discussion comment
2 years ago
Icey, it is not really about what a club does or does not allow. It is simply that in many clubs, especially non-DV, the women run it. So the only rule is that the women are in charge and that the staff has to stay the fuck out of their way.
The further things go in a club, the less likely their are real rules. No one wants to share any culpability for how things go. Nothing is allowed, because nothing is prohibited. Staff will always be looking the other way for whatever the women want to do.
I have gotten recent accounts of a FRMOS in Florida which went on for 3 hours. And also other people fucking the girls on stage.
SJG
Cream - White Room - Chicago School of Rock Live Aid show
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xh4COKp_nYE
discussion comment
2 years ago
^^^ Shreveport LA has one of the only three available abortion clinics in the state. They have gotten a court to issue a temporary restraining order on the LA trigger law, so the clinic will remain open.
In a number of states it is possible that state courts could find something like Roe in their state constitutions. So they could strike down their own anti-abortion laws.
SJG
discussion comment
2 years ago
All about SCOTUS and Roe v Wade:
https://www.democracynow.org/
Newshour
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuYriabvKHk
Republicans are going to get eaten alive in November.
SJG
Cream - White Room - Chicago School of Rock Live Aid show
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xh4COKp_nYE
discussion comment
2 years ago
^ Are you coming to enjoy Viet Coffee?
Finding a shop where you can get hands on with girls? This is usually not the case at all, but it is possible that such a shop could pop up.
In CA though, LE is pretty strict and such a shop would always be at risk of closure.
Sometimes there could be an underground, a place which does not even have a business license. In that kind of place there would probably be no rules. It would probably be a brothel. But I have never seen this in anything like a Viet Coffee venue. Usually Viet Coffee is a low cost experience and the people who run it want to stay squarely within the law.
SJG
Cream - White Room - Chicago School of Rock Live Aid show
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xh4COKp_nYE
discussion comment
2 years ago
Recent News
California’s Fight Against Homelessness Has Turned Desperate and Dangerous
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/27/opinion/california-homeless-mental-illness.html
^This is interesting but I only partially agree. I think this current push to medicalize homelessness is partly because of public pressure and frustration, but this has happened in CA before. I think it is also just because of how Gavin Newsom thinks, Medical Police State, Internment Camp, Psychiatric Hospital. And we saw this in his COVID response. I think it is probably because of the people he surrounds himself with. Worthy of high suspicion being Mark Ghaly and Thomas Insel.
How brother of a 9/11 firefighter is helping house West L.A. homeless veterans
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-06-26/brother-9-11-firefighter-help-homeless-veterans-los-angeles
Oakland, Livermore Among California Cities Receiving Millions to Combat Family Homelessness
https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/oakland-livermore-among-california-cities-receiving-millions-to-combat-family-homelessness/2929265/
Mathews: Homelessness is California’s most durable hobby horse
Residents rank homelessness as our state’s biggest problem. But it’s not too big to be solved
https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/06/25/mathews-homelessness-is-californias-hobby-horse/
In My Humble Opinion one of the things which is driving this contentiousness about homelessness in CA is this idea that there is free housing available, but the homeless will not take it. And so they then try to make it into a mental health issue.
Well I don't know what the real status on this are. I doubt there is that much such housing really available, and some people will take it.
But I think there is another problem, many unhoused persons already know that such housing is already set up to work like a psychiatric internment camp, and that they place themselves at risk by talking to the authorities.
And then with this Tiny House idea, that violates building codes. Bathrooms too small, bathroom door open onto kitchens. Recreational Vehicles can be like that, but permanent buildings cannot, and for good reason. So people know that if they let themselves be shoved into that, it is internment. They are being made into a public spectacle and object of pity.
And then I hear increasingly of stories of police in some cities harassing the homeless by trying to get biographical information out of them. "How long have you been homeless? Don't you have relatives around here?"
This kind of info has nothing to do with any present situation which police could have a reasonable interest in finding out about. They are just trying to build a biography, and that will always be for building a mental health case and for internment.
