Right? Late 18th / early 19th century surgery was almost more dangerous than the wounds.
sxan
Hmmm.
I'd phrase it differently. Unrealistic expectations of the opposite sex [^1] exist by both sexes, but that there outcomes for women when the stereotypes of men hold true are often more dangerous. One is saying it isn't sexist; the other is saying that there's a vast difference in risk. This becomes one of those tautological arguments where women can't be sexist because sexism is redefined to mean "it can only be sexist if it's men doing it."
The "Would you rather a bear or..." question could be reused in a very uncomfortable way. You could swap men with a group of yoing, black, inner city men and rural white men for women. But instead of demonstrating that men are the issue and women the victims, suddenly it'd be black men who are the victims and rural white men the problem. And, yet, the fear and the risk of confirmation of stereotypes is the same - only in this case, believing those stereotypes makes people racist.
These sorts of tautologies - only whites can be racist, only men can be sexist - is sloppy, lazy, and dangerous, because it prevents introspection and always externalizes blame. I'm not saying that you are arguing a tautology, but that's the essence of this thread: minimizing sexism against men in the basis that it can't be sexism if rape isn't involved. Which is exactly how this thread went, isn't it?
I want to reiterate that I agree that there's a false equivalency; consequences for women can be higher. My argument is that it doesn't make it not sexism to broadly brush all men with a demeaning funny little tweet.
Also: there should be a Godwin's Law for rape. The conversation was about household stereotypes. That was a bit of a leap.
Naw, I'm just a non-Seattelite with a narrow definition of Capital Hill. My aunt and uncle own a house a couple of blocks down from Volunteer Park on 14th. The few times I've been there, all I've seen of Capitol Hill are those few blocks of million dollar homes. I'm vaguely aware that it's a larger area than just that (rarified) section, but that's how I think of it, and I still put that area in the "more expensive" category.
Seattle for me is the fish market and that section of Capitol Hill. You know how it is visiting family for holidays: you see their neighborhood, and "the sights," and not much else.
Right. Except that it was Zeus' mother, Rhea who, tired of her husband eating all their sons, gave Cronus the rock in swaddling clothes and hid infant Zeus away in a cave.
But, basically, right.
🕸️🕷️
But that's not a very friendly spider emoji. I sense an unfair bias.
/╲/\ºo;88;oº/\╱\
Greater opportunity, yes; however, cash is still legal tender in the US and it used to be illegal to not accept it as payment (this may have changed). And, as the payer, make sure you get a receipt so they can't screw you and if the landlord doesn't pay taxes, you're not culpable - it's their responsibility, not your's.
Cash is fine. The receipt is important, though, for a number of reasons. Not many people are going to go withdraw $1,100 just to pay rent, unless they're getting a discount for cash, which is a good indication there's some tax dodging going on.
Even if you trade sex for rent, get a receipt saying you paid your rent.
Making it an excellent bargain.
However: it doesn't sound as if she didn't accept only because she wanted to be faithful; it sounds as if she was upset by the experience. So, fuck anon. He can go see if the landlord will accept something from him, instead.
He likes the creamy filling the most.
laughs
There are no 1 bed, 1 ba on Capital Hill, unless someone's renting you their in-law suite.
Dr*g?
So, I was at my pharmacy today getting my prescription dr*gs, and afterward stopped by my dealer to pick up some fucking heroin.
This guy is looking at the long view. If you read it to the end, he's starting his own garlic farm and is going to constantly undercut Jim's prices, so that Jim won't make any (or many) sales, until Jim goes out of business. He's doing this even if it means a loss for himself; his goal is to ruin Jim's business.
Now, this is what's known in Birdman culture as "a Dick Move," but Jim seems a bit of a dick himself. However, while it might screw up the beginning of my season, if I were Jim I'd simply pivot to onions.
It all comes down to how far OP's poster is willing to take it. He certainly seems petty enough to pursue all paths, at whatever cost, to prevent Jim from being able to still produce at that farmer's market; changing crops as Jim changes crops. If Jim's invested enough, he could rotate his crops between a half-dozen different root stocks and the odds Vengeance Boy would happen to match whatever he's selling that season would be slim and spoil his plan.
The what app‽
It never occurred to me to check for an app. I see a couple in the Play store, but not this one - is it an iOS app?
Holy cow, though... this is a game changer! Thank you!