mistersloane
heavy heavy monster sound
Edit: double post
Is it just me or does dissensus keep crashing these last few days?
yeah it's been a bit slow for me, I just thought it was neighbours bumming a ride on the broadband!
Edit: double post
Is it just me or does dissensus keep crashing these last few days?
Edit: double post
Is it just me or does dissensus keep crashing these last few days?
Not convinced about that "rule of thumb" thing though...
From here
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/000512.html
Google throws up plenty of similar links.
By 1882 married women finally got control of their own property. Nine years later legislation was passed making it unlawful for husbands to lcok up their wives for refusing sexual relations or to beat them 'so long as the cane was no thicker than his thumb'.
The very same thought crossed my mind."Ever since HMLT was banned. Not that i'm accusing or anything."
As it's stated that doesn't make any sense. It was unlawful to beat them if the cane was thin?"Nine years later legislation was passed making it unlawful for husbands to lcok up their wives for refusing sexual relations or to beat them 'so long as the cane was no thicker than his thumb'."
As it's stated that doesn't make any sense. It was unlawful to beat them if the cane was thin?
Again, long time since I've seen it and always found it pretty boring. Can't remember those scenes at all though. Strange.
I see what you're saying but I'm still not convinced. For one, Scharma doesn't quote a source, for another the date he states for the law changing is 100 years after the actual source in the other one states it's illegal to beat wives. Most convincing for me though is the fact that "rule of thumb" is simply not used in that way, it means a rough measurement not a legal boundary."No. it means previously it was legal to beat them with a thin cane. The 1891 law ruled that out."
I see what you're saying but I'm still not convinced. For one, Scharma doesn't quote a source, for another the date he states for the law changing is 100 years after the actual source in the other one states it's illegal to beat wives. Most convincing for me though is the fact that "rule of thumb" is simply not used in that way, it means a rough measurement not a legal boundary.
"The earliest citation comes from Sir William Hope’s The Compleat Fencing-Master, second edition, 1692, page 157: "What he doth, he doth by rule of thumb, and not by art."[2]
The notion that the "rule of thumb" was a law that limited the width of a rod that a man may use to beat his wife has been partially discredited. Wife beating has been explicitly illegal in British law since the 1700s and has never been legally sanctioned in America.[3] The "rule of thumb" was referenced in at least four legal cases from 1782 to 1897, in each of the known cases it was referred to only to state its invalidity, with one judge calling it "...a barbarous custom which modern authorities condemn."[4] The non-law gained popularity after feminist Del Martin wrote in 1976:
Our law, based upon the old English common-law doctrines, explicitly permitted wife-beating for correctional purposes. However ... the common-law doctrine had been modified to allow the husband 'the right to whip his wife, provided that he used a switch no bigger than his thumb'--a rule of thumb, so to speak.
It is now firmly entrenched as an urban myth"
Not convinced that that is where the "rule of thumb" phrase comes from. Wikipedia debunks it as well:
Not at all, I think it's pretty ineteresting when you find out where something like that comes from and then interesting again when you find out how an urban myth (if indeed that's what it is) gains currency and how people use it for their own ends (though often it ends up doing them a disservice when this is discovered). It's definitely relevant to the thread anyway."That seems fairly conclusive and I apologise for derailing your thread, tho the gist of my original point stands and I won't forgive you for disproving my favourite TV historian."
I Spit On Your Grave, anyone? The gang rape of the protagonist was supposed to be brutal and worthy of the course of vengeance that unwinds for the balance of the film, but it is highly sexualized. No question that a man was behind the camera,
As far as man-rape goes, the first thing that comes to mind is Deliverance:
Anyone familiar with Rapeman, the film based on the manga of the same name? The idea is Rapeman uses rape as a tool of revenge and/or justice. "Righting Wrongs Through Penetration". I admit I have never seen this (difficult to track down) but I have perused the untranslated manga (no I can't read kanji!).
I've never understood John Boorman's films - The General aside - 'Deliverance' uses m/m rape as a metaphor for everything that's savage and brutal about the working class, doesn't he? Or nature or what we've lost now we live in cities or something.
Mountain Man: Now, let's you just drop them pants.
Bobby: Drop?
Mountain Man: Just take 'em right off.
.........
Come on piggy, give me a ride...Looks like we got us a sow here, instead of a boar....I bet you can squeal like a pig.
Bobby: Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeee!