Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Remember Todd Akin?Follow

#1 Dec 14 2012 at 7:53 AM Rating: Decent
******
21,717 posts
Well, apparently this guy decided to one-up him. In fairness, his comment was apparently the result of a heated argument with a prosecutor, and may not have been 100% in earnest, but people don't say stuff like this unless the statement is rooted in at least some level of personal belief.

Quote:
I'm not a gynecologist, but I can tell you something: If someone doesn't want to have sexual intercourse, the body shuts down. The body will not permit that to happen unless a lot of damage is inflicted, and we heard nothing about that in this case,


So the human body (absent control of the mind) now has an innate ability to respond to rape attempts such that it "shuts down"? Really? And this is coming out of California, of all places. Smiley: rolleyes
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#2 Dec 14 2012 at 8:14 AM Rating: Excellent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,666 posts
Emergency shut-off.

The thing is, most women don't maintain their emergency shut-down system. When it comes time to needing it the battery is dead or a hinge is stuck or whatever. How can blame some poor stupid incontrollable guy if the woman doesn't take care herself?
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#3 Dec 14 2012 at 8:22 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
11,176 posts
Elinda wrote:
Emergency shut-off.

The thing is, most women don't maintain their emergency shut-down system. When it comes time to needing it the battery is dead or a hinge is stuck or whatever. How can blame some poor stupid incontrollable guy if the woman doesn't take care herself?


I think the men were just trying to be helpful and do some free maintenance on their systems, you know how men like to fix things.
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#4 Dec 14 2012 at 8:28 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,397 posts
Needs more comments, but with just that sentence I'd guess he was talking about how the mind can shut out the experience and how the body will stop producing lubrication and such, which in turn causes ripping, tearing, and the damage he was probably referring to. Now, that doesn't stop pregnancy or anything, but there is that.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#5 Dec 14 2012 at 8:51 AM Rating: Excellent
***
2,010 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Needs more comments, but with just that sentence I'd guess he was talking about how the mind can shut out the experience and how the body will stop producing lubrication and such, which in turn causes ripping, tearing, and the damage he was probably referring to. Now, that doesn't stop pregnancy or anything, but there is that.


Well, that's a real slippery (>.>) slope. If we determine that it's impossible for any sort of lubrication to occur during a "legitimate" rape, we also would have to revisit whether or not men who get aroused during their rapes were really raped. This kind of logic just sets a really bad precedent. No means no, regardless of who says it and you shouldn't have to be beaten within an inch of your life to get justice for sexual assault.

Guys like that really just make me sick.
#6 Dec 14 2012 at 8:54 AM Rating: Good
******
21,717 posts
Torrence wrote:
No means no, regardless of who says it and you shouldn't have to be beaten within an inch of your life to get justice for sexual assault.


Agreed. There is no subconcious desire to have intercourse just because the body failed to prevent natural stimulus from taking place. Having a wet **** does not imply consent.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#7 Dec 14 2012 at 9:14 AM Rating: Default
******
43,397 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
Having a wet **** does not imply consent.
And having a dry **** does not imply lack of consent, either. However, it doesn't really change how the body generally reacts to situations. Not a perfect science, but if you've got suggestions beyond "Well, she said it was rape so it is rape," then by all means I'm open to suggestions.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#8 Dec 14 2012 at 9:23 AM Rating: Excellent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,666 posts
Smiley: lol

I'm unsure what the point is that this judge was trying to make. If the woman has 'shut down' and is dryed up and the would-be raper has to use some force to insert something into her vagina, is it then not rape because she didn't engage in the act.

Obviously it is still rape even though the woman has shut down and is not mentally or perhaps physically engaged. She's still getting **** and she still can get pregnant and it's still a physical act against her and against her will.

So, maybe the judge saying that if the woman doesn't shut down and doesn't have bleed and is self-lubricated then she's not being raped?

...or is the judge simply attempting to expand the gbaji definition - no marks, no blood, no rape.

Smiley: confused


____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#9 Dec 14 2012 at 9:30 AM Rating: Excellent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,666 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
"Well, she said it was rape so it is rape," then by all means I'm open to suggestions.
Why is her word insufficient?

____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#10 Dec 14 2012 at 9:33 AM Rating: Decent
******
21,717 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
Having a wet **** does not imply consent.
And having a dry **** does not imply lack of consent, either. However, it doesn't really change how the body generally reacts to situations. Not a perfect science, but if you've got suggestions beyond "Well, she said it was rape so it is rape," then by all means I'm open to suggestions.


