is harder in some ways to reach
but it's easy in the sense that people are dead right honest
if they "consent" or not. They will tell you right up if they agree
disagree or not quite sure. you can also read it in their
actions if they are behind something or just going along.

There is no reason to fake it, because the only way
to get what they want is to be honest about yes and no.

 

[The Great Goose]

feminazis are lesbians. You will never reason with them that THEIR women actually want and belong to men.

The Great Goose
Husband and wife are supposed to submit one to another in Christ.
It is only when the husband agrees to receive Christ as authority,
then through that authority does the husband become of the head of the family and the wife the partner.
But if there isn't that agreement, no, the man does not have authority over the woman.

Similar with govt. If officials agree to follow the Constitution,
this authority is what gives them power to enforce laws on behalf of people.
But if govt is not following the laws, and the people take up this
authority and invoke it, then it's the people enforcing the laws who bear authority.
Then we the people use that to rebuke our govt to enforce the laws.

It's an equal relationship where we share responsibility for the laws
though our roles are different.

Yes but try telling that to a lesbian.

Ha ha The Great Goose
seriously, when I brought in Christian prolife activists to speak with a prochoice women's group,
one of the women could not resolve a disagreement (about if "patriarchy" was the solution or the problem) with the Eagle Forum member who said "patriarchy" was the structure of her beliefs and she can't denounce it. I said that maybe the Christian word for the "oppressive negative patriarchy" that feminists are against as abusive is a different term like "Antichrist" which is a twisted abuse of Christian authority, and isn't the positive type that Christianity means.
The Christian said, well maybe that explains the problem.
The next week the feminist came up to me and said she looked this up and thought about it,
and decided the positive meaning taught in Christianity was more like a "protectorate" type of relationship
and she had nothing against that meaning of patriarchal tradition or roles.

So that is one way it can be explained to feminists.
If the male role is supposed to be protectorate type of role and not authoritarian to dictate or control,
then it doesn't have to mean the oppressive abusive type of dominance by males that they are against.

In general when I explain Jesus means Justice and the symbolism of Lord means Law,
then the Authority of Jesus is like "Equal Justice under Law"
and that is supposed to protect all people equally from injustice and oppression.

She was only being conciliatory with you because she wanted you.

Funny The Great Goose for more reasons than you think
1. when people hit on me they make it clear.
Because I'm a free speech advocate, people quickly pick up they
can say anything they want to me and in my presence and I will work with them
even if we don't agree. So believe me, I've had all kinds of people hit on me openly and honestly
2. when people Don't agree to reconcile they make it clear
when they do agree they make it clear
when they aren't sure if it's close enough they make it clear
I never met anyone who could lie and say they forgave something if they didn't
they make it clear
they Don't want to talk about something or don't want to DEAL with someone
no, they don't lie about that

So this consensus business is harder in some ways to reach
but it's easy in the sense that people are dead right honest
if they "consent" or not. They will tell you right up if they agree
disagree or not quite sure. you can also read it in their
actions if they are behind something or just going along.

There is no reason to fake it, because the only way
to get what they want is to be honest about yes and no.

You know your business well. It's all complex to me. I can see you have an extremely organised mind and you make complicated points in the most concise way possible.

I'm more simple minded.

 

[WinterBorn]

feminazis are lesbians. You will never reason with them that THEIR women actually want and belong to men.

You are saying that the women who are with feminazis (if lesbians) actually want men? And belong to men?

 

[anotherlife]

Women do let you grab them by the pussy if you're a star. So be a star.

I do not see any non consensual meaning there. I mean you can sort of push it.

If he said, women let you grab them by the pussy if you're a murder convict than it may means something non consensual.

If women will let you grab them by the pussy if you're paying, it's still consensual.

If women will let you grab them by the pussy if you're a star, not only it's consensual, it's consensual even under feminazi standard so what's the fucking problem.

Feminazi standard is only about extortion. Ergo, the next line should be, women let you grab them by the pussy if you seem like they can sue later.