What grinds your gears?

Got a sore throat and stuffy nose the day I'm going to a celebration dinner with Dante and his family. Fucking joy.

cenaris wrote:Realising that having not drawn for a few days now means I can't draw. More specifically the art block set in again.

And it's unbelievably hot here too...

I hate hot places.

I feel the same. Except for me its more that I get easily distracted by the internet.

This computer has been running really frikkin' SLOW lately...

Mom, I'm 22. Dante is 23. His father is a minister and sees no reason why we can't sleep together. Not to mention we have already had sex numerous times.

Stop telling me it's innapropriate for him to sleep in the same room. Putting him in a separate room is not going to stop us from having sex, nor is it going to make us virgins. Plus, I'm marrying him.

Seriously, LET THE FUCK GO. I'M NOT 15.

Same-room sex 'n' sleepin'!

The Devil's Thing!

Hehe, but seriously, you have some nice old-school mom there.

Hope she'll get off your back when you'll get married.

being asleep all day due to being sick during vacation really grinds my gears

You know what grinds my gears?! The fact that Mexico got a very very VERY lucky shot which resulted in us only having a 1-1 victory instead of a 1-0 victory.

What grinds my gears? My cable internet connection flaking out during the day, probably due to some equipment en route through the cable network overheating in that scorcher that we're currently having...

And their technican not calling back yesterday, and telling me he only had time at noon today - as if I didn't have to, like, be at work sometime during the day...

"Life" Grinds my gears. To hard. To boring....Thats why I usually am on my Xbox, PS3, or PC.

Sore losers grind my gears. I completely lock down a location on MW2 and the whole other team screams about how I was camping.

Patrolling a two-floor location with several entryways and clear shots in is not camping.

I just frikkin' love it when our customers decide to do all their shopping 5 minutes before we close, then take 20 minutes to try one ONE SHIRT.

Not to be racist, but East Indians giving you the "Don't give me that" line when you are trying to explain something.

Anybody in Toronto who has worked retail/fast food will agree with me.

It's so hot that I can't do shiet.

I can't draw, because my hand is getting sweaty and glues to the tablet.
I can't sleep 'cause it's too hot.
I can't go outside because I'll burn and I don't feel like sunbathing.
I can't play on my Xbox 'cause it got RROD yesterday when it was too hot. Cooling down with towel really works, but I don't want to do that. Too bothersome.

My god, first a ice-cold winter, then rainy beggining of the month with floods ruining my country, now heatwaves.
I'm just waiting till some epidemic will spread.

Shame on you! I'd do anything to get out of this miserable cold. At least it wasn't this cold yesterday.

My friend is starting to irritate me...

No, Joe, there is nothing positive about a law that legally allows a man to beat his wife. There is nothing positive about spousal abuse. Abuse is degrading, damaging, and the kind of person who would do it deserves no lenience. If anyone, man or woman, is scum enough to actually beat their spouse, they don't deserve to be married.

And was the ignition point to this discussion? Some sharia laws?

People who post on my "Why do women go to college? they don't need a degree to make a sandwich" facebook group trying their hardest to be moral and upright when we are all in it for the lulz.

Well ain't it more fun that way? Reading justice fighters entries on a /b/ kind of thread? This generates more lulz.

Believe it or not, in Los Angeles, a man can legally beat his wife with something two inches thick or less. Anything thicker and he needs her permission.
Um, no one who would actually beat their spouse would ask permission. It would be very easy to circumvent that. A guy could beat his wife senseless, say that he had her permission, and out of fear of retaliation, she could go along with it. That's the nature of abusers. They controll through fear.

Pandora wrote:Believe it or not, in Los Angeles, a man can legally beat his wife with something two inches thick or less. Anything thicker and he needs her permission.
Um, no one who would actually beat their spouse would ask permission. It would be very easy to circumvent that. A guy could beat his wife senseless, say that he had her permission, and out of fear of retaliation, she could go along with it. That's the nature of abusers. They controll through fear.

