Did Neomi Rao defend dwarf-tossing?
A recent article about Neomi Rao's nomination to replace Brett Kavanaugh on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals claims that Rao has a record of defending dwarf-tossing.
Conservatives are discouraging talk of Rao as a future justice, recognizing that it will only draw more scrutiny of her record, which has recently been criticized over controversial positions like her defense of dwarf-tossing and past skepticism of date rape claims.
Does Neomi Rao have a record of defending dwarf-tossing? Also, how did that end up in court?
united-states dwarf-tossing
edited Feb 6 at 12:44
DavePhD
78.7k19332359
asked Feb 5 at 18:48
elliot svenssonelliot svensson
2,318635
|
show 10 more comments
A recent article about Neomi Rao's nomination to replace Brett Kavanaugh on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals claims that Rao has a record of defending dwarf-tossing.
Conservatives are discouraging talk of Rao as a future justice, recognizing that it will only draw more scrutiny of her record, which has recently been criticized over controversial positions like her defense of dwarf-tossing and past skepticism of date rape claims.
Does Neomi Rao have a record of defending dwarf-tossing? Also, how did that end up in court?
united-states dwarf-tossing
edited Feb 6 at 12:44
DavePhD
78.7k19332359
asked Feb 5 at 18:48
elliot svenssonelliot svensson
2,318635
4
@elliotsvensson The Washington Post paywall is trivially bypassed by opening their pages in an "incognito"/private browsing session.
– Bryan Krause
Feb 5 at 21:50
6
No tag wiki for dwarf tossing? Are you expecting pixies to create the wiki for you?
– Andrew Grimm
Feb 5 at 22:18
9
I'm not impressed that much research went into this question. They provided a link, and many newspapers have this story.
– Oddthinking♦
Feb 5 at 22:36
12
@elliotsvensson: You didn't even follow the link provided, and quote from that. We shouldn't allow ourselves to turn into a "Could someone bypass this paywall for me, please?" site. (I don't see this as extraordinary, but that's opinion.)
– Oddthinking♦
Feb 5 at 23:05
16
If someone supports the legality of BDSM (which can involve consenting people hurting each other during sex), does that mean they "support beating up your partner during sex"?
– Obie 2.0
Feb 6 at 1:25
|
show 10 more comments
A recent article about Neomi Rao's nomination to replace Brett Kavanaugh on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals claims that Rao has a record of defending dwarf-tossing.
Conservatives are discouraging talk of Rao as a future justice, recognizing that it will only draw more scrutiny of her record, which has recently been criticized over controversial positions like her defense of dwarf-tossing and past skepticism of date rape claims.
Does Neomi Rao have a record of defending dwarf-tossing? Also, how did that end up in court?
united-states dwarf-tossing
edited Feb 6 at 12:44
DavePhD
78.7k19332359
asked Feb 5 at 18:48
elliot svenssonelliot svensson
2,318635
A recent article about Neomi Rao's nomination to replace Brett Kavanaugh on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals claims that Rao has a record of defending dwarf-tossing.
Conservatives are discouraging talk of Rao as a future justice, recognizing that it will only draw more scrutiny of her record, which has recently been criticized over controversial positions like her defense of dwarf-tossing and past skepticism of date rape claims.
Does Neomi Rao have a record of defending dwarf-tossing? Also, how did that end up in court?
united-states dwarf-tossing
united-states dwarf-tossing
edited Feb 6 at 12:44
DavePhD
78.7k19332359
asked Feb 5 at 18:48
elliot svenssonelliot svensson
2,318635
edited Feb 6 at 12:44
DavePhD
78.7k19332359
asked Feb 5 at 18:48
elliot svenssonelliot svensson
2,318635
edited Feb 6 at 12:44
DavePhD
78.7k19332359
edited Feb 6 at 12:44
DavePhD
78.7k19332359
edited Feb 6 at 12:44
DavePhD
78.7k19332359
78.7k19332359
asked Feb 5 at 18:48
elliot svenssonelliot svensson
2,318635
asked Feb 5 at 18:48
elliot svenssonelliot svensson
2,318635
asked Feb 5 at 18:48
elliot svenssonelliot svensson
2,318635
2,318635
4
@elliotsvensson The Washington Post paywall is trivially bypassed by opening their pages in an "incognito"/private browsing session.
