Select Page
Poker Forum
Over 1,283,000 Posts!
Poker ForumFTR Community

New California Law Makes Filmed Love Scenes Rape

Results 1 to 42 of 42
  1. #1
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,499
    Location
    North Carolina

    Angry New California Law Makes Filmed Love Scenes Rape

    Under the new standard, just about every love scene ever filmed is a rape... One thing leading to another is now just a series of escalating violations. Maybe we should put each of those activities on a checklist to be produced after the first come-hither glance, so everyone knows exactly how far things are going. Sounds like seduction as imagined by Elliot Rodger.
    Source: http://spectator.org/articles/60543/...er-filmed-rape
  2. #2
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,465
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  3. #3
    Galapogos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    6,894
    Location
    The Loser's Lounge
    Clickbait


    Quote Originally Posted by sauce123
    I don't get why you insist on stacking off with like jack high all the time.
  4. #4
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,499
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by Galapogos View Post
    Clickbait
    Doesn't change the truth of it.
  5. #5
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,799
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    But several reputable news sources say "lawmakers say consent can be nonverbal, and universities with similar policies have outlined examples as a nod of the head or moving in closer to the person." http://abc7chicago.com/news/yes-mean...signed/328741/

    Also: "Consent can be conveyed by a verbal yes or signaled in a nonverbal way, but lack of resistance or objection cannot constitute consent." http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/29/us...rnia.html?_r=0

    Idk how reputable the Slate is, but they go into detail on the law here http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor...he_sexual.html , attacking those who say the law requires consent contracts.

    And sources like this one put the American Spectator's credibility in question http://ajrarchive.org/Article.asp?id=1608 , which make it a good source of trolltential.
  6. #6
    Looking forward to the day that Americans can no longer have sex because their politicians are fucking morons
  7. #7
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,499
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by JKDS View Post
    But several reputable news sources say "lawmakers say consent can be nonverbal, and universities with similar policies have outlined examples as a nod of the head or moving in closer to the person." http://abc7chicago.com/news/yes-mean...signed/328741/

    Also: "Consent can be conveyed by a verbal yes or signaled in a nonverbal way, but lack of resistance or objection cannot constitute consent." http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/29/us...rnia.html?_r=0

    Idk how reputable the Slate is, but they go into detail on the law here http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor...he_sexual.html , attacking those who say the law requires consent contracts.

    And sources like this one put the American Spectator's credibility in question http://ajrarchive.org/Article.asp?id=1608 , which make it a good source of trolltential.
    It's a ridiculous law for a number of reasons. One example, from your sources: "It also states that if the person has drugs or alcohol in his or her system or is asleep, they cannot give consent."

    Your wife had a beer and then blows you? That's rape because it's penetration that she can't consent to.
  8. #8
    - Hey I fancy you.
    - OK get your lawyer to meet my lawyer to draw up a pre-sexual contact contract.
    - OK cool, so we just sign these and we are covered right?
    - er dunno, according to some other laws our lawyers just got arrested for being beneficiaries of immoral earnings.
  9. #9
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,799
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Quote Originally Posted by spoonitnow View Post
    It's a ridiculous law for a number of reasons. One example, from your sources: "It also states that if the person has drugs or alcohol in his or her system or is asleep, they cannot give consent."

    Your wife had a beer and then blows you? That's rape because it's penetration that she can't consent to.
    Thats certainly possible. The bill is worded terribly, and it could be interpreted down the line as meaning just that. It could go the other way though.

    The bill doesnt like affirmative consents which arise from intoxication, but if other signs of consent were present than it might be ok. A marital relationship may be enough to show consent in your example, even though a simple dating relationship wouldnt be.
  10. #10
    Get out the ky jelly. This new law is going down a slippery slope.
    It takes 2 years to learn to talk, but a lifetime to learn when to shut up.
  11. #11
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,499
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by JKDS View Post
    Thats certainly possible. The bill is worded terribly, and it could be interpreted down the line as meaning just that. It could go the other way though.

    The bill doesnt like affirmative consents which arise from intoxication, but if other signs of consent were present than it might be ok. A marital relationship may be enough to show consent in your example, even though a simple dating relationship wouldnt be.
    While I agree that what you have to say would be a decent way of handling it, one problem I have with this bill is that it very quickly departs from anything reasonable. In today's legal environment, relationship status is never a part of consent ever. Also under the wording of this bill, someone who has had alcohol or drugs (who isn't necessarily intoxicated) cannot consent in any way, shape or form.