I've only just heard of that law and already I want it dead.

Two inches thick... about 5cm. So fists included, I guess.
Some kind of old law, I suppose. Some statute books or constitutions need to be modified and upgraded to fit modern times to avoid creating loopholes like the one you've stated.
I asked because I had simmilar discusion on a polish forum about domestic violence throughout history about two years ago. Pro's and con's of usage, how it adapted to family life, that sort of stuff. It was for some girl's ph.D. work. I wish I'd heard about this LA curiosum back then, I think she'd find it helpfull.

You know how old is that law?

Pietja wrote:Two inches thick... about 5cm. So fists included, I guess.
Some kind of old law, I suppose. Some statute books or constitutions need to be modified and upgraded to fit modern times to avoid creating loopholes like the one you've stated.
I asked because I had simmilar discusion on a polish forum about domestic violence throughout history about two years ago. Pro's and con's of usage, how it adapted to family life, that sort of stuff. It was for some girl's ph.D. work. I wish I'd heard about this LA curiosum back then, I think she'd find it helpfull.

You know how old is that law?

There's never any pros to domestic violence.

That's basically what I'm saying. There's no pros to domestic violence. My friend said that I'm just choosing to see the negative in it. Uhh, I'm not choosing to see the negative because there is no positive. This law is just negative.
I don't know how old it is. I wish I did.

cenaris wrote:

Pietja wrote:Two inches thick... about 5cm. So fists included, I guess.
Some kind of old law, I suppose. Some statute books or constitutions need to be modified and upgraded to fit modern times to avoid creating loopholes like the one you've stated.
I asked because I had simmilar discusion on a polish forum about domestic violence throughout history about two years ago. Pro's and con's of usage, how it adapted to family life, that sort of stuff. It was for some girl's ph.D. work. I wish I'd heard about this LA curiosum back then, I think she'd find it helpfull.

You know how old is that law?

There's never any pros to domestic violence.

Thing is she had to show the cons and pros - and take a note throughout the history. Not modern. And I forgot to add that it was sociology based theme. So pros were keeping family stucture, thus, strenghtening a whole community - i.e. country, in troubled times - like war, f.ex. From viewpoint of a single unit it's not a good thing, while in greater view of society it was some sort of consolidation. Through fear, violence, but still. She included that in her work and got bonus points because of that. She wouldn't if this wasn't a sociology themed one though.

In Los Angeles a man is legally entitled to beat his wife with a leather belt or strap, but the belt can't be wider than 2 inches, unless he has his wife's consent to beat her with a wider strap. Consent should be given prior to the event, as is carefully stipulated.

Now for that I've looked for a while, but I couldn't find a resource that could be called as beliveable, so I don't know if this works today.
But if you've ever been hit with a belt - the thinner hurts more while the wider - less. So as grotesque as it may sound - back in a day (let's say late XIX, early XX) this law was maybe meant to work in defense of women, although not directly. Their situation back in a day wasn't as good as today, and corporal punishment wasn't regulated by the law so much as it is now. And the way for better laws for females was a slow process. By choosing a wider belt they could be choosing lesser ammount of pain. It's kind of a twisted thing, but how do we know what intetntions were taken under consideration while making this - otherwise idiotic - law? The only sense I can read out from it, that it's a small amendment in the law to emancipate women. Privileges of polish women in 20's of the XX century were also given by small steps. Not sounding so riddiculous like the LA one, but still.
Now, I hope it's only a rustical one, otherwise - in modern times - it works towards women.

And for any furher criticism - I was punished both by my mom (till age of eight) and by my dad till the age of fifteen. And looking back at it, I can tell that all of the beatings, spankings and fights I've got from my dad - I've asked for them, I've deserved them. While mother used to hit me over sillies thing. Strange thing is that she never even spanked my brother, wich often acted like a wild beast in public or in home.

But I do not look at it as it was something bad. It was a way of upbringing.

There's a difference between punishing or applying discipline to a child for misbehaving and abusing your spouse.