– Bryan Krause
Feb 5 at 21:50
6
No tag wiki for dwarf tossing? Are you expecting pixies to create the wiki for you?
– Andrew Grimm
Feb 5 at 22:18
9
I'm not impressed that much research went into this question. They provided a link, and many newspapers have this story.
– Oddthinking♦
Feb 5 at 22:36
12
@elliotsvensson: You didn't even follow the link provided, and quote from that. We shouldn't allow ourselves to turn into a "Could someone bypass this paywall for me, please?" site. (I don't see this as extraordinary, but that's opinion.)
– Oddthinking♦
Feb 5 at 23:05
16
If someone supports the legality of BDSM (which can involve consenting people hurting each other during sex), does that mean they "support beating up your partner during sex"?
– Obie 2.0
Feb 6 at 1:25
|
show 10 more comments
4
@elliotsvensson The Washington Post paywall is trivially bypassed by opening their pages in an "incognito"/private browsing session.
– Bryan Krause
Feb 5 at 21:50
6
No tag wiki for dwarf tossing? Are you expecting pixies to create the wiki for you?
– Andrew Grimm
Feb 5 at 22:18
9
I'm not impressed that much research went into this question. They provided a link, and many newspapers have this story.
– Oddthinking♦
Feb 5 at 22:36
12
@elliotsvensson: You didn't even follow the link provided, and quote from that. We shouldn't allow ourselves to turn into a "Could someone bypass this paywall for me, please?" site. (I don't see this as extraordinary, but that's opinion.)
– Oddthinking♦
Feb 5 at 23:05
16
If someone supports the legality of BDSM (which can involve consenting people hurting each other during sex), does that mean they "support beating up your partner during sex"?
– Obie 2.0
Feb 6 at 1:25
4
4
@elliotsvensson The Washington Post paywall is trivially bypassed by opening their pages in an "incognito"/private browsing session.
– Bryan Krause
Feb 5 at 21:50
@elliotsvensson The Washington Post paywall is trivially bypassed by opening their pages in an "incognito"/private browsing session.
– Bryan Krause
Feb 5 at 21:50
6
6
No tag wiki for dwarf tossing? Are you expecting pixies to create the wiki for you?
– Andrew Grimm
Feb 5 at 22:18
No tag wiki for dwarf tossing? Are you expecting pixies to create the wiki for you?
– Andrew Grimm
Feb 5 at 22:18
9
9
I'm not impressed that much research went into this question. They provided a link, and many newspapers have this story.
– Oddthinking♦
Feb 5 at 22:36
I'm not impressed that much research went into this question. They provided a link, and many newspapers have this story.
– Oddthinking♦
Feb 5 at 22:36
12
12
@elliotsvensson: You didn't even follow the link provided, and quote from that. We shouldn't allow ourselves to turn into a "Could someone bypass this paywall for me, please?" site. (I don't see this as extraordinary, but that's opinion.)
– Oddthinking♦
Feb 5 at 23:05
@elliotsvensson: You didn't even follow the link provided, and quote from that. We shouldn't allow ourselves to turn into a "Could someone bypass this paywall for me, please?" site. (I don't see this as extraordinary, but that's opinion.)
– Oddthinking♦
Feb 5 at 23:05
16
16
If someone supports the legality of BDSM (which can involve consenting people hurting each other during sex), does that mean they "support beating up your partner during sex"?
– Obie 2.0
Feb 6 at 1:25
If someone supports the legality of BDSM (which can involve consenting people hurting each other during sex), does that mean they "support beating up your partner during sex"?
– Obie 2.0
Feb 6 at 1:25
|
show 10 more comments
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
Rao wrote the blog article Substantive Dignity-Dwarf-throwing, Burqa Bans, and Welfare Rights as well as more-formal articles cited therein:
In a much-discussed French case, Mr. Wackenheim, a dwarf, made his living by allowing himself to be thrown for sport. The mayors of several cities banned dwarf tossing events. Mr. Wackenheim challenged the orders on the grounds that they interfered with his economic liberty and right to earn a living. The case went to the Conseil d’Etat (the supreme administrative court), which upheld the bans on the grounds that dwarf throwing affronted human dignity, which was part of the “public order” controlled by the municipal police. The Wackenheim case demonstrates how a substantive understanding of dignity can be used to coerce individuals by forcing upon them a particular understanding of dignity irrespective of their individual choices.
