This username?
Thanks to the tech angels checking.
#amionthelist
Thanks to the tech angels checking.
#amionthelist
@bigbensweiner: There are rules about what portion of your care you'll have to pay for. If any condition or disease developed for reasons other than your time in service, you will be subject to a modest copay for medications and hospital stay, but if you're enrolled, we'll treat you. The policy about copays applies to ANY condition of illness not related to military service, it's not a special discriminatory policy for STIs.
@bigbensweiner: There may have been once, but no longer. We treat everything a VA patient has including STIs. Not only do we treat all STI's, but have a very open campaign to encourage veterans to get tested for HIV and other diseases, and have clinical staff to manage those conditions.
@PommeDeReinette: Yeah, I'm really not sure what to think about the whole thing. Lying about being on the pill is clearly the wrong thing to do, and may in fact be rape if your partner's consent was predicated upon the belief that you were in fact taking the pill.
But isn't there also discussion to be had about the wisdom/fairness/safety of making only one partner responsible for contraception? The pill can fail, that doesn't mean your girlfriend lied to you. Is it victim-blaming to say anyone in a sexual relationship should be assuming some responsibility for securing their own health? If for no other reason than that the pill and condoms can fail even when used properly?
It does seem like this line of thought could be used to try and craft a kind of retroactive withdrawl of consent "I agreed to have sex with you as long as there were no negative consequences for me. You got pregnant, it must be your fault, therefor you raped me and I'm not responsible".
But isn't there also discussion to be had about the wisdom/fairness/safety of making only one partner responsible for contraception? The pill can fail, that doesn't mean your girlfriend lied to you. Is it victim-blaming to say anyone in a sexual relationship should be assuming some responsibility for securing their own health? If for no other reason than that the pill and condoms can fail even when used properly?
It does seem like this line of thought could be used to try and craft a kind of retroactive withdrawl of consent "I agreed to have sex with you as long as there were no negative consequences for me. You got pregnant, it must be your fault, therefor you raped me and I'm not responsible".
@WillSmithsMom:
That's a fair criticism - I did that because it seems to me that it is much easier to see if someone is not wearing a condom than it is to see if someone did not take their Pill. Absence of a physical thing is different that absense of something that isn't typically witnessed in the first place. If someone consents to sex only under the circumstance that their partner is using contraception (which is another discussion all together about the wisdom of making one's partner solely responsible for contrraception/protection) and that partner promises to abide by said condition, but then willfully does not (i'm omitting accidental/undetected condom breaks/food posioning or vomiting after taking the pill) then yes, whichever actor is guilty of lying to their partner is the one who has negated their partner's consent, not the person who set the condition and later found out their terms were not honored.
My concern is that accusing women of tampering with birth control when they get pregnant is not an uncommon tactic for men who wish to avoid responsibility. There's a perception that we're all baby hungry she-devils out to trap men and their precious sperm, and that if a woman gets pregnant on the pill, she *must* have been lying about taking it. I'm leery of giving that view point more legitmacy, which is why I brought up the inherent difficulty in even knowing when someone is not taking their pill when they said they were.
There are differences in even knowing when such an act ocurred - if you look down at a guy after he's pulled out and there's no condom anywhere around, yeah, it's reasonable to assume he didn't wear one. If a woman turns up pregnant, it's not necessarily as valid to assume she lied about taking the pill. It's not a question of men or women automatically being more trustworthy, or violations of some people counting more than others, but of the ability to know the act ocurred in the first place.
That's a fair criticism - I did that because it seems to me that it is much easier to see if someone is not wearing a condom than it is to see if someone did not take their Pill. Absence of a physical thing is different that absense of something that isn't typically witnessed in the first place. If someone consents to sex only under the circumstance that their partner is using contraception (which is another discussion all together about the wisdom of making one's partner solely responsible for contrraception/protection) and that partner promises to abide by said condition, but then willfully does not (i'm omitting accidental/undetected condom breaks/food posioning or vomiting after taking the pill) then yes, whichever actor is guilty of lying to their partner is the one who has negated their partner's consent, not the person who set the condition and later found out their terms were not honored.
My concern is that accusing women of tampering with birth control when they get pregnant is not an uncommon tactic for men who wish to avoid responsibility. There's a perception that we're all baby hungry she-devils out to trap men and their precious sperm, and that if a woman gets pregnant on the pill, she *must* have been lying about taking it. I'm leery of giving that view point more legitmacy, which is why I brought up the inherent difficulty in even knowing when someone is not taking their pill when they said they were.