So I think many know that they must stay away from police, social workers, and anything related to this Housing First idea.
So like tents on sidewalks, riverways, or anyplace else, are always much safer. What will really solve the problem is just to first of all admit that by advanced industrial and information technology we have spawned a large underclass that has had to learn to live on the margins. Until we instead go to Universal Basic Income and a Strong Public Housing Offering, and fire from public service anyone trying to medicalize this, there will be no improvement.
SJG
Cream - White Room - Chicago School of Rock Live Aid show
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xh4COKp_nYE
discussion comment
2 years ago
Icee, many clubs are not that tightly controlled.
Now yes, these tend to be dives. At a dive it is no great privilege for a girl to work there. So management does not have much of a whip to crack. So they quickly learn that if they want the women to keep showing up, then they need to stay out of their way.
And I can certainly say first hand that even in DV San Francisco, if you play the girls out some, they will often reverse themselves demonstrably on Front Room Make Out Sessions. They aren't after all doing anything they would not be doing if you were off site with them.
So it isn't really a matter of the management allowing it. In DV it does not come up very often. But in dives it can become standard.
SJG
discussion comment
2 years ago
![]()
san_jose_guymoney was invented for handing to women, but buying dances is a chump's game
Now, Friday Pelosi talked about this Competes Act, as something they want to make happen.
https://science.house.gov/americacompetes
Senate Rejects SAFE Act For The Sixth Time: Marijuana Banking Bill Will Not Be A Part Of America COMPETES Act
https://www.benzinga.com/markets/cannabis/22/06/27841246/senate-rejects-safe-act-for-the-sixth-time-marijuana-banking-bill-wont-be-a-part-of-america-comp
Democrats lobby for high-tech immigration reforms in innovation bill before Congress
https://www.science.org/content/article/democrats-lobby-high-tech-immigration-reforms-innovation-bill-congress
America COMPETES Act of 2022
https://www.hpcwire.com/2022/06/22/is-time-running-out-for-compromise-on-america-competes-usica-act/
And of Robert J. Mears
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_J._Mears
And of MST and Atomera
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomera
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20220303005304/en/Atomera%E2%80%99s-Enhanced-MSTcad-Helps-Chip-Companies-Quickly-Realize-MST-Benefits
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_amplifier#Erbium-doped_fiber_amplifiers
SJG
discussion comment
2 years ago
![]()
CJKent_bandThe truth hurts, but if you accept it, it will set you free
^ agreed!
If we want our economy to work we need to have the money circulating, not fueling the real estate and securities Ponzi Scheme.
SJG
discussion comment
2 years ago
^ you don't seem to have anything of your own to post about, you just have a leaky rectum.
SJG
discussion comment
2 years ago
Ishmael, Shailynn, Tetradon, the Three Stooges.
SJG
discussion comment
2 years ago
I would not want to be a Republican on the ballot now!
Sen. Klobuchar: If We Can Take Back 2 Senate Seats We Can Codify Roe v. Wade Into Law
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmCcU09StWE
My view on the above is that it is hard to get things through the Senate!
The law in CA is pretty much the same as Roe v Wade.
SJG
discussion comment
2 years ago
Looking to this book more because I want to discern the social views of its authors. Allot of the in my view is fluff, tables about 120 kinds of intelligence and theories about this, taxonomies of knowledge.
I am no fan of IQ tests. My organization will never use anything like this. I only talk about it here because the book deals with it, and because it is commonly used.
As I know the mean is supposed to be 100, and the standard deviation 15. But here it says the standard deviation if 16.
So by std deviation and IQ score, and the number of people out of 10,000:
1.0, 116, 1587
1.5, 124, 668
2.0, 132, 228
2.5, 140, 62
3.0, 148, 13
3.5, 156, 3
And then what i have read is that comparing an individual test with a group multiple choice test, the individual test can come out as much as 10 points higher.
And I notice that these books talk about some real high scores. Usually they say 130 or 132 is gifted, and that is about 2% of the population. And you can't have special programs for even that small of a group.