...
The issue is not whether laws prohibiting dwarf throwing, burqa wearing, prostitution, or pornography may be desirable social policy. Rather these examples demonstrate that the conception of dignity used to defend such policies is not that of human agency and freedom of choice, but rather represents a particular moral view of what dignity requires. These laws do not purport to maximize individual freedom, but instead regulate how individuals must behave in order to maintain dignity (and in the case of criminal prohibitions, stay out of jail).
For the related academic article see Three Concepts of Dignity in Constitutional Law Notre Dame Law Review volume 86, pages 183-271, particularly the "Dwarf Throwing" section on pages 226-227.
So in conclusion, she defended allowing dwarfs who want to be thrown, to be thrown, as opposed to outlawing the practice.
answered Feb 5 at 19:45
DavePhDDavePhD
78.7k19332359
58
I think it is worth clarifying the difference between "supporting dwarf-tossing" (as the title of the question claims) and "rejecting laws which ban activities based only on moral views of dignity, such as anti-dwarf-tossing laws". (e.g. I do not support people using the word "learnings" where they mean the word "lessons" - it is undignified - but I reject any proposed laws against it.)
– Oddthinking♦
Feb 5 at 23:10
14
@JonathanReez she supports allowing dwarfs who want to be thrown to be thrown.
– DavePhD
Feb 5 at 23:31
16
She supports freedom, even if that includes allowing dwarf throwing. Whether or not she personally supports the practice is unknown.
– JonathanReez
Feb 5 at 23:35
40
The real answer should be "we don't know." She could view dwarf-throwing as repugnant, or she could view it as innocuous. Either would be consistent with the position she expressed.
– Obie 2.0
Feb 6 at 1:26
13
@Obie2.0: However, I do think that it's relevant to answer that while her personal opinion on dwarf tossing is unknown, her legal opinion is very much known: she is against a blind ban, and argues that it hinges on the consent of the dwarf being tossed (that is not to say that dwarves were being tossed without their consent in the past ;)).
– Flater
Feb 6 at 11:22
|
show 10 more comments
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Rao wrote the blog article Substantive Dignity-Dwarf-throwing, Burqa Bans, and Welfare Rights as well as more-formal articles cited therein:
In a much-discussed French case, Mr. Wackenheim, a dwarf, made his living by allowing himself to be thrown for sport. The mayors of several cities banned dwarf tossing events. Mr. Wackenheim challenged the orders on the grounds that they interfered with his economic liberty and right to earn a living. The case went to the Conseil d’Etat (the supreme administrative court), which upheld the bans on the grounds that dwarf throwing affronted human dignity, which was part of the “public order” controlled by the municipal police. The Wackenheim case demonstrates how a substantive understanding of dignity can be used to coerce individuals by forcing upon them a particular understanding of dignity irrespective of their individual choices.
...
The issue is not whether laws prohibiting dwarf throwing, burqa wearing, prostitution, or pornography may be desirable social policy. Rather these examples demonstrate that the conception of dignity used to defend such policies is not that of human agency and freedom of choice, but rather represents a particular moral view of what dignity requires. These laws do not purport to maximize individual freedom, but instead regulate how individuals must behave in order to maintain dignity (and in the case of criminal prohibitions, stay out of jail).
For the related academic article see Three Concepts of Dignity in Constitutional Law Notre Dame Law Review volume 86, pages 183-271, particularly the "Dwarf Throwing" section on pages 226-227.
So in conclusion, she defended allowing dwarfs who want to be thrown, to be thrown, as opposed to outlawing the practice.
answered Feb 5 at 19:45
DavePhDDavePhD
78.7k19332359
58
I think it is worth clarifying the difference between "supporting dwarf-tossing" (as the title of the question claims) and "rejecting laws which ban activities based only on moral views of dignity, such as anti-dwarf-tossing laws". (e.g. I do not support people using the word "learnings" where they mean the word "lessons" - it is undignified - but I reject any proposed laws against it.)
– Oddthinking♦
Feb 5 at 23:10
14
@JonathanReez she supports allowing dwarfs who want to be thrown to be thrown.