There are certainly many other criteria used to determine the validity of a rape charge. You know that. Pretending that the sole determination of rape is based on the victim's report for the sake of playing devil's advocate is not really warranted here.

Additionally:

Quote:
Since 1980, California law doesn't require rape victims to prove they resisted or were prevented from resisting because of threats.


11People v. Barnes (1986) 42 Cal.3d 284. ("The court held that the 1980 amendments to the statute defining forcible rape, California Penal Code section 261 PC, deleting references to the victim's resistance, acted to relieve the state of the need to establish resistance as a prerequisite to a rape conviction and released rape complainants from the potentially dangerous burden of resisting an assailant in order to substantiate allegations of forcible rape.")


http://www.lawlink.com/research/caselevel3/8928

So evidence of resistance is not required, at least in California. Therefore, it can indeed come down to "she said it was rape" and whether the claim is deemed credible by a judge / jury.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#11 Dec 14 2012 at 9:45 AM Rating: Decent
******
43,397 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
Pretending that the sole determination of rape is based on the victim's report for the sake of playing devil's advocate is not really warranted here.
It has nothing to do with being a devil's advocate, it's simple forensic science fact. What he said (at least that one sentence that was quoted) wasn't wrong, whether you like it or not. If you want an open and shut case, that's a determining factor. It's called evidence.

And don't be absurd, being lubed up or not isn't "a form of resistance." It's not a faucet that can be turned off and on.
Elinda wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
"Well, she said it was rape so it is rape," then by all means I'm open to suggestions.
Why is her word insufficient?
Because she could be lying?

Edited, Dec 14th 2012 10:57am by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#12 Dec 14 2012 at 9:48 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,587 posts
LIES! Smiley: mad
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#13 Dec 14 2012 at 9:59 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,885 posts
Huh. gbaji never told us he was a judge.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#14 Dec 14 2012 at 9:59 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,666 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Because she could be lying?
No?!

I could be wrong but I thought a person's 'word' is sufficient to make accusation of a crime.


____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#15 Dec 14 2012 at 9:59 AM Rating: Decent
******
21,717 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
And don't be absurd, being lubed up or not isn't "a form of resistance." It's not a facet that can be turned off and on.

But in this case, the judge is saying exactly that. If the body doesn't want to have intercourse, it won't get "lubed up". The judge specifically cites this as a claim of physical resistance, and takes it a step further when he says:
Quote:
Quote:
If someone doesn't want to have sexual intercourse, the body shuts down. The body will not permit that to happen unless a lot of damage is inflicted


So if "a lot of damage" is not inflicted, then that person wanted to have sexual intercourse. That's what the judge is saying.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#16 Dec 14 2012 at 10:10 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,666 posts
Just for fun....

Can a man claim 'rape' if he had a hard-on?
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#17 Dec 14 2012 at 10:14 AM Rating: Decent
******
43,397 posts
Elinda wrote:
I could be wrong but I thought a person's 'word' is sufficient to make accusation of a crime.
She can accuse, but it doesn't automatically make it a rape, which is what I was saying.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#18 Dec 14 2012 at 10:14 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Elinda wrote:
Just for fun....

Can a man claim 'rape' if he had a hard-on?

If he's taking it in the **** and has a hard on, he's obviously **** and everyone knows those dudes are total whores. So no.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#19 Dec 14 2012 at 10:19 AM Rating: Decent
It's Just a Flesh Wound
******
22,688 posts
Someone's word is enough for accusation, but I don't think it's enough to get past a grand jury. Also, as far as I'm concerned, both leaky faucets and pitched tents are not rape disqualifiers.
____________________________
Dear people I don't like: 凸(●´―`●)凸
#20 Dec 14 2012 at 10:24 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,587 posts
Elinda wrote:
Just for fun....

Can a man claim 'rape' if he had a hard-on?


How'd he get it? Because I don't think a judge is going to let me sue the mattress manufacturer because I woke up all sprung at 3am.

Well, maybe there's one judge who'd allow it... Smiley: rolleyes
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#21 Dec 14 2012 at 10:32 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,666 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Elinda wrote:
I could be wrong but I thought a person's 'word' is sufficient to make accusation of a crime.
She can accuse, but it doesn't automatically make it a rape, which is what I was saying.