But Terman used 140. This Davidson institute wants 141.
Some talk about 160.
And this Leta Stetter Hollingworth used 180. How hard it would be to find such people.
And of these last two scores, people debate whether the modern tests even work at those levels. And no one believes that these kinds scores are immutable and unchanging over time, not anymore.
a) The academically talented above 115, 16% of population
b) The Superior, above 125, 5%
c) The gifted (Terman's use) above 140, 0.6% of population
d) The highly gifted, above 160, 0.007% of population.
SJG
discussion comment
2 years ago
Shailynn, you are such a dumbfuck. You speak about yourself.
SJG
discussion comment
2 years ago
LIVE: Protests at the Supreme Court after Roe. v. Wade ruling
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6xONfwV24A
SJG
discussion comment
2 years ago
Lots and lots of women are really hot and lot of them do go for slut wear, and most of them love male attention and most of them really do want to pursue a relationship and many do throw themselves at guys. Truth is often further out their than fiction.
No a Public Library would not be a good place to look for evidence of that.
SJG
discussion comment
2 years ago
^ Yes, but the women who dance in strip clubs are still ordinary women. They can be gotten completely off script, and usually quite easily too.
SJG
discussion comment
2 years ago
Newshour Today, staring with protests over SCOTUS and Roe
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DPisIJZJCI
SJG
discussion comment
2 years ago
And Roman Caholics use abortion and contraception to the same level that the rest of the populaiton does.
SJG
discussion comment
2 years ago
Ishamel, FRMOS has been part of my life for a long time, before I even knew about TUSCL. In our above ground clubs it has never been common, but it is still real as some girls just want an after hours date.
Initial Make Out Session puts it into an entirely different category for a girl, cause most guys just treat them as "Stripper Hoes".
In places where that is not common, then the girl will be genuinely surprised, but also disarmed.
https://tuscl.net/discussion.php?id=76495
SJG
discussion comment
2 years ago
https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/06/24/opposition-care-court-sb-1338-amended-june-16-2022
June 24, 2022 11:00AM EDT
Human Rights Watch has carefully reviewed SB 1338,[1] the amendments to SB 1338, and the proposed framework for the Community Assistance, Recovery and Empowerment (CARE) Court created by CalHHS,[2] and must respectfully voice our strong opposition. CARE Court promotes a system of involuntary, coerced treatment, enforced by an expanded judicial infrastructure, that will, in practice, simply remove unhoused people with perceived mental health conditions from the public eye without effectively addressing those mental health conditions and without meeting the urgent need for housing. We urge you to reject this bill and instead to take a more holistic, rights-respecting approach to address the lack of resources for autonomy-affirming treatment options and affordable housing.
CARE Court proponents claim it will increase up-stream diversion from the criminal legal and conservatorship systems by allowing a wide range of actors to refer people with schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders to the jurisdiction of the courts without an arrest or hospitalization. In fact, the bill creates a new pathway for government officials and family members to place people under state control and take away their autonomy and liberty.[3] It applies generally to those the bill describes as having a “schizophrenia spectrum or other psychotic disorder” and specifically targets unhoused people.[4] It seems aimed at facilitating removing unhoused people from public view without actually providing housing and services that will help to resolve homelessness. Given the racial demographics of California’s homeless population,[5] and the historic over-diagnosing of Black and Latino people with schizophrenia,[6] this plan is likely to place many, disproportionately Black and brown, people under state control.
CARE Court is Coerced Treatment
Proponents of the plan describe CARE Court in misleading ways as “preserving self-determination” and “self-sufficiency,” and “empower[ing].”[7] But CARE Court creates a state-imposed system of coerced, involuntary treatment. The proposed legislation authorizes judges to order a person to submit to treatment under a CARE plan.[8] That treatment may include an order to take a given medication, including anti-psychotic medications, housing, and other enumerated services.[9] Housing must be provided through a designated list of existing program that includes interim housing or shelter options that may be unacceptable to an individual and unsuited to their unique needs.[10] The CARE Court proposal does not provide additional housing and does not envision enforcement of long-term prioritization of housing for its graduates.