– DavePhD
Feb 5 at 23:31
16
She supports freedom, even if that includes allowing dwarf throwing. Whether or not she personally supports the practice is unknown.
– JonathanReez
Feb 5 at 23:35
40
The real answer should be "we don't know." She could view dwarf-throwing as repugnant, or she could view it as innocuous. Either would be consistent with the position she expressed.
– Obie 2.0
Feb 6 at 1:26
13
@Obie2.0: However, I do think that it's relevant to answer that while her personal opinion on dwarf tossing is unknown, her legal opinion is very much known: she is against a blind ban, and argues that it hinges on the consent of the dwarf being tossed (that is not to say that dwarves were being tossed without their consent in the past ;)).
– Flater
Feb 6 at 11:22
|
show 10 more comments
Rao wrote the blog article Substantive Dignity-Dwarf-throwing, Burqa Bans, and Welfare Rights as well as more-formal articles cited therein:
In a much-discussed French case, Mr. Wackenheim, a dwarf, made his living by allowing himself to be thrown for sport. The mayors of several cities banned dwarf tossing events. Mr. Wackenheim challenged the orders on the grounds that they interfered with his economic liberty and right to earn a living. The case went to the Conseil d’Etat (the supreme administrative court), which upheld the bans on the grounds that dwarf throwing affronted human dignity, which was part of the “public order” controlled by the municipal police. The Wackenheim case demonstrates how a substantive understanding of dignity can be used to coerce individuals by forcing upon them a particular understanding of dignity irrespective of their individual choices.
...
The issue is not whether laws prohibiting dwarf throwing, burqa wearing, prostitution, or pornography may be desirable social policy. Rather these examples demonstrate that the conception of dignity used to defend such policies is not that of human agency and freedom of choice, but rather represents a particular moral view of what dignity requires. These laws do not purport to maximize individual freedom, but instead regulate how individuals must behave in order to maintain dignity (and in the case of criminal prohibitions, stay out of jail).
For the related academic article see Three Concepts of Dignity in Constitutional Law Notre Dame Law Review volume 86, pages 183-271, particularly the "Dwarf Throwing" section on pages 226-227.
So in conclusion, she defended allowing dwarfs who want to be thrown, to be thrown, as opposed to outlawing the practice.
answered Feb 5 at 19:45
DavePhDDavePhD
78.7k19332359
58
I think it is worth clarifying the difference between "supporting dwarf-tossing" (as the title of the question claims) and "rejecting laws which ban activities based only on moral views of dignity, such as anti-dwarf-tossing laws". (e.g. I do not support people using the word "learnings" where they mean the word "lessons" - it is undignified - but I reject any proposed laws against it.)
– Oddthinking♦
Feb 5 at 23:10
14
@JonathanReez she supports allowing dwarfs who want to be thrown to be thrown.
– DavePhD
Feb 5 at 23:31
16
She supports freedom, even if that includes allowing dwarf throwing. Whether or not she personally supports the practice is unknown.
– JonathanReez
Feb 5 at 23:35
40
The real answer should be "we don't know." She could view dwarf-throwing as repugnant, or she could view it as innocuous. Either would be consistent with the position she expressed.
– Obie 2.0
Feb 6 at 1:26
13
@Obie2.0: However, I do think that it's relevant to answer that while her personal opinion on dwarf tossing is unknown, her legal opinion is very much known: she is against a blind ban, and argues that it hinges on the consent of the dwarf being tossed (that is not to say that dwarves were being tossed without their consent in the past ;)).
– Flater
Feb 6 at 11:22
|
show 10 more comments
Rao wrote the blog article Substantive Dignity-Dwarf-throwing, Burqa Bans, and Welfare Rights as well as more-formal articles cited therein:
In a much-discussed French case, Mr. Wackenheim, a dwarf, made his living by allowing himself to be thrown for sport. The mayors of several cities banned dwarf tossing events. Mr. Wackenheim challenged the orders on the grounds that they interfered with his economic liberty and right to earn a living. The case went to the Conseil d’Etat (the supreme administrative court), which upheld the bans on the grounds that dwarf throwing affronted human dignity, which was part of the “public order” controlled by the municipal police. The Wackenheim case demonstrates how a substantive understanding of dignity can be used to coerce individuals by forcing upon them a particular understanding of dignity irrespective of their individual choices.
