As Harvard Sees It, If You're Male And Not A Total Weenie, You're Guilty Of Sexual Misconduct
Asking a woman out -- more than once -- after she says no, is now considered sexual misconduct, according to a Harvard University survey.
From The Weekly Standard's Naomi Schaefer Riley on Harvard's push to close single-sex clubs:
The survey the university conducted, which again was the impetus for changing the final club policy, was badly written and poorly analyzed. The questions themselves were deeply confusing. "Since you have been a student at Harvard University has a student or someone employed by or otherwise associated with Harvard . . . continued to ask you to go out, get dinner, have drinks or have sex even though you said no?" If you answered yes to that question, you were counted as a victim of sexual assault.
And Cathy Young for the correction on Riley's term "sexual assault":
That's not true. It described both as sexual misconduct but had a separate category for sexual assault (though still very broadly defined) https://t.co/Rfzem1f9jk
— Cathy Young (@CathyYoung63) October 19, 2017
Here's a link to the document, in which it's listed under "Harassment." (All of the questions are sex-related, so it's clearly sexual harassment or "misconduct.")
And check out the pussy stuff on the list -- a person's hearing an "offensive" joke is now considered harassment:
D1. Since you have been a student at [], has a student, or someone employed by or otherwise associated with [] made sexual remarks or told jokes or stories that were insulting or offensive to you?D2. Since you have been a student at [], has a student, or someone employed by or otherwise associated with [] made inappropriate or offensive comments about your or someone else's body, appearance or sexual activities?
D3. Since you have been a student at [], has a student, or someone employed by or otherwise associated with [] said crude or gross sexual things to you or tried to get you to talk about sexual matters when you didn't want to?
D4. Since you have been a student at [], has a student, or someone employed by or otherwise associated with [] emailed, texted, tweeted, phoned, or instant messaged offensive sexual remarks, jokes, stories, pictures or videos to you that you didn't want
D5. Since you have been a student at [], has a student, or someone employed by or otherwise associated with [] continued to ask you to go out, get dinner, have drinks or have sex even though you said, "No"?
But back to Harvard's apparent notion that men should not be persistent -- or they're borderline criminal...
How many women here have had relationships after somebody they'd turned down for a date kept asking -- and they finally went out with him?
A guy's being able to do that -- to dust himself off and keep going for what he wants despite being rejected, is a signal of mate quality, to use the anthro-speak.
This is how the human race has continued.
Had men, over human history, played it Harvard's way, well, there'd be far fewer people on the planet and a lot more cockroaches.
Related -- and don't forget to buy your copy of my science-based and darkly funny book, "Good Manners for Nice People Who Sometimes Say F*ck":
via @CathyYoung63
I remember once I was engaged in a twitter debate with someone who told me that the oppressed victims should be the ones to decide was constitutes offensive conduct.
I countered that allowing women, for instance, to define the terms of offensive conduct cultivates victim mentality and creates systems of privilege, not equality.
Masculinity is not toxic. Victim culture is toxic.
Patrick at October 19, 2017 5:07 AM
Had men, over human history, played it Harvard's way, well, there'd be far fewer people on the planet and a lot more cockroaches.
With the world population estimated to have reached 7.6 billion as of October 2017, the planet could stand to have far fewer people on it. Humans are like cockroaches, only far more voracious when it comes to the Earth's limited resources.
JD at October 19, 2017 6:16 AM
I married mr persistant. He had balls.
Im sending my kids to the military, not college, unless academia pulls a 180 in the next 7 years.
Momof4 at October 19, 2017 6:19 AM
My dad started his career as a marine, courtesy of govt invitation in Nam. Wonder how the Harvard pussies would have handled my childhood. "Quit being a pantywaist" was my dads answer to any childhood complaint. Equally applied to me and my brothers. My dad had no separate expectations by gender.
Older bro went to Harvard law. Were he there now he'd probably be arrested, just for making jokes.
Momof4 at October 19, 2017 6:25 AM
"Humans are like cockroaches, only far more voracious when it comes to the Earth's limited resources."
That's a sorry view of humanity. I don't see myself or any of my family or friends or loved ones, or even people that I meet on the street, as cockroaches. As for the Earth's "limited resources": (1) pretty much every atom of food eaten, water drank, and air breathed by any human ever is still here on Earth, where it always has been, and (2) there are lots of other places to live in the universe. (It'll take some time to get to those places and get living conditions set up -- which is why we need to get started.)
