Rather like the perp’s lips and cheeks. The hair? Well, admittedly my son had that hairstyle once…
Edit in: Once as in previously, just not at the moment. Just every time he is feeling lazy (which is frequent). But to make Rich’s joke work…
Well, admittedly my son had that hairstyle…once!
Thar ya go, Rich! (Amazing how the meaning changes by moving the dots to the other side of the word)
I don’t think so. In some circles, getting beaten up on top of having sex with a certified psycho would be seen as a bonus.
I suspect the boyfriend is going to have a lot more problems going forward then she is.
Off topic, but GOD I love that movie.
“My mother shot me once, Johnny…”
Other than having the word “once” in it, I don’t see the relevance…?
Um… let’s see if I can explain it. It’s a joke. You said that your son had that hairstyle, once. Then the ellipsis. It’s like you were saying that he had that hairstyle once but only once because you did something to make sure that it would never happen again.
The point of the joke is that the guy in the movie perhaps beat up his mother or father or even killed them for messing with him.
And so, the point of the now humorless joke is that he only had that hairstyle once, before you made it so that he would [I]never have it again.
See?
[/I]
That joke was funny . . . ONCE!
Nah, it was funny through the entire movie, Tim. Just saw Johnny Dangerously recently too, totally holds up.
I KNEW IT!
Why…he can be in-n-out and running away before the shit hits the fan next time.
I was thinking more about his new reputation of a) being unwilling to satisfy his girlfriend and b) having been beat up by his girlfriend.
Viagra and steroids will take help those problems.
Dammit, now I want a double double. THANKS DUDE! grumble bitch moan
Honey, don’t be so tense, but we are not finished here.
What you did here is classical victim-blaming. We don’t know all the details, but based on details presented in the article it is easy to reach certain conclusions. What you attempted to do is to introduce new “what if” information that would alter situation to conform to your world view. You did this so you don’t have to internalize an event that conflicts with your existing worldview.
It is painfully apparent that you are extremely uncomfortable with the notion that woman can be an aggressor. This is very sexist of you.
No, not really. It’s classical (and entirely reasonable) doubting that the media has presented the facts in sufficient depth to make judgement. If the media can make a story more sensational with a narrow view, and it makes their job easier because a superficial story is easier to slap together, then that’s just a double win from their perspective.
There was no “he had it coming” angle, just a doubt that we know the full history of these folks issues. The media presented the narrative that “she beat him up for bad sex LOL!” and the real narrative is more likely “she beat him up because they have a history of problems including X, Y, Z” Maybe X is that she’s abusive and he’s caught in an abusive relationship, but the statistics are against that one.
I think below is very clear case of “he had it coming” angle:
Doubting media is a reasonable response to such sensationalist case, but that not what WarrenM did here. Notice how he ever only doubts motives, not the beating or perpetrator. It is very clear case that it boils down to looking for a justification to beating. He attempts to justify it and nothing else, and as such this is nothing but a victim blaming.
I think you need to turn down your MRA sensitivity from 11 down to a more reasonable level. Doubting the motives, but not the facts of the case, isn’t victim blaming. It’s reasonable media doubting.
So, according to Tortilla-the-drive-by-slanderer, what is victim blaming?
For the record, all I was suggesting that there may be more to the story than what is in the article in the OP. THAT’S ALL. Man, this site sometimes…