A person who fails to obey the court ordered treatment plan may be referred to conservatorship, which would potentially strip that person of their legal capacity and personal autonomy, subjecting them to forcible medical treatment and medication, loss of personal liberty, and removal of power to make decisions over the conduct of their own lives.[11] Indeed, the court may use failure to comply with their court-ordered treatment as “a presumption at that hearing that the respondent needs additional intervention beyond the supports and services provided by the CARE plan” paving the way for detention and conservatorship.[12] In practical effect, the mandatory care plans are simply pathways to the even stricter system of control through conservatorship.
This approach not only robs individuals of dignity and autonomy but is also coercive and likely ineffective.[13] Studies of coercive mental health treatment have generally not shown positive outcomes.[14] Evidence does not support the conclusion that involuntary outpatient treatment is more effective than intensive voluntary outpatient treatment and, indeed, shows that involuntary, coercive treatment is harmful.[15]
Coerced Treatment Violates Human Rights
Under international human rights law, all people have the right to “the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.”[16] Free and informed consent, including the right to refuse treatment, is a core element of that right to health.[17] Having a “substitute” decision-maker, including a judge, or even a “supporter,” make orders for health care can deny a person with disabilities their right to legal capacity and infringe on their personal autonomy.[18]
The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities establishes the obligation to “holistically examine all areas of law to ensure that the right of persons with disabilities to legal capacity is not restricted on an unequal basis with others. Historically, persons with disabilities have been denied their right to legal capacity in many areas in a discriminatory manner under substitute decision-making regimes such as guardianship, conservatorship and mental health laws that permit forced treatment.”[19] The US has signed but not yet ratified this treaty, which means it is obligated to refrain from establishing policies and legislation that will undermine the object and purpose of the treaty,[20] like creating provisions that mandate long-term substitute decision-making schemes like conservatorship or court-ordered treatment plans.
The World Health Organization has developed a new model that harmonizes mental health services and practices with international human rights law and has criticized practices promoting involuntary mental health treatments as leading to violence and abuse, rather than recovery, which should be the core basis of mental health services.[21] Recovery means different things for different people but one of its key elements is having control over one´s own mental health treatment, including the possibility of refusing treatment.
To comport with human rights, treatment should be based on the will and preferences of the person concerned. Housing or disability status does not rob a person of their right to legal capacity or their personal autonomy. Expansive measures for imposing mental health treatment like the process envisioned by the CARE Court plan infringe on it and discriminate on the basis of disability. As discussed below they also run the risk of being abused by self-interested actors. This coerced process leading to “treatment” undermines any healing aim of the proposal.
CARE Court Denies Due Process
The CARE Court proposal authorizes family members, first responders, including police officers or outreach workers, the public guardian, service providers, conservators, and the director of the county behavioral health agency, to initiate the process of imposing involuntary treatment by filing a petition with the court.[22] These expansive categories of people with the power to embroil another person in court processes and potential loss of autonomy, many of whom lack any expertise in recognition and treatment of mental health conditions, reveals the extreme danger of abuse inherent in this proposal. For example, interpersonal conflicts between family members could result in abusive parents, children, spouses, and siblings using the referral process to expose their relatives to court hearings and potential coerced treatment, housing, and medication.
Law enforcement and outreach workers would have a new tool to threaten unhoused people with referral to the court to pressure them to move from a given area. These state actors could funnel those who disobeyed their commands into the CARE Court process and potentially under the control of courts. Given the long history of law enforcement using its authority to drive unhoused people from public spaces, a practice that re-traumatizes those people and does nothing to solve homelessness, it is dangerous to provide them with additional powers to do so.[23]
The legislation does not set meaningful standards to guide judicial discretion and does not delineate procedures for those decisions.[24] It establishes a contradictory and unworkable procedure that allows certain people diagnosed with schizophrenia or other psychotic disorders to be ordered into treatment if, among other criteria, a judge believes that they are unlikely to survive safely in the community without supervision, or that they are at risk of relapse or deterioration into grave disability or serious harm. [25] These criteria are extremely subjective and speculative and subject to bias.