Side rant: It's ridiculous when people say that "we're running out of water". The Earth's surface is about 80% water. Nobody is exporting water off of Earth (with the exception of trivial quantities that go up in manned spacecraft). The real complaint might be "we're running out of clean water". But even that's ridiculous. We know how to make dirty water and salty water clean. There may be a question of whether the supply is meeting the demand, but that's a manufacturing problem, not a resource problem.
Cousin Dave at October 19, 2017 6:31 AM
"I married mr persistant. He had balls."
Exactly. It's a form of signaling for a man to be persistent -- that he is a good bet for a partner.
Amy Alkon at October 19, 2017 6:46 AM
Getting back to the topic: Presumably, if a guy ever asks a girl for a date and she says "no" for any reason, he's not allowed to ever ask her again. Even if the original reply is "No thanks, I have a boyfriend", but then a month later she breaks up with that boyfriend, the poor guy who has already asked her has used up his ticket and doesn't get another shot. The Harvard male will very quickly find the bulk of the female student body to be off-limits to him. The least bad result of this will be the upperclassman men pouncing on the incoming freshman women every fall, trying to get their dibs in up front before the girls have a chance to get to know anyone.
The most bad result is that eventually the girls will start wondering, "why aren't any men interested in me?" When it's explained to them that the men aren't allowed to ask them out, most of the women will not conclude that the system is unjust and demand changes. Rather, they will conclude that the men are weak and therefore unattractive.
This is not an accident. It's the intended effect. It's the same as when the whole idea of prosecuting sexual harassment at work first arose in the '90s. To people who worried about abuses, the feminists and other advocates said that of course there would be a "reasonable women" standard, and of course they would never permit anyone to make false or trivial charges or otherwise exploit the system. They lied through their teeth. The way it came out is exactly what they intended. Now men at work fear their female colleagues. Office romances are a thing of the past. Considering how many people used to meet their eventual spouses at work, this is a significant reduction in opportunity for men and women to get to know each other. And the effects go far beyond just reduction in mating opportunities.
You can see what's happening: middle-class men are being cut out of society, and presented to women as being undesirable mates in general. The goal is to make middle-class and working-class women completely dependent on powerful, ultra-high-status men. Like Harvey Weinstein. Post-modern feminism is the handmaid to the Weinsteins and Bill Clintons of the world. That is why Weinstein and his company have been so supportive of feminist causes. It's not just that he was using them for cover. It's because the feminists have actually been doing his dirty work for him.
Cousin Dave at October 19, 2017 6:52 AM
While I don't think it is sexual assault to repeatedly ask a woman out, If she has clearly said "no", I would not be inclined to date a guy that would not take "no" for an answer. That being said, If my answer was "no", I would be very clear on that. I hate it when women complain that men can't take a hint. Why do you think you can try and hint and expect him to know what you mean? If a man hinted that he wanted to take you out, most women would be like "I wish he would just say what he means!!!" Speak up, say what you mean, if it's no, its no, if it is no, but maybe another time? Say so. If a woman clearly says no, then men should assume she knows her own mind and not persist. I would think the guy was a douche if he continued, after I clearly said no. I have been asked out by men that I had no interest in dating, and I said the same thing to all of them, "I appreciate the offer, but no thank you"
Stormy at October 19, 2017 6:53 AM
Cousin Dave Says:
"The real complaint might be "we're running out of clean water". But even that's ridiculous. We know how to make dirty water and salty water clean. There may be a question of whether the supply is meeting the demand, but that's a manufacturing problem, not a resource problem."
It is in fact a resource problem as JD suggests.
That we know how to do something doesn't imply that it is unconstrained.
We know how to do many things that end up being limited by our capacity to generate energy.
As it turns out desalinization is extremely energy intensive and as a result our ability to generate fresh water is severely constrained by our overall energy output... which isn't even close to unlimited at this point.
All of your arguments trying to refute the reality of our resource constraints are incorrect.
Artemis at October 19, 2017 6:54 AM
Im sending my kids to the military
Deer lord, why?
https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2017/10/02/draft-n2389301
I R A Darth Aggie at October 19, 2017 7:32 AM
The goal is to make middle-class and working-class women completely dependent on powerful, ultra-high-status men. Like Harvey Weinstein.
Sort of. You're really close, tho, Cousin Dave.
The intent is to make women dependent on the government. The concept of utopia is an all-powerful government providing for and protecting women from cradle to grave.
To see how well that works in reality, we only need to look to the former USSR, were fathers would dangle their nubile daughters in front of commissars to get a better apartment or other perks.