...
The issue is not whether laws prohibiting dwarf throwing, burqa wearing, prostitution, or pornography may be desirable social policy. Rather these examples demonstrate that the conception of dignity used to defend such policies is not that of human agency and freedom of choice, but rather represents a particular moral view of what dignity requires. These laws do not purport to maximize individual freedom, but instead regulate how individuals must behave in order to maintain dignity (and in the case of criminal prohibitions, stay out of jail).
For the related academic article see Three Concepts of Dignity in Constitutional Law Notre Dame Law Review volume 86, pages 183-271, particularly the "Dwarf Throwing" section on pages 226-227.
So in conclusion, she defended allowing dwarfs who want to be thrown, to be thrown, as opposed to outlawing the practice.
answered Feb 5 at 19:45
DavePhDDavePhD
78.7k19332359
Rao wrote the blog article Substantive Dignity-Dwarf-throwing, Burqa Bans, and Welfare Rights as well as more-formal articles cited therein:
In a much-discussed French case, Mr. Wackenheim, a dwarf, made his living by allowing himself to be thrown for sport. The mayors of several cities banned dwarf tossing events. Mr. Wackenheim challenged the orders on the grounds that they interfered with his economic liberty and right to earn a living. The case went to the Conseil d’Etat (the supreme administrative court), which upheld the bans on the grounds that dwarf throwing affronted human dignity, which was part of the “public order” controlled by the municipal police. The Wackenheim case demonstrates how a substantive understanding of dignity can be used to coerce individuals by forcing upon them a particular understanding of dignity irrespective of their individual choices.
...
The issue is not whether laws prohibiting dwarf throwing, burqa wearing, prostitution, or pornography may be desirable social policy. Rather these examples demonstrate that the conception of dignity used to defend such policies is not that of human agency and freedom of choice, but rather represents a particular moral view of what dignity requires. These laws do not purport to maximize individual freedom, but instead regulate how individuals must behave in order to maintain dignity (and in the case of criminal prohibitions, stay out of jail).
For the related academic article see Three Concepts of Dignity in Constitutional Law Notre Dame Law Review volume 86, pages 183-271, particularly the "Dwarf Throwing" section on pages 226-227.
So in conclusion, she defended allowing dwarfs who want to be thrown, to be thrown, as opposed to outlawing the practice.
answered Feb 5 at 19:45
DavePhDDavePhD
78.7k19332359
edited Feb 6 at 12:46
answered Feb 5 at 19:45
DavePhDDavePhD
78.7k19332359
answered Feb 5 at 19:45
DavePhDDavePhD
78.7k19332359
answered Feb 5 at 19:45
DavePhDDavePhD
78.7k19332359
78.7k19332359
58
I think it is worth clarifying the difference between "supporting dwarf-tossing" (as the title of the question claims) and "rejecting laws which ban activities based only on moral views of dignity, such as anti-dwarf-tossing laws". (e.g. I do not support people using the word "learnings" where they mean the word "lessons" - it is undignified - but I reject any proposed laws against it.)
– Oddthinking♦
Feb 5 at 23:10
14
@JonathanReez she supports allowing dwarfs who want to be thrown to be thrown.
– DavePhD
Feb 5 at 23:31
16
She supports freedom, even if that includes allowing dwarf throwing. Whether or not she personally supports the practice is unknown.
– JonathanReez
Feb 5 at 23:35
40
The real answer should be "we don't know." She could view dwarf-throwing as repugnant, or she could view it as innocuous. Either would be consistent with the position she expressed.
– Obie 2.0
Feb 6 at 1:26
13
@Obie2.0: However, I do think that it's relevant to answer that while her personal opinion on dwarf tossing is unknown, her legal opinion is very much known: she is against a blind ban, and argues that it hinges on the consent of the dwarf being tossed (that is not to say that dwarves were being tossed without their consent in the past ;)).
– Flater
Feb 6 at 11:22
|
show 10 more comments
58
I think it is worth clarifying the difference between "supporting dwarf-tossing" (as the title of the question claims) and "rejecting laws which ban activities based only on moral views of dignity, such as anti-dwarf-tossing laws". (e.g. I do not support people using the word "learnings" where they mean the word "lessons" - it is undignified - but I reject any proposed laws against it.)