    Well, that is as long as that person is a female. You can bet your ass that if a drunk man and a drunk woman have sex that only the man is being tried with rape in that scenario and never the woman.
  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by spoonitnow View Post
    Well, that is as long as that person is a female. You can bet your ass that if a drunk man and a drunk woman have sex that only the man is being tried with rape in that scenario and never the woman.
    The Downton Abbey, Mad Men sort of patriarchal conservatism in this would be mind numbing if it wasn't so silly. It seems today's feminism believes the same thing that those it claims oppresses women once did: women have too weak of constitution to be considered responsible individuals and must instead rely on men. A hundred years ago: she couldn't help herself, she's hysterical. Today: she can't help herself, she's a liberated woman who must be protected from her own liberty
  13. #13
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,499
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    The Downton Abbey, Mad Men sort of patriarchal conservatism in this would be mind numbing if it wasn't so silly. It seems today's feminism believes the same thing that those it claims oppresses women once did: women have too weak of constitution to be considered responsible individuals and must instead rely on men. A hundred years ago: she couldn't help herself, she's hysterical. Today: she can't help herself, she's a liberated woman who must be protected from her own liberty
    If you really want to see an excellent example of this, see Emma Watson's recent speech at the UN on why men should help women because feminism. She calls this the "He For She" campaign, and #heforshe on Twitter is ridiculously funny.
  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by spoonitnow View Post
    While I agree that what you have to say would be a decent way of handling it, one problem I have with this bill is that it very quickly departs from anything reasonable. In today's legal environment, relationship status is never a part of consent ever. Also under the wording of this bill, someone who has had alcohol or drugs (who isn't necessarily intoxicated) cannot consent in any way, shape or form.

    Well, that is as long as that person is a female. You can bet your ass that if a drunk man and a drunk woman have sex that only the man is being tried with rape in that scenario and never the woman.
    To avoid spoiling, I won't name the show, but there was a scene in a popular hour long drama recently in which a black out drunk man was having sex with a fully coherent, if not totally sober woman. This was, by even a very strict definition, a scene depicting explicit rape. But here's the thing, I haven't heard a thing about this-- no one is up in arms, and my guess is that most people would view this as a comical scene (it was meant to be) and enjoy it as such. But what if the genders were reversed? The mainstream media, blogs, facebook posts-- people would have lost their god damn minds. There would be petitions to boycott the network, feminist would find their way to a podium, and if queried the average person would, at the very least, say it extremely distasteful.

    I honestly do think some of this MRA stuff has eaten its way into some of your brains, and I don't think it's healthy that there is a knee jerk "but what about X!" retort every time a women's rights issue arises-- but I also think examples like this show that the MRA's stuff isn't completely baseless.
    Last edited by boost; 10-08-2014 at 01:23 AM.
  15. #15
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,499
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    To avoid spoiling, I won't name the show, but there was a scene in a popular hour long drama recently in which a black out drunk man was having sex with a fully coherent, if not totally sober woman. This was, by even a very strict definition, a scene depicting explicit rape. But here's the thing, I haven't heard a thing about this-- no one is up in arms, and my guess is that most people would view this as a comical scene (it was meant to be) and enjoy it as such. But what if the genders were reversed? The mainstream media, blogs, facebook posts-- people would have lost their god damn minds. There would be petitions to boycott the network, feminist would find their way to a podium, and if queried the average person would, at the very least, say it extremely distasteful.

    I honestly do think some of this MRA stuff has eaten its way into some of your brains, and I don't think it's healthy that there is a knee jerk "but what about X!" retort every time a women's rights issue arises-- but I also think examples like this show that the MRA's stuff isn't completely baseless.
    I fully support a woman's rights as long as it doesn't impede on the rights of anyone else. In the case of the United States, the problem is that women have a lot more legal rights than men while still wanting to wave the victim flag. Feminism, despite the outdated dictionary definition, is no longer about the equality of people. Instead, it's about making advances for privileged white women at the cost of everyone else.

    As somewhat of an aside, there's lots of information out there about non-white women rejecting modern feminism at incredible rates, as they should. It's to the point that it's become a race issue. It's really that bad.