I R A Darth Aggie at October 19, 2017 7:41 AM
Incorrect Artemis. Cousin Dave was correct. We aren't running out of water. We are running out of cheap potable water.
And in much of the world that also isn't true. Many water distribution systems waste a significant percentage of it. Leaky pipes are the main cause. And not just in the third world. Even in the US leaky pipes and poor irrigation practices waste a significant percentage of the potable water supply. It is one of the major issues with ownerless goods. The tragedy of the commons is a big issue.
Ben at October 19, 2017 8:39 AM
Women take longer to warm up to romance. Guys that do not persist in their chasing stay single. The idea that women should get to choose is so absurd because by and large women do not do the chasing. Yes of course some women have asked the shy guy out or even proposed to him, but then the woman is doing the asking.
There is a point where chasing become stalking, but one time is all you get is insane. The girl might have a big test or not feel good or is going out of town or doesn't like the event in question like football. Maybe after the first ask she gets to know the guy a little better and then says yes.
The items about rude and sexual jokes are way too restrictive. These are college students. They joke around and are in general dumb-asses. They will say things.
cc at October 19, 2017 10:58 AM
There is a point where chasing become stalking, but one time is all you get is insane. The girl might have a big test or not feel good or is going out of town or doesn't like the event in question like football. Maybe after the first ask she gets to know the guy a little better and then says yes
If she wants to go out with him, but can't take that offer, she can say so and they can come up with a plan, If they have been on a date and she needs to continue to get to know him - fine! But if he asks her out and she says "no thanks" He should not ignore that and keep asking over and over, maybe he can try to pursue a friendship and get to know her.
stormy at October 19, 2017 11:33 AM
He should not ignore that and keep asking over and over, maybe he can try to pursue a friendship and get to know her.
What if he's not interested in her as a friend, just as a romantic partner?
[I know, I know: RAPIST!!!!]
dee nile at October 19, 2017 12:16 PM
"All of your arguments trying to refute the reality of our resource constraints are incorrect."
Do you know how long I've been hearing Peak Oil shit? Since I was about 8 years old, and I'm old now. I recall a Weekly Reader article in 1971 that flatly stated, without reservation, that the world would be out of oil by 1980. There were movies and science fiction stories written about it, thousands of them, all seeking to shame ordinary middle-class people for "murdering Mother Earth" and wanting a standard of living that they didn't morally deserve. This was where shaming the middle class for being middle class (a long tradition in Europe) began in America.
People have predicted "the end of resources" hundreds of times in the decades since. And they've been wrong every single time. And when their predictions don't come true, they try to use the force of government to make them true. They've lied to me since the beginning. Why should I believe them now?
Cousin Dave at October 19, 2017 1:57 PM
I remember that. I remember growing up with nightmare visions of living like Old West pioneers by the time I was 30.
And yet, here I am in a modern, technological society with electricity, running water, gasoline, telecommunications, etc. And I'm living here surrounded by more high-tech electricity-gobbling personal appliances than my parents' generation, in its Jetsons-fueled imagination, ever envisioned.
I also lived through various scientist-backed warnings that we were going to have a new Ice Age before I finished college, run out of food by the time I hit puberty, be hit by an asteroid by the time I was legal drinking age, and other nightmare scenarios that never came true, but were backed by "a consensus of scientists."
As such, I'm inclined to take the next impending disaster warning with a grain of salt, which we were also told we were running out of.
Conan the Grammarian at October 19, 2017 2:15 PM
Guys, don't be stupid about the resources issue. Most of what you and I have seen in media is alarmist at best, and it wouldn't even be presented if it didn't sell fear.
Now, go look at the Wiki article on gasoline. On others dealing with the production of other fossil fuels, on the production of hybrid batteries, fissile material for reactors, etc.
If you have the background you should have gotten from middle school, you'll see what we have and what we do not.
It isn't "a consensus of scientists" that has been wrong: it's the presentation, featuring the appeal to authority fallacy, combined with the usual media need to chop data from any article. For unless you're making a distinction, "scientists" have built real things difficult for anyone to understand, much less duplicate.
Radwaste at October 19, 2017 4:11 PM
"Deer lord, why?"
Because there are military programs that have not succumbed to "participant trophy" stupidity. I'll recommend Naval Nuclear Power School to anybody.
Radwaste at October 19, 2017 4:15 PM
Amy: Exactly. It's a form of signaling for a man to be persistent -- that he is a good bet for a partner.