There are differences in even knowing when such an act ocurred - if you look down at a guy after he's pulled out and there's no condom anywhere around, yeah, it's reasonable to assume he didn't wear one. If a woman turns up pregnant, it's not necessarily as valid to assume she lied about taking the pill. It's not a question of men or women automatically being more trustworthy, or violations of some people counting more than others, but of the ability to know the act ocurred in the first place.
@lockdog: You can't "retroactively" withdraw consent. If someone asks you stop during sex and you don't, it's rape. If consent is predicated upon using a condom, you agree to, but choose not to after having agreed to that condition, you are the one who nullified consent. It's not really a question of retroactive anything.
WRT the pill, that's a really interesting question, and one that merits consideration. If lying about a condom can be understood as rape or some kind of sex crime, why couldn't lying about being on the pill? I think it would be difficult to verify though - how would someone know his partner was not on the pill. Whereas a condomless dick is pretty easy to spot, you can't see the absence of artificial hormones in my body. And pregnancy cannot be understood as proof of lying or forgetting - you can get pregnant while taking the pill. I can see how it's based on the same philosophy about consent and respecting one's partner's boundaries for consent, but the logistics seem tricky.
WRT the pill, that's a really interesting question, and one that merits consideration. If lying about a condom can be understood as rape or some kind of sex crime, why couldn't lying about being on the pill? I think it would be difficult to verify though - how would someone know his partner was not on the pill. Whereas a condomless dick is pretty easy to spot, you can't see the absence of artificial hormones in my body. And pregnancy cannot be understood as proof of lying or forgetting - you can get pregnant while taking the pill. I can see how it's based on the same philosophy about consent and respecting one's partner's boundaries for consent, but the logistics seem tricky.
@dlinkwit27: Fun fact: student loans are not impacted by bankruptcy. You will still have to pay them back in full with interest!
@kackerlacka: this site is bascially a lesser-known Onion, right?
#tips
#tips
@Blairbarella: Ha, gottcha. They're so damn absurd it's hard to tell snark from something they might have said!
@Blairbarella: Eh, I'm not sure about that. Miller seems to be a whiner, and a jerk, but I'm not certain he's target ballots with 'feminine' handwriting because the writers might have been women. He's an opportunist, and one of the ways his campaign is challenging votes is by claiming cursive is disllowed and that curvy letters look like other letters. I'd bet anything they're saying the 'u' in the lower-right hand ballot is actually an 'a' and therefore invalid. His record indicates some anti-woman policies, but I'm pretty sure this is a sleazy election tactic, not an anti-woman agenda.
Whatever his motives though, it sure seems like a particularly cowardly and underhanded way to try and 'win' an election.
Whatever his motives though, it sure seems like a particularly cowardly and underhanded way to try and 'win' an election.
I thought the Tea Party was supposed to champion the will of the common American and all that. I wonder how he reconciled disenfranchising voters on spelling and penmannship with standing up for the little guy. Sounds awfully elitist to me.
@funchefchick: It's possible it's about MO Prop B. The state just passed a law banning puppy mills, and the Teabaggers in the state are all pissed that it's too much gov't intrusion, blah blah blah, and some legislators are actually talking about changing the *passed* prop because the people who voted against it don't like it.
#groupthink
#groupthink
@I'm Ron Burgundy?: " I don't believe the police would allow a child to stay in a house of a parent/relative that is being believed to be sexually or physically abusive."
That's true, a child would be moved into a foster or group home. But an adult cannot be forcibly restrained from seeing their abusers, as happens all too often. She could have filed for a restraining order, or move somewhere, or seek a shelter. But the law does not allow for all suspects to be held indefinitely during an investigation, and a reporting victim certainly cannot be.
She should have been offered far more resources to help her get and stay away from her, but it's not the police's failing for not allowing her to go home.
That's true, a child would be moved into a foster or group home. But an adult cannot be forcibly restrained from seeing their abusers, as happens all too often. She could have filed for a restraining order, or move somewhere, or seek a shelter. But the law does not allow for all suspects to be held indefinitely during an investigation, and a reporting victim certainly cannot be.
She should have been offered far more resources to help her get and stay away from her, but it's not the police's failing for not allowing her to go home.
@bowel_and_the_obstructors: because police will often refuse to touch matters on a college campus, and because victims often do not want them handled criminally. I heard girl after girl come in and ask about the procedure for reporting sexual assault (only hypothetically of course) who would not make a formal complaint on the record unless she was promised no one would call the police. As much as I think every rapist should go to jail, i'd rather at least see them suspended internally than see rapes go unreported because a victim can't bring herself to deal with a rape kit, police investigation and trial.