The court commences the process of engagement if a petition merely asserts facts supporting eligibility and attaches documentation of either contact or attempted contact with a behavioral health professional or of prior intensive treatment.[26] If the court finds the person meets or “likely meets the criteria,” then the court orders a hearing, which may be conducted in the person’s absence.[27] At the hearing, if the court examines the “prima facie” evidence presented by the petitioner and finds “reason to believe the facts stated in the petition appear to be true,” the person is then required to enter into negotiations with the county behavioral health agency to come up with a purportedly voluntary treatment plan.[28] The role of the behavioral health agency poses a great potential for conflicts of interest, as they will presumably be funded to carry out the Care Plans that result from their negotiations and their evaluations.
However, failure to agree to that supposedly voluntary plan results in a court-ordered evaluation by that same behavioral health agency, which can be used to impose a mandatory, court-ordered course of treatment if the court finds the person meets the criteria following a hearing.[29] Once ordered, if a person does not complete the CARE program, they may be “involuntarily reappointed” to the program for an additional year.[30]
This process is entirely coercive, despite procedures that claim to be voluntary. Welfare and Institutions Code section 5801(b)(5), as amended by SB 1338, makes this coercion clear: "The client should be fully informed and volunteer for all treatment provided, unless… the client is under a court order for CARE pursuant to Part 8 (commencing with Section 5970) and, prior to the court-ordered CARE plan, the client has been offered an opportunity to enter into a CARE agreement on a voluntary basis and has declined to do so."[31]
The CARE Court plan threatens to create a separate legal track for people perceived to have mental health conditions, without adequate process, negatively implicating basic rights.[32] Even with stronger judicial procedures, this program would remain objectionable because it expands the ability of the state to coerce people into involuntary treatment.
CARE Court will harm Black, brown, and Unhoused people
The CARE Court directly targets unhoused people to be placed under court-ordered treatment, thus denying their rights and self-determination. Governor Newsom, in pitching this plan, called it a response to seeing homeless encampments throughout the state of California.[33] CARE Court will empower police and homeless outreach workers to refer people to the courts and allow judges to order them into treatment against their will, including medication plans. CARE Court does not increase access to permanent supportive housing or mental health care and instead relies on existing programs and service providers that already struggle to meet the needs of the unhoused.[34]
Due to a long history of racial discrimination in housing, employment, access to health care, policing and the criminal legal system, Black and brown people have much higher rates of homelessness than their overall share of the population.[35] The CARE Court plan in no way addresses the conditions that have led to these high rates of homelessness in Black and brown communities. Instead, it proposes a system of state control over individuals that will compound the harms of homelessness.
Further, much research shows that mental health professionals diagnose Black and Latino populations at much higher rates than they do white people.[36] One meta-analysis of over 50 separate studies found that Black people are diagnosed with schizophrenia at a rate nearly 2.5 times greater than white people.[37] A 2014 review of empirical literature on the subject found that Black people were diagnosed with psychotic disorders three to four times more frequently than white people.[38] This review found large disparities for Latino people as well. CARE Court may place a disproportionate number of Black and Latino people under involuntary court control.
CARE Court Does Not Increase Access to Mental Health Care
The CARE plan would establish a new judicial infrastructure focused on identifying people with mental health conditions and placing them under state control for up to 24 months. While touted as an unprecedented investment in support and treatment for people with mental health conditions, in reality, the program provides no new funding for behavioral health care, instead re-directing money already in the budget for treatment to programs required by CARE Court.[39] According to the DHHS presentation on the proposal, the only new money allocated for the program will go to the courts themselves to administer this system of control.[40]
The court-ordered plans include housing, but not necessarily permanent supportive housing.[41] The proposal seems to anticipate allowing shelter and interim housing to suffice if available, without recognizing the vast shortage of affordable housing, especially supportive housing, throughout most of California.[42] To the extent the proposal relies on state investment in housing already in existence, it will prioritize availability of that housing for people under this program, meaning others in need would have reduced access to that housing.