Stormy: I would think the guy was a douche if he continued, after I clearly said no.
Stormy, speaking of clearly, you're clearly not following the script here. If a guy persists after you clearly say no, he's a manly man. a brave stalwart admirable alpha male, definitely not a douche.
JD at October 19, 2017 10:02 PM
"If a guy persists after you clearly say no, he's a manly man. a brave stalwart admirable alpha male, definitely not a douche."
Hey, we're forgetting style counts here. A non-idiot can still indicate his interest without being a dick about it, or creepy.
Radwaste at October 19, 2017 11:23 PM
Yeah Rad, because I don't really mean no, I have to have an excuse, like a boyfriend, or I'm busy or some other reason. If it's no, its no. End of Story. If I am missing out on the best thing ever, well, that is my problem. I dopn't need some dude trying to do my thinking for me.
stormy at October 20, 2017 6:26 AM
Rad,
The very concept of 'peak resource x' is nonsense. Virtually all resources have alternatives. For every engineering project there are dozens if not millions of good solutions (and far more bad ones as well). So we use price signals to optimize for cost. As a resource becomes in short supply the price rises and people switch to alternatives. That is why even after adding billions of people to the planet we aren't suffering a dystopian future. In fact the alternative has happened. We have more food, more water, and cheaper energy than ever before.
Which is why I brought up the tragedy of the commons. Most of the resource shortages you see world wide are government caused. Just on the water thing I think India puts 50% of it's municipal water into the dirt. After all it doesn't matter to the politicians. It isn't their water and they don't get paid any less. But they do get paid more when they take a cut out of pipe repair projects resulting in shoddy work. Even in the US I've heard we are around 25% of our municipal water is wasted. So we are no where near 'peak water' or running out. We just need to stop being wasteful.
Ben at October 20, 2017 6:36 AM
That's the thing. People who make a fetish of law, regulation and authority want to reduce all of human behavior to simple rule-driven absolutes. I take Stormy's point, but there are all kinds of stories about people who got together after knowing each other for years. I've seen it. You may have said "no" to me a year ago, but now maybe things have changed. If it seems now like you might be interested in me now, then I might ask again. If the answer is still "no", then that's what it is. But it might be "yes". I'll never know if I don't ask.
All that said, an honest "no" is a lot better than a dishonest "maybe".
Cousin Dave at October 20, 2017 6:38 AM
Several of the ladies above have said no means no when they say it. However, often no means not this time, not today, maybe later. So maybe he turns on the charm, thinks of a better date option, gives her a gift, and next time she says yes. There are probably millions of married couples where the wife said no the first time. I have seen accounts where the girl had to wear the boy down because he was not interested at first. The idea that you get one chance to ask her out and then you are a stalker ignores the reality of human attraction and relationships.
cc at October 20, 2017 9:43 AM
The idea that you get one chance to ask her out and then you are a stalker ignores the reality of human attraction and relationships.
IOW, it's feminism.
dee nile at October 20, 2017 11:18 AM
"Humans are like cockroaches, only far more voracious when it comes to the Earth's limited resources. "
That's because cockroaches only drive electric cars and eat sustainable vegan foods.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at October 20, 2017 12:22 PM
Regarding resources: Let's not forget that maybe, just maybe, a lot of awful predictions didn't happen only because concerned people were WARNED in time and cut their consuming and reproducing habits. Just as Scrooge changed his ways in time - so the third vision presumably never came to pass. Would things really be as comfortable for the middle class right now (and even THEY have to slather on the sunblock and worry about pesticides and hormones in their food) if the "doomsayers" had phrased their warnings as "you will be relatively comfortable only if you do x, y, and z?" Chances are too many people would have said "waaaah, that's too much wooork." In other words, they had to be truly scared before they were willing to take the burden upon themselves to DO something, but since it was their choice, it felt like a lighter burden than it would have otherwise.
lenona at October 20, 2017 1:33 PM
Oh, another example - FAS is a pretty big prenatal problem in the US, but the dangers had to be exaggerated a bit to get at least some of the truly alcoholic mothers to stop drinking during pregnancy. That is, people eventually started realizing that their own mothers drank a bit during pregnancy and they were fine - but it was still a decent campaign to run.
lenona at October 20, 2017 2:57 PM
"The very concept of 'peak resource x' is nonsense. Virtually all resources have alternatives."
So. Name the population which will consume existing refinery capacity. Name the population which will load electrical networks to capacity.
California has an abundance of water and power, yes? No cause for concern?