Of course not.

It doesn't automatically make it not rape either though.

Rape is just another crime against a person. Burden of proof shouldn't be any more or less stringent because it's rape. But it is. Not only does the victim have to prove that someone had **** with him/her they have to prove that it was not consensual.

If a knifing victim brings suit against someone for stabbing them they only need to prove that the individual stabbed them, the victim doesn't also need to prove that they didn't consent to the act.

____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#22 Dec 14 2012 at 10:34 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,666 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Elinda wrote:
Just for fun....

Can a man claim 'rape' if he had a hard-on?


How'd he get it? Because I don't think a judge is going to let me sue the mattress manufacturer because I woke up all sprung at 3am.

Well, maybe there's one judge who'd allow it... Smiley: rolleyes

The rest of us are talking about rape.

Mattresses don't rape.

____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#23 Dec 14 2012 at 10:34 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Elinda wrote:
Just for fun....

Can a man claim 'rape' if he had a hard-on?

If he's taking it in the **** and has a hard on, he's obviously **** and everyone knows those dudes are total whores. So no.


Why does it have to be in the butt? I am sure some where out there some chick has raped some dude. Granted he was probably just content getting laid.


Edited, Dec 14th 2012 11:34am by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#24 Dec 14 2012 at 10:41 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,397 posts
Elinda wrote:
If a knifing victim brings suit against someone for stabbing them they only need to prove that the individual stabbed them, the victim doesn't also need to prove that they didn't consent to the act.
Man in Missouri got off from stabbing someone when he proved it was consensual.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#25 Dec 14 2012 at 10:44 AM Rating: Decent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,666 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Elinda wrote:
Just for fun....

Can a man claim 'rape' if he had a hard-on?

If he's taking it in the **** and has a hard on, he's obviously **** and everyone knows those dudes are total whores. So no.


Why does it have to be in the butt? I am sure some where out there some chick has raped some dude. Granted he was probably just content getting laid.


Edited, Dec 14th 2012 11:34am by rdmcandie
If he was content getting laid, was it rape?
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#26 Dec 14 2012 at 10:45 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,666 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Elinda wrote:
If a knifing victim brings suit against someone for stabbing them they only need to prove that the individual stabbed them, the victim doesn't also need to prove that they didn't consent to the act.
Man in Missouri got off from stabbing someone when he proved it was consensual.

The victim didn't have to prove it was non-consenual?
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#27 Dec 14 2012 at 10:48 AM Rating: Good
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,587 posts
Elinda wrote:
The rest of us are talking about rape.

Mattresses don't rape.


Well maybe; but I still think the burden of proof should be on the mattress to prove it was consensual.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#28 Dec 14 2012 at 10:54 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,666 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Elinda wrote:
The rest of us are talking about rape.

Mattresses don't rape.


Well maybe; but I still think the burden of proof should be on the mattress to prove it was consensual.

So if the mattress has a vibrator and not only gets you hard but manages to get you off (hands free). Could it be said that you had **** with the mattress.



mattress-raper!Smiley: mad
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#29 Dec 14 2012 at 10:58 AM Rating: Good
******
43,397 posts
Elinda wrote:
The victim didn't have to prove it was non-consenual?
The victim did, and failed to do so.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#30 Dec 14 2012 at 10:58 AM Rating: Excellent
****
6,470 posts
Elinda wrote:
Rape is just another crime against a person. Burden of proof shouldn't be any more or less stringent because it's rape. But it is. Not only does the victim have to prove that someone had **** with him/her they have to prove that it was not consensual.

If a knifing victim brings suit against someone for stabbing them they only need to prove that the individual stabbed them, the victim doesn't also need to prove that they didn't consent to the act.


This analogy seems fundamentally flawed.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#31 Dec 14 2012 at 11:03 AM Rating: Good
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,587 posts
Elinda wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
Elinda wrote:
The rest of us are talking about rape.

Mattresses don't rape.


Well maybe; but I still think the burden of proof should be on the mattress to prove it was consensual.