And it's not a PR issue - sexual assualts, whether reported to the police or not, are like all crimes required to be publicly reported under the terms of the Cleary Act. Every University in the country should have an annual crime report available to the public. One that's found to be underreporting crimes in these reports is subject to major fines under the law.
And it's not a PR issue - sexual assualts, whether reported to the police or not, are like all crimes required to be publicly reported under the terms of the Cleary Act. Every University in the country should have an annual crime report available to the public. One that's found to be underreporting crimes in these reports is subject to major fines under the law.
[www.stltoday.com]
[www.stltoday.com]
University takes action on campus rape the city refused to prosecute, school's basketball fans proceed to lose their shit about the lost season.
#tips
[www.stltoday.com]
University takes action on campus rape the city refused to prosecute, school's basketball fans proceed to lose their shit about the lost season.
#tips
@banzailibrarian: I can't help but comment on the Shippey shout-out! I was fortunate enough to take one of his courses in undergrad. At the time, I just needed an upper-level English course, and had a casual interest in the subject matter. Holy cow, am I grateful for the opportunity to have learned about Tolkien and Norse mythology from someone with that incredible a knowledge base and body of scholarly work.
And I still refrain from acting like I know what I'm talking about, since I was a mere lowly poli sci major who just happened to luck out and find herself in an amazing lit course.
#groupthink
And I still refrain from acting like I know what I'm talking about, since I was a mere lowly poli sci major who just happened to luck out and find herself in an amazing lit course.
#groupthink
@Katie Did.: I assume you'll be having some sort of permanent sterilization done to assure you're not wasting space and resources on your own children that could be used to save already born children?
The problem of children in foster care or orphanages is not a small one, but it's wrong to place the burden on rescuing all these children on the infertile alone, especially given the very real barriers to adoption that exist. In many countries, states and agencies, being over a certain age. having chronic conditions, any history of mental health issues including depression, being overweight or obese, being single, being gay, being the 'wrong' race, nationality or religion are all reasons to be excluded from adoption. Not to mention that it is incredible expensive and heart-rending for those who are NOT excluded by the the legitimate systems in place.
The complaint that there are parentless children is an extremely legitimate one, but let's keep in mind that not everyone chooses to not adtop - that choice is made in advance for many. And the desire to have one's own child is no more selfish for people who resort to technology than it is for anyone else.
While we're complaining about people who want their "oooowwwwwnnn", I hope we save some condemnation for the systems that keep abandoned children trapped in orphanages and foster care, a society that provides zero financial or social support for families who choose to adopt or raise severaly disabled children. And for that matter, anyone who chooses to birth their own or have dogs instead of kids. Surely everyone has an obligation to take care of these kids, and not just the people with fertility problems?
The problem of children in foster care or orphanages is not a small one, but it's wrong to place the burden on rescuing all these children on the infertile alone, especially given the very real barriers to adoption that exist. In many countries, states and agencies, being over a certain age. having chronic conditions, any history of mental health issues including depression, being overweight or obese, being single, being gay, being the 'wrong' race, nationality or religion are all reasons to be excluded from adoption. Not to mention that it is incredible expensive and heart-rending for those who are NOT excluded by the the legitimate systems in place.
The complaint that there are parentless children is an extremely legitimate one, but let's keep in mind that not everyone chooses to not adtop - that choice is made in advance for many. And the desire to have one's own child is no more selfish for people who resort to technology than it is for anyone else.
While we're complaining about people who want their "oooowwwwwnnn", I hope we save some condemnation for the systems that keep abandoned children trapped in orphanages and foster care, a society that provides zero financial or social support for families who choose to adopt or raise severaly disabled children. And for that matter, anyone who chooses to birth their own or have dogs instead of kids. Surely everyone has an obligation to take care of these kids, and not just the people with fertility problems?
@Ofmyself: I think there's a population of women who start trying to get pregnant right after getting off the Pill. Anecdotal to be sure, but among my friends, I know several who are actively planning to try getting pregnant within the next year . They're all still on the Pill, but are taking vitamins and preparing to be pregnant in the near future. I can see this being a legit need. And there are women who are seeking to prevent pregnany, but would carry to term if they got pregnant. The Pill can and does fail, and people respond to those things differently. I don't see how giving someone a little extra folate in case they conceive or to give them a head start when they choose to try to is a bad thing.
#tips
#tips
@outsidevoice: There's a huge difference btw masturbating while thinking of someone you find attractive, and proposing masturbating over someone because you know they'd hate in. The first case is normal and healthy. The second is getting off on someone's discomfort, which is pretty damn gross. When knowing someone would hate it is the appeal to using them as fantasy material, that's when you've left the world of normal and healthy sexual expression.