I ask these things because they immediately illustrate understanding of the problem. It isn't enough to say, "Well, we've always coped before".
For example, I have seen a number which says that ~15% of the corn crop in Nebraska provided 1% of the diesel fuel. So: wanna burn food?
The primary alternative to using a resource is NOT to. That's not changing because of innovation, even as I call for it due to waste heat issues discarding the majority of the energy we use.
How do you think this infographic has changed over the years, and where is it going now? Do you approve?
Radwaste at October 20, 2017 6:51 PM
Cali aint got shit, they buy power from nuclear and hydro dams to their east, and they use a 70 year old water sharing agreement which they both bully other state with and ignore as the mood strike them.
lujlp at October 21, 2017 1:16 AM
Ben Says:
"Incorrect Artemis. Cousin Dave was correct. We aren't running out of water. We are running out of cheap potable water."
What's with you and the strawman arguments?
That isn't what Cousin Dave said... that is what I said.
Cousin Dave Said the following:
"The real complaint might be "we're running out of clean water". But even that's ridiculous."
His exact words were to claim that we do not have limited clean water resources.
Do you even read what people are saying Ben... or do you just jump to any conclusion that you think will make me incorrect?
What you stated is actually closer to my position that Cousin Dave's.
Next time please read and comprehend.
Artemis at October 21, 2017 6:14 AM
Cousin Dave Says:
"Do you know how long I've been hearing Peak Oil shit?"
I don't recall talking about peak oil.
I am merely refuting your contention that our resources are unconstrained.
We have very real constraints on our resources. Denial of that observed fact is a denial of reality.
If our resources were unconstrained we wouldn't have to pay 4+ dollars per gallon.
Unconstrained resources implies unlimited supply... which in a free market economy implies extremely low prices.
We do not have the capacity to generate unlimited energy at this time. This means we have a limited capacity to desalinate water... which means we are ALSO constrained on the amount of fresh water we can generate.
None of the above has anything to do with arguments about peak oil.
Artemis at October 21, 2017 6:25 AM
Ben Says:
"Virtually all resources have alternatives."
Aren't we primarily discussing fresh water here?
What exactly is your suggested alternative to fresh water?
Even if you claim that we are wasting 25% of our fresh water resources and this can be reclaimed, our current population growth rate is 0.81%.
This suggests our population will grow by 25% in less than 30 years.
So based upon your own estimates and solution path we only have enough fresh water resources for 1 more generation and this isn't a cause of concern for you?
To me this suggests we need to start planning now to address this... because as I said at the start, we have no alternative to fresh water for our survival.
Artemis at October 21, 2017 6:37 AM
Cousin Dave: That's the thing. People who make a fetish of law, regulation and authority want to reduce all of human behavior to simple rule-driven absolutes.
A couple questions for you:
1. Do you think a man should have the right to continually contact a woman -- e.g. call her, email her, text her, show up at her house/apt door -- who has repeatedly told him that his interest in her is unwanted?
2. If your answer to #1 is yes -- and I wouldn't be surprised if it is -- then end of questions. However, if your answer to #1 is no, then what solution do you propose? What recourse should the woman have?
JD at October 21, 2017 11:14 AM
Quick question JD? When someone claims two plus two equals five is a ridiculous statement do you always ask them why they dont like the fact the three plus three equals six?
lujlp at October 21, 2017 2:33 PM
Artemis: "Peak oil" is relevant because there have been panics about it about every 20 years ever since the 1920's, and every one has been exaggerated - and so are panics about water and nearly every other natural resouce, and for the same reason. "Peak oil" predictions actually come with fine print - they are for a given cost of oil at the current level of technology. Raise the price, and now it becomes profitable to drill a little deeper or to go to a part of the world even more inhospitable than Texas (e.g., Saudi Arabia, the North Slope of Alaska, and the bottom of the North Sea), and suddenly there is an excess of oil. Also, technology keeps improving: better drills, better control systems for drilling rigs allowing slant drilling, etc., and better extraction methods (we've long been leaving at least 75% of the oil in a field in the ground; improve that by only 5% and there's a lot more oil available.) The net result was that the inflation adjusted price of oil has fluctuated by a factor of 3 or more many time - but has never reached the peak of the 1970's again, and often has been nearly what it cost before the 1973 shortage.