So if the mattress has a vibrator and not only gets you hard but manages to get you off (hands free). Could it be said that you had **** with the mattress.



mattress-raper!Smiley: mad


And after trusting it enough to fall asleep on it too. Luring someone to sleep with your cushy softness and then taking advantage of them is highly immoral at the very least. Smiley: bah
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#32 Dec 14 2012 at 12:42 PM Rating: Decent
Unforkgettable
*****
13,205 posts
Elinda wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
"Well, she said it was rape so it is rape," then by all means I'm open to suggestions.
Why is her word insufficient?
Why is his word that it was consensual insufficient?
____________________________
Banh
#33 Dec 14 2012 at 1:03 PM Rating: Default
******
21,717 posts
Spoonless wrote:
Elinda wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
"Well, she said it was rape so it is rape," then by all means I'm open to suggestions.
Why is her word insufficient?
Why is his word that it was consensual insufficient?

Why is insufficient, not insufficient?
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#34 Dec 14 2012 at 1:12 PM Rating: Default
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,666 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
Spoonless wrote:
Elinda wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
"Well, she said it was rape so it is rape," then by all means I'm open to suggestions.
Why is her word insufficient?
Why is his word that it was consensual insufficient?

Why is insufficient, not insufficient?

It is.

Then there is a trial and tricky lawyers attempt to trip up one or the other until the truth is revealed. Smiley: sly

____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#35 Dec 14 2012 at 8:22 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,462 posts
Elinda wrote:
I'm unsure what the point is that this judge was trying to make. If the woman has 'shut down' and is dryed up and the would-be raper has to use some force to insert something into her vagina, is it then not rape because she didn't engage in the act.


I think the point was that since there was no such injury reported, it is hard to prove or assume that vaginal rape occurred. Remember that this was during a sentencing discussion, where the defendant was already found guilty (of multiple offenses), and the question was a matter of degree of the sentence. It had nothing to do with whether he was guilty of a given offense, but the severity (and extraneous circumstances) and thus the degree of sentence.

Quote:
Obviously it is still rape even though the woman has shut down and is not mentally or perhaps physically engaged. She's still getting @#%^ed and she still can get pregnant and it's still a physical act against her and against her will.


Which had nothing at all to do with this particular case. A jury had already convicted the guy of whatever charge he was convicted of. Based on the article, it looks like the prosecution was arguing for a maximum sentence based on an assumption of the violence of the rape, and the judge rightly pointed out that in the absence of physical evidence of that particular act (there were others btw, which were taken into account) he could not pass out a maximum sentence.

Quote:
So, maybe the judge saying that if the woman doesn't shut down and doesn't have bleed and is self-lubricated then she's not being raped?

...or is the judge simply attempting to expand the gbaji definition - no marks, no blood, no rape.


Yes. Heaven forbid that a judge use the same logic that we should make a distinction between causes where there's clear physical evidence of rape and those where there isn't. It's not "no marks, no rape", but "no marks, can't prove it's rape" (assuming no other evidence of course). I mean, if your neighbor accuses you of hitting him over the head with a hammer, you kind of expect he'd better have some hammer marks on his head to prove that it happened, right? Why should a rape case be any different?

Quote:
Smiley: confused


Indeed. Do we make an exception in our law for rape? In every other kind of criminal charge, the plaintiff has to provide sufficient evidence to prove guilt on the part of the defendant (or even to prove that the claimed event occurred in the first place), but not in the case of rape? If you walk up to me and manage to hit me without leaving any marks and there are no other witnesses, guess what? I'm not going to be able to charge you with assault. If I accuse someone of turning me into a newt, I'd better be a newt or no one will believe me. I know that this can be a painful issue for women who are victims of rape, but I also strongly believe that weakening our burden of proof in order to make ourselves feel like we're more sympathetic to one specific crime isn't a great thing to do. Our laws and how we prosecute them should be consistent.

Edited, Dec 14th 2012 6:37pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#36 Dec 14 2012 at 8:36 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,462 posts
Not intentionally picking on you. You're just making the more interesting statements.

Elinda wrote:
Rape is just another crime against a person. Burden of proof shouldn't be any more or less stringent because it's rape. But it is. Not only does the victim have to prove that someone had **** with him/her they have to prove that it was not consensual.


Sure. But the same can be said about a lot of crimes. If you steal my car keys and take my car, I have to prove I didn't give you the car (this comes up more often than you might think). I have to prove that I didn't intend to give that guy my stereo. I have to prove that guy didn't have permission to be on my property. There are a whole bunch of legal charges that revolve around the intent of the parties involved. The difference between degrees of manslaughter versus murder versus justified homicide for example. It's not enough to prove that someone killed someone else, but that it was intentional, or planned, or was not in self defense, etc.