California Should Invest in Voluntary Treatment and Supportive Services
CARE Court shifts the blame for homelessness onto individuals and their vulnerabilities, rather than recognizing and addressing the root causes of homelessness such as poverty, affordable housing shortages, barriers to access to voluntary mental health care, and racial discrimination. CARE Courts are designed to force unhoused people with mental health conditions into coerced treatment that will not comprehensively and compassionately address their needs.
Californians lack adequate access to supportive mental health care and treatment.[43] However, this program does not increase that access. Instead, it depends on money already earmarked for behavioral health initiatives and layers harmful and expensive court involvement onto an already inadequate system. Similarly, the “Care plans” mandated by the CARE Courts do not address the shortage of housing.
Investing in involuntary treatment ties up resources that could otherwise be invested in voluntary treatment and the services necessary to make that treatment effective.[44] California should provide well-resourced holistic community-based voluntary options and remove barriers to evidence-based treatment to support people with mental health conditions who might be facing other forms of social exclusion. Such options should be coupled with investment in other social supports and especially housing, not tied to court-supervision.
Rather than co-opting the language used by movements supporting housing and disability rights and cynically parading the trauma of family members let down by the state mental health system, as proponents of CARE Courts have done, we instead ask that you reject the CARE Court proposal entirely and direct resources towards making voluntary treatment and other necessary services accessible to all who need it.
Sincerely,
Olivia Ensign John Raphling
Senior Advocate, US Program Senior Researcher, US Program
Human Rights Watch Human Rights Watch
https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/media_2022/06/HRW%20Opposition%20to%20SB%201338%20CARE%20Court%20Assembly%2006.24.22.pdf
SJG
discussion comment
2 years ago
Mayor Eric Adams reacts to Roe v. Wade being overturned
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HT4xWeuJw44
The woman who brought down Roe vs. Wade wants to take abortion battle to California
https://www.yahoo.com/news/woman-brought-down-roe-vs-222013366.html
SJG
discussion comment
2 years ago
![]()
san_jose_guymoney was invented for handing to women, but buying dances is a chump's game
Is there some dog illness, fromos, or fromo, or something? Gotten by eating dead animals?
What To Do If Your Dog Eats a Dead Animal
One Pitbull is sick now.
https://www.avma.org/resources-tools/pet-owners/petcare/disease-risks-dogs-social-settings
Here, it is probably this:
Canine parvovirus ("parvo")
Parvo is caused by the canine parvovirus type 2. The virus is very contagious and attacks the gastrointestinal system, causing fever, vomiting and severe, often bloody, diarrhea. It is spread by direct contact between dogs as well as by contaminated stool, surfaces, bowls, collars, leashes, equipment, and the hands and clothing of people. It can also survive in the soil for years, making the virus hard to kill. Treating parvo can be very expensive and many dogs die from parvo despite intensive treatment.
Fortunately, there is a vaccine for parvo. It is considered a "core" vaccine and is recommended for every dog.
SJG
6 MISTAKES DIYers Make When Wiring Outlets
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmiG4KzZ4sg
discussion comment
2 years ago
![]()
san_jose_guymoney was invented for handing to women, but buying dances is a chump's game
There may be some redeemable facts in this, but overall this guy is completely full of shit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMsSWl5R53c
SJG
discussion comment
2 years ago
Sometimes the girl is really surprised, but in those cases she might really pull out all of the stops.
SJG
discussion comment
2 years ago
People have posted about this in SoCAL black clubs, some girls.
Our underground clubs come and go. And kissing is not uncommon, but it was never universal.
You have to kind of learn to maneuver the interaction that way. I learned by accident with an extremely cute black girl in SF New Century. In AMPs it is kind of the same thing, gently maneuvering the interaction so it just happens. And usually it means FS. The girl will expect this. In a strip club it is usually either FS-ITC or fairly soon OTC.
SJG