As for peak water, you already mentioned the fine print - "fresh water" actually means water that is drinkable with certain minor treatments. Spend more to purify worse sources of water, and there is an effectively unlimited supply nearly everywhere. And this doesn't even require new technologies (although technological advances will often reduce the costs of a given treatment), but just applying the technology we have. You can connect a state of the art sewage treatment plant to a state of the art water treatment plant and run a nearly closed cycle; at least one city in Arizona did that when the river that supplied them dried up. (You pee more than you drink, because you get water from your food.) California has unlimited water just a few miles from most of the population - if they ever get thirsty enough to pay for desalinization, but as long as they can get away with it, they'll bring fresh water from far away to their cities because a few hundred miles of pipes is cheaper...
And about 40 of the states have more rainfall than they can possibly use; the only problem is that the industrial cities of 150 to 50 years ago dumped too much waste into the groundwater, rivers and lakes, so they either have to remove the pollutants from their water supply or build long pipes and fight each other over less polluted water.
markm at October 21, 2017 10:00 PM
Markm,
It isn't reasonable to just interject any old talking point one wants to into a discussion as if it came from the person they are talking to when that person never made any reference to that talking point.
If one wants to address what someone is saying you need to address the actual points they brought up.
If one wants to bring up a new point for conversation that is fine so long as it isn't implied that it has any relationship to what the other person said.
We can't have people putting words in peoples mouths.
That is unreasonable.
""Peak oil" is relevant because there have been panics about it about every 20 years ever since the 1920's, and every one has been exaggerated - and so are panics about water and nearly every other natural resouce, and for the same reason."
This is incorrect logic.
Each claim needs to be evaluated independently on it's own merits.
You cannot simply assert that because you believe that other resource scarcity issues have been wrong that an argument about clean water is ALSO wrong by association.
You need to talk about clean water on it's own and prove your case.
"As for peak water, you already mentioned the fine print - "fresh water" actually means water that is drinkable with certain minor treatments. Spend more to purify worse sources of water, and there is an effectively unlimited supply nearly everywhere."
Don't be daft Markm. This is precisely what resource scarcity means.
When people talk about resources being scarce it doesn't mean that the resource doesn't exist somewhere in the universe. It means that the cost of obtaining that resource is strictly constrained by the difficulty in obtaining it.
For example, iridium is one of the rarest elements found on the surface of the earth.
It is fruitless to argue that because there are enormous quantities of that precious metal in the core of the earth that it isn't actually "scarce".
The very fact that it is so difficult to obtain is what makes it scarce.
Similarly, it makes no difference how much water is nearby when the energy cost to produce the fresh water is prohibitively high.
The energy you spend to desalinate water needs to be taken from some other goal.
We do not have the ability to generate an unlimited supply of energy at the moment, hence we do not have the ability to generate an unlimited supply of fresh water.
The fact that the earth is covered by oceans doesn't matter.
If I send you adrift on raft in the middle of ocean with 1 bottle of fresh water it is immaterial how much salt water you are surrounded by... you are still going to die of thirst.
It would be stupid for someone to claim that you will be just fine because you are surrounded by an "unlimited supply of water"... you can't make use of it, so it might as well not exist. That is what is means for a resource to be scarce or limited.
Artemis at October 22, 2017 4:12 AM
Markm Says
"You pee more than you drink, because you get water from your food."
This statement doesn't follow from biology and a detailed accounting of our metabolism.
Urination isn't the only pathway for water to be excreted from our bodies. We also lose water through respiration as moisture is present in every breath we take. This is in addition to sweat and tears, which are not able to be reclaimed.
This link explains that we drink about 60% of our water and excrete about 60% of our water through urination:
https://www.quora.com/How-much-water-does-a-person-lose-in-a-day-through-breathing
Simply put, your argument does not hold because you failed to account for all of the other ways we excrete water.
Artemis at October 22, 2017 4:23 AM
JD: There's something wrong with a guy who persists after a clear rejection - and there are laws about harassment and stalking that apply - but how often does that actually happen? Did the woman really tell him, "No, never, please don't ask again," or did she keep saying things like, "I have other plans that night?" In my experience, women often either try too much not to hurt a guy's feelings by putting him off without saying no definitely and forever (like slow torture is better than a clean break), or are instinctually acting to keep a couple of spare guys on a string in case they lose the one they are currently after. If you don't want the guy coming back and trying again, don't expect him to understand code and hints, but make it clear.
markm at October 22, 2017 6:21 AM
New Rule:
Women who claim "I have plans that night" clearly means never talk to me again have no cause to complain about men who say "would you like to go to dinner" and think it clearly means she owes him sex
lujlp at October 22, 2017 12:25 PM
Leave a comment