Quote:
If a knifing victim brings suit against someone for stabbing them they only need to prove that the individual stabbed them, the victim doesn't also need to prove that they didn't consent to the act.


Sure (well, in most normal cases at least). But that's because we normally assume that no one would consent to being stabbed, or shot, or killed, stolen from, etc. But rape is specifically about something that often is consensual, but in this case isn't. The entire charge rests on proving that the sexual activity was not consensual, since that's what makes it rape. I don't think that's an unfair extra burden of proof.

The problem is that it's really hard to prove that sexual activity was non-consensual if there are no witnesses, and no physical evidence of any kind of struggle. This becomes even more problematic if the person being accused is someone the victim has a relationship with (especially a sexual relationship). How can we prove that someone who's been sexual active for months with someone this time didn't consent? Remember, it's not about what actually happened (or what is claimed to have happened), but what can be proven to have happened. That may seem unfair sometimes, but it's a burden of proof that we should stick to IMO. Reducing the burden of proof is a bad idea.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#37 Dec 14 2012 at 9:43 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,916 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Elinda wrote:
Just for fun....

Can a man claim 'rape' if he had a hard-on?

If he's taking it in the **** and has a hard on, he's obviously **** and everyone knows those dudes are total whores. So no.


What if he's a Nigerian prince getting gang raped to death?
____________________________
"India black magic anal sex zionist blow job terrorism child rape bicycle"
Just as Planned.
#38 Dec 15 2012 at 12:36 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Hello friend and warm hello to you. I am Mbouti Laoumbout, Chief Financial Vice-President of the the Nigerian Economic Bank of Business Economics. Recently Prince Uroko Onoja of Ogbadibo, a wealthy philanthropist was raped to death leaving ONE MILLION TWO HUNDRED THIRTY-NINE DOLLARS in escrow account that I need your help in obtaining if you are a trustworthy and discreet person of trustworthiness character...
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#39 Dec 15 2012 at 6:47 AM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,699 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Hello friend and warm hello to you. I am Mbouti Laoumbout, Chief Financial Vice-President of the the Nigerian Economic Bank of Business Economics. Recently Prince Uroko Onoja of Ogbadibo, a wealthy philanthropist was raped to death leaving ONE MILLION TWO HUNDRED THIRTY-NINE DOLLARS in escrow account that I need your help in obtaining if you are a trustworthy and discreet person of trustworthiness character...


Re:

Just send me the nice young one that tried to resuscitate him and we'll call it even. You can keep the crazy ones.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#40 Dec 15 2012 at 4:22 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,281 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
Spoonless wrote:
Elinda wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
"Well, she said it was rape so it is rape," then by all means I'm open to suggestions.
Why is her word insufficient?
Why is his word that it was consensual insufficient?

Why is insufficient, not insufficient?

Why is a raven like a writing desk?
#41 Dec 15 2012 at 4:28 PM Rating: Good
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,635 posts
Nadenu wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
Spoonless wrote:
Elinda wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
"Well, she said it was rape so it is rape," then by all means I'm open to suggestions.
Why is her word insufficient?
Why is his word that it was consensual insufficient?

Why is insufficient, not insufficient?

Why is a raven like a writing desk?


They both have quills!!
#42 Dec 15 2012 at 6:54 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,181 posts
Belkira wrote:
Nadenu wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
Spoonless wrote:
Elinda wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
"Well, she said it was rape so it is rape," then by all means I'm open to suggestions.
Why is her word insufficient?
Why is his word that it was consensual insufficient?

Why is insufficient, not insufficient?

Why is a raven like a writing desk?


They both have quills!!



Poe wrote on both.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#43 Dec 15 2012 at 7:25 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,176 posts
Samira wrote:
Belkira wrote:
Nadenu wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
Spoonless wrote:
Elinda wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
"Well, she said it was rape so it is rape," then by all means I'm open to suggestions.
Why is her word insufficient?
Why is his word that it was consensual insufficient?

Why is insufficient, not insufficient?

Why is a raven like a writing desk?


They both have quills!!



Poe wrote on both.



The sound of tapping can be heard from both.
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#44 Dec 16 2012 at 3:50 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
You can put your **** in both of them.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#45 Dec 16 2012 at 10:03 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,885 posts
Um...

No, never mind.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 28 All times are in CDT
Aethien, Tasera, Anonymous Guests (26)