    A good analogy for the path of feminism is that of the path of the first KKK. (Note: This analogy is for the paths of these groups, not the groups themselves.) The KKK was not originally formed for a specifically race-based agenda. Instead, it was originally formed for the purpose of economic relief and helping southerners to avoid exploitation after the Civil War from certain policies of what were called the scalawags (politicians exploiting reconstruction for personal gain at the expense of the people). However, during the process of opposing the carpetbaggers (northerners who primarily came to the south to exploit the extremely cheap labor of freed slaves), it started to become more and more about opposing freed men, and that's why they were ordered officially disbanded. Today, the KKK is rightfully noted as a hate group despite the origins of the very first incarnation of the group (though they are currently on the third incarnation or "wave," which is mildly ironic).

    The point is that if you said you were a member of the KKK today but it was okay because you supported what the group was originally about (aka outdated shit like opposing scalawags and carpetbaggers), people would look at you like you were a fucking idiot.

    If you said you were a feminist today but it was okay because you supported what the group was originally about (aka outdated shit like not being able to vote and fewer educational opportunities), people will soon be looking at you like you're a fucking idiot. Third-wave feminism has taken things so far out into the Twilight Zone that people who are actually in it for equality will need a new word (my vote is for "humanism") to claim just to distance themselves from the bullshit.

    Feminism, as it was originally intended, did a lot of great things. However, it's made a lot of momentum in the past 20 years towards becoming a hate group, and it's only going to get worse.
  16. #16
  17. #17
    bahahahhhhaaaaaaa
    I will destroy you with sunshine and kittens.
  18. #18
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,499
    Location
    North Carolina
    What's funny is that a feminist version of that would be made up of shit like "we should commit mass genocide to reduce men to 10 percent of the population." What's so funny about it is that it actually fucking happens and gets a lot of play
  19. #19
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,133
    Location
    himself fucker.
    Quote Originally Posted by Galapogos View Post
    Clickbait
    First they ignore you...

    Then they laugh at you...

    Quote Originally Posted by spoonitnow View Post
    What's funny is that a feminist version of that would be made up of shit like "we should commit mass genocide to reduce men to 10 percent of the population." What's so funny about it is that it actually fucking happens and gets a lot of play
    Then they fight you...

    I forget the rest.
  20. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by spoonitnow View Post

    Feminism, as it was originally intended, did a lot of great things. However, it's made a lot of momentum in the past 20 years towards becoming a hate group, and it's only going to get worse.
    FWIW I think it will get better (but maybe not before it gets worse). Bad economies make people love the state and moralize against all things. A good and growing economy tends to relax the shackles on freedom of choice just enough that ridiculous positions get subverted. This wouldn't be a relevant point to make except that I think we are at the beginning of an era of a long-lasting, growing economy. That notion isn't popular (since when is popular opinion remotely accurate?), but from what I see from the Fed is that they're learning the central banking lessons that allowed Australia and Israel to avoid the crash and recession entirely
  21. #21
    Only wuggy would somehow tie this thread to the federal reserve. Jesus christ man, when all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail, eh?
  22. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by spoonitnow View Post
    I fully support a woman's rights as long as it doesn't impede on the rights of anyone else. In the case of the United States, the problem is that women have a lot more legal rights than men while still wanting to wave the victim flag. Feminism, despite the outdated dictionary definition, is no longer about the equality of people. Instead, it's about making advances for privileged white women at the cost of everyone else.

    As somewhat of an aside, there's lots of information out there about non-white women rejecting modern feminism at incredible rates, as they should. It's to the point that it's become a race issue. It's really that bad.

    A good analogy for the path of feminism is that of the path of the first KKK. (Note: This analogy is for the paths of these groups, not the groups themselves.) The KKK was not originally formed for a specifically race-based agenda. Instead, it was originally formed for the purpose of economic relief and helping southerners to avoid exploitation after the Civil War from certain policies of what were called the scalawags (politicians exploiting reconstruction for personal gain at the expense of the people). However, during the process of opposing the carpetbaggers (northerners who primarily came to the south to exploit the extremely cheap labor of freed slaves), it started to become more and more about opposing freed men, and that's why they were ordered officially disbanded. Today, the KKK is rightfully noted as a hate group despite the origins of the very first incarnation of the group (though they are currently on the third incarnation or "wave," which is mildly ironic).

    The point is that if you said you were a member of the KKK today but it was okay because you supported what the group was originally about (aka outdated shit like opposing scalawags and carpetbaggers), people would look at you like you were a fucking idiot.

