So, this woman had a bad marriage and now wants use her personal inadequacies to make bad law. Grow up you poor little snowflake or as "Billy Shake a spear" once advised, "Get thee to a Nunnery."

If we locked up all the lying bastards, there'd hardly be anyone left walking around on the outside.

What about political rape, by the same logic?

Wondering how they will word it, so a little white lie doesn't count. Since what constitutes a white lie and what's important vary by culture, by situation and by person.
No Degree is very important in a job interview, but in dating from the male perspective, eh.
Marital status, is eh in a job interview, but important in dating. Unless in a culture that allows plural marriages in which case its eh.
It will have to be purely subjective, 'I know it when I see it.'
And discount all the traditional lies that are said by women (can't have them guilty of rape): age, desire to have kids, sexual history.

Joyce Short has written a book to explore her emotions.

http://www.mainstreetwire.com/archive/26-volume-34-issue-8-january-11-2014/49-islanders-call-her-joyce-short-a-personal-rebranding-goes-with-new-book

The article contains the rather inapt phrase "If you stole a pet pig, you could go to jail for it.”

This is the last straw for me. Time to get involved in an attempt to save society from further decline into the realm of the ridiculous. My New Year's Resolution (effective immediately) is to object to any such nonsense on the part of politicans. I just wrote a letter to this Assemblyman. Please join me. Here's a link to his e-mail: http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/SelectRep.asp

Sounds like the law would be ruled unconstitutional under a challenge. Yes, freedom of speech includes freedom to lie.

"Get thee to a Nunnery."

And yet moments beforehand, Hamlet wonders why we suffer "the pangs of despised love, the law's delay, the insolence of office".

That whole scene is interesting reading. I wonder if an accurate synopsis would be " the bitch set me up."

"Wondering how they will word it, so a little white lie doesn't count."

Any lie will count; they will allow prosecutors to use their discretion.

(Only males will be prosecuted.)

"Yes, freedom of speech includes freedom to lie."

The lie is legit; (men) getting laid by fraud is the crime.

There is a wide gulf between rape and being an incontrovertible ass. And, if we criminalize being an ass, at some point everyone on the planet will be guilty.

I heard discussion on the radio about this the other day.

They said it also includes deceit about the reason. So in the example they gave (the host, not the bill) a woman could claim the sex was just for fun but is really trying to get pregnant - that could likely be viewed as a violation of this bill.

They interviewed a lawyer whose opinion was that basically it was to open to interpretation such that Only in the extreme cases could someone really be aware that they were violating the law (or not).

And it could be more complicated. Let's say a guy lies about his income ... if the reason was "just for fun" that probably doesn't matter - but of course some people might say it does - however if the purpose was "to have kids" so there is a need for income to support the kid - well, then it seems more important.

How about instead, we create an exception to legislative debate immunity, so that politicians who lie about the cost or benefit of a bill they are promoting can be sued for fraud, just like corporate board members? (Examples: Barney Frank's speech insisting that Fannie and Freddie were sound, and California Governor Brown's high-speed rail bill.)

Unlike a lover who goes away, those examples did real harm to a lot of people.

Any lie will count; they will allow prosecutors to use their discretion.

That works so well in civil asset forfeiture cases. (Translation: government theft of a citizen's money or property on the pretext that they could possibly be guilty of, um, something.)

So if a woman pretends to be attracted to a guy to get expensive dates, can she be charged with theft through deception?

> So if a woman pretends to be attracted
> to a guy to get expensive dates, can
> she be charged with theft
> through deception?

It's cute that you call yourself "Trust"!

Because: Get it?

I don't chase nearly the volume of tail I did twenty years ago, but across a whole lifetime, I've never regretted spending even a penny of money for women on dates (travel, gifts, etc), and I'm not a wealthy man. If only in retrospect, I sometimes learned that when I'd asked them out, I'd been hoping for (or presumed I'd seen) qualities in their nature or in their feelings for me that were not real. But spending that time with them —far more than spending any particular sum of money— did a lot to refine my appreciation for the women I want to be with.

(Plus, women have always been nicer to me than I deserve.)

Dear "Trust": Are you so desperately lonely that you can't be safe when others have motives you don't happen to share? Do you need to attach to someone instantly and perfectly?

Good luck. Let us know how that goes. Not kidding: We want reports.

Could women then be charged if they only marry a man for his money, as opposed to sincerely loving the person?

Anna Nicole Smith (if she were still alive) should be glad that such a law was never passed during her last marriage.

Very funny Crid.

I'm happily married for 10 years with kids. I certainly won't be suing any date extortionists.any time soon.

I won't assume you picked up on the fact my post was satire, putting the deception shoe in the other foot.

"Trust" doesn't mean what you think it means.

> I'm happily married for 10 years
> with kids.

Then the ferocity of your suspicion is hard to explain. Why do you care how much men spend on dates?

> I certainly won't be suing any date
> extortionists.any time soon.

Who said anything about lawsuits?

What's being "extorted"?

Also, the period before the ".any time soon" makes it seem like you're (fearfully) dreaming of a new sex life after the kids grow up.

> I won't assume you picked up on the
> fact my post was satire

You apparently spend a lot of time horsing around with matters of sincerity.

> "Trust" doesn't mean what you
> think it means.

Perhaps you're trust fund baby... And having not earned the money yourself, you're righteously concerned that someone could take it while you're distracted.

Ferocity? Wtf are yih talking about.

It was a comment in jest putting the.shoe in the other foot.

Come in Crid. You're smarter than you're acting.

There's a familiar feeling happening here. Deja-poodle. Something.

Whoever said this was a brilliant, nuanced guy:

For thousands of years, men and women have had to move carefully and thoughtfully to pair well. It's always had risks some stumbling. But hundreds if not thousands of people in your life have done it well, just as they have throughout time.

But you guys think the problem is policy, always. (The man who calls himself "Trust" said "power" five times in a 147-word comment.)

I'm pretty sure this is how Obama got elected.

Brilliant, I tell ya.

You held on to that for almost a year?

You're a bigger bitch than I thought. But your crush on me is cute.

Naw, it came up when I Googled. 'Who is this guy... Haven't we done this before?'

I am cute, though.



> My New Year's Resolution (effective
> immediately) is to object to any
> such nonsense on the part
> of politicans.

Sincere good luck. But this is the era of what Tom Barnett calls the "hyper-empowered individual." People have been equipped to screw with each other's lives as never before. You can demand regulation for anything, and probably get it… As long as the party on the other side of the regulation isn't giving more money or more votes to the legislator.

The politics are the symptom, the idiocy of the voters is the disease.

Ah, sorry, this is the Google for the comment above.





And here's an old piece from Caldwell:

Societies in which women fuss about their appearance are rising ones. Societies in which men fuss about their appearance are declining ones. You could put it even more strongly and say that feminism is an a priori sign of cultural decline. But I won’t say that. At least not now.