– Oddthinking♦
Feb 5 at 23:10
14
@JonathanReez she supports allowing dwarfs who want to be thrown to be thrown.
– DavePhD
Feb 5 at 23:31
16
She supports freedom, even if that includes allowing dwarf throwing. Whether or not she personally supports the practice is unknown.
– JonathanReez
Feb 5 at 23:35
40
The real answer should be "we don't know." She could view dwarf-throwing as repugnant, or she could view it as innocuous. Either would be consistent with the position she expressed.
– Obie 2.0
Feb 6 at 1:26
13
@Obie2.0: However, I do think that it's relevant to answer that while her personal opinion on dwarf tossing is unknown, her legal opinion is very much known: she is against a blind ban, and argues that it hinges on the consent of the dwarf being tossed (that is not to say that dwarves were being tossed without their consent in the past ;)).
– Flater
Feb 6 at 11:22
58
58
I think it is worth clarifying the difference between "supporting dwarf-tossing" (as the title of the question claims) and "rejecting laws which ban activities based only on moral views of dignity, such as anti-dwarf-tossing laws". (e.g. I do not support people using the word "learnings" where they mean the word "lessons" - it is undignified - but I reject any proposed laws against it.)
– Oddthinking♦
Feb 5 at 23:10
I think it is worth clarifying the difference between "supporting dwarf-tossing" (as the title of the question claims) and "rejecting laws which ban activities based only on moral views of dignity, such as anti-dwarf-tossing laws". (e.g. I do not support people using the word "learnings" where they mean the word "lessons" - it is undignified - but I reject any proposed laws against it.)
– Oddthinking♦
Feb 5 at 23:10
14
14
@JonathanReez she supports allowing dwarfs who want to be thrown to be thrown.
– DavePhD
Feb 5 at 23:31
@JonathanReez she supports allowing dwarfs who want to be thrown to be thrown.
– DavePhD
Feb 5 at 23:31
16
16
She supports freedom, even if that includes allowing dwarf throwing. Whether or not she personally supports the practice is unknown.
– JonathanReez
Feb 5 at 23:35
She supports freedom, even if that includes allowing dwarf throwing. Whether or not she personally supports the practice is unknown.
– JonathanReez
Feb 5 at 23:35
40
40
The real answer should be "we don't know." She could view dwarf-throwing as repugnant, or she could view it as innocuous. Either would be consistent with the position she expressed.
– Obie 2.0
Feb 6 at 1:26
The real answer should be "we don't know." She could view dwarf-throwing as repugnant, or she could view it as innocuous. Either would be consistent with the position she expressed.
– Obie 2.0
Feb 6 at 1:26
13
13
@Obie2.0: However, I do think that it's relevant to answer that while her personal opinion on dwarf tossing is unknown, her legal opinion is very much known: she is against a blind ban, and argues that it hinges on the consent of the dwarf being tossed (that is not to say that dwarves were being tossed without their consent in the past ;)).
– Flater
Feb 6 at 11:22
@Obie2.0: However, I do think that it's relevant to answer that while her personal opinion on dwarf tossing is unknown, her legal opinion is very much known: she is against a blind ban, and argues that it hinges on the consent of the dwarf being tossed (that is not to say that dwarves were being tossed without their consent in the past ;)).
– Flater
Feb 6 at 11:22
|
show 10 more comments
4
@elliotsvensson The Washington Post paywall is trivially bypassed by opening their pages in an "incognito"/private browsing session.
– Bryan Krause
Feb 5 at 21:50
6
No tag wiki for dwarf tossing? Are you expecting pixies to create the wiki for you?
– Andrew Grimm
Feb 5 at 22:18
9
I'm not impressed that much research went into this question. They provided a link, and many newspapers have this story.
– Oddthinking♦
Feb 5 at 22:36
12
@elliotsvensson: You didn't even follow the link provided, and quote from that. We shouldn't allow ourselves to turn into a "Could someone bypass this paywall for me, please?" site. (I don't see this as extraordinary, but that's opinion.)
– Oddthinking♦
Feb 5 at 23:05
16
If someone supports the legality of BDSM (which can involve consenting people hurting each other during sex), does that mean they "support beating up your partner during sex"?
– Obie 2.0
Feb 6 at 1:25