    If you said you were a feminist today but it was okay because you supported what the group was originally about (aka outdated shit like not being able to vote and fewer educational opportunities), people will soon be looking at you like you're a fucking idiot. Third-wave feminism has taken things so far out into the Twilight Zone that people who are actually in it for equality will need a new word (my vote is for "humanism") to claim just to distance themselves from the bullshit.

    Feminism, as it was originally intended, did a lot of great things. However, it's made a lot of momentum in the past 20 years towards becoming a hate group, and it's only going to get worse.

    Yeah, I think a huge problem with the feminist movement as it stands is that it tends to be such an echo chamber. Any dissent is disregarded as stemming from ignorance or the brainwashing of the misogynistic society.

    That being said, I don't spend a ton of time on this topic, and so for this reason and my gender I clearly have a bias. And I think that's always going to be important to come to terms with, especially for those in the dominant (or previously and now questionably, if you insist) group.
  23. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by d0zer View Post
    Only wuggy would somehow tie this thread to the federal reserve. Jesus christ man, when all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail, eh?
    Ha..
  24. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by d0zer View Post
    Only wuggy would somehow tie this thread to the federal reserve. Jesus christ man, when all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail, eh?
    To be fair, if this were a thread about the Federal Reserve, then spoon would somehow tie it to California rape laws.
  25. #25
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,499
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by surviva316 View Post
    To be fair, if this were a thread about the Federal Reserve, then spoon would somehow tie it to California rape laws.
    Nah, I avoid all that talk of economics and libertarianism.
  26. #26
    The hammer/nail metaphor gets you in trouble more often than it illuminates. My brain is perpetually stuck in 2008-09 because I want to understand what went wrong and how to stop that from happening again. So yeah, that's why from time to time I mention the institution with control of the nominal economy, which means it is the ultimate arbiter of employment and wealth or lack thereof. Money is funny like that

    We all have our schtick, I guess. Spoon has feminism, I have the economy, Dozer has wiping his ass with feminism or the economy
  27. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by spoonitnow View Post
    Nah, I avoid all that talk of economics and libertarianism.
    Why?
  28. #28
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,499
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Why?
    It's just not interesting or fulfilling to me. Kind of like why I don't like doing sudoku puzzles.
  29. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by surviva316 View Post
    To be fair, if this were a thread about the Federal Reserve, then spoon would somehow tie it to California rape laws.
    lol wp.

    we do indeed all have our shtick.
  30. #30
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,499
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    The hammer/nail metaphor gets you in trouble more often than it illuminates. My brain is perpetually stuck in 2008-09 because I want to understand what went wrong and how to stop that from happening again. So yeah, that's why from time to time I mention the institution with control of the nominal economy, which means it is the ultimate arbiter of employment and wealth or lack thereof. Money is funny like that

    We all have our schtick, I guess. Spoon has feminism, I have the economy, Dozer has wiping his ass with feminism or the economy
    My schtick is normally education. Feminism is more polarizing, though, so I've picked it recently to stir the shit here on FTR. Limited testing shows it's working on Facebook too.
  31. #31
    That's funny because I have refrained from rants against the education system. Here's a mini one:

    If any one thing can be considered to perpetuate dysfunction in society, it's the cult of academics for all. You'd think that by now we would have figured out that this whole thing is bullshit, but apparently it will take more than wasting nearly two decades of every resident's life learning things we'll never use (at substantial cost). Virtually everything I've used in the real world I didn't learn in school (even the stuff that was language and math), and the things I need the least are things that school beat into me (how to avoid effort, how to feel like a perpetual child and rebel)

    When I ask my advisers why I need to take chemistry classes for a non-chemistry related major, their response is "it develops critical thinking skills, a well-rounded education, and shows that you have the grit to handle difficult material". Bullshit! If that's your response for why somebody should learn chemistry, you've lost the debate. I couldn't make a weaker argument if I tried. Yet for whatever dumb reason, our entire culture is obsessed with the idea of Renaissance Men who are assumed to be on the scholarly path of all things from childhood.

    It will be like this till the end of time unless the government somehow loses its ability to subsidize the institutions. Then the utilitarian attributes of market interests could finally subvert this crap
    Last edited by wufwugy; 10-09-2014 at 11:08 PM.
  32. #32
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,499
    Location
    North Carolina
    At the university I attended, a B.S. in Applied Mathematics required four semesters of a foreign language. However, every other math degree required just two or three. There's a fun one for you.
  33. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post

    When I ask my advisers why I need to take chemistry classes for a non-chemistry related major, their response is "it develops critical thinking skills, a well-rounded education, and shows that you have the grit to handle difficult material". Bullshit! If that's your response for why somebody should learn chemistry, you've lost the debate. I couldn't make a weaker argument if I tried. Yet for whatever dumb reason, our entire culture is obsessed with the idea of Renaissance Men who are assumed to be on the scholarly path of all things from childhood.
    Depends though, hard subjects are there to show you have the intelligence and/or work ethic to do well in those subjects so in a sense they do work quite well as admin criteria for universities and courses. I do agree that getting someone to spend two years (or whatever) of their life doing a subject that only has soft transferable skills for what that person actually WANTS to be doing is incredibly stupid. Especially when they could be spending that time doing something more productive for themselves.

    They also don't teach you anything about work ethic, motivation, etc like people do say they show signs of. Those skills in my experience of education you get an hour or so every month thrown in with "bullshit" like "life skills" where teachers don't take it seriously and the pupils even less so. When in reality they should be taught to children from a young age before they even get into bad habits.

    Also I was forced to take another year of Chemistry as I found it boring and didn't want to do it, school wouldn't let me drop it even though I was already doing > subjects that most people because my subjects were too narrow. Whilst fitting perfectly for what I wanted to do.
  34. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by ImSavy View Post
    I do agree that getting someone to spend two years (or whatever) of their life doing a subject that only has soft transferable skills for what that person actually WANTS to be doing is incredibly stupid.
    It's cart before the horse. We're training people before we have much clue what training they need or want. Barriers to employment are so high and the subsidization of school so much that the natural course of things has been flipped on its head. I'm not sure if I can succinctly explain this, but I'll try:

    Let's say we have a society with no welfare programs and no regulations on business. That means no funding for education, no minimum wage, low costs of doing business, etc. In this society, parents are responsible for their kids. If parents believe their kids should have classes and have the money to send them, they will. If parents don't wish that for their kids, then the kids are taught what the parents can teach them and they seek employment. This employment would mostly be with family or friends or regional acquaintances. The cost of that employment for kids is next to zero because they're still kids. They do simple tasks, build skills, build relationships, build loyalties. They move up as they find what they want and demonstrate their value.

    This is how it has always worked. This is how it works today in many places. My cousin has an awesome career captaining a fishing boat. he got into it because his dad and uncles do it. He makes bank and loves it. He graduated high school, where he learned kinda nothing. He was problematic until he got out of that system and his dad finally started teaching him the business. I know a lot of people with stories like this. For them, schooling is nothing but a life-delayer, capital-waster, that teaches nothing as much as it does cynicism

    In this world, education is very cheap and direct. It comes at the behest of what parents think best for their kids and businesses think best for its employees. Even the most technically complex industries would operate like this. Because costs would be so cheap, they would do things like hiring every applicant for 0 dollars willing to pay for the company's preferred textbooks. Then when those hires prove that they can learn the right things and do the right things to bring in profits, they start getting paid. We do this today (internships) but only after taxes and loans have spent ungodly sums on the person, not including the gargantuan opportunity costs of wasted time. The actual cost of learning programming skills that you'd use at tech companies is probably less than $1000 and could probably be learned to a payable degree in 6 months. If somebody wished to do this, it would be very hard for them not to.



    Compare this to what we have now. There's no more loyalty between employers and employees and it's hard to get work or move up if you don't have a bachelors. This is entirely a product of the mass push of subsidized education. Instead of building relationships from a young age, everybody hops around from company to company after twenty years of school. Due to such major increase in supply of bachelors degrees (since loans are not denied anybody), companies no longer even bother looking at applicants outside of the pool of graduates. Whenever you hear politicians say that welfare just makes more people poor, they're right and this is why.

    Add to this that all the schooling needed to get decent work teaches you almost nothing important. One of my close friends is an accountant in the construction industry. He got a bachelors in accountancy from a good state school with a 3.7 GPA, yet tells me that when he got the job, he had no clue what he was doing. Everything was just different than what he was taught in school. He had to relearn everything on the job. He says they have the exact same problem with every intern or new hire. None of them have any clue what they're doing because employment tasks are very specific whereas college is not. He says there's one accountant in the firm who doesn't have a bachelors yet has been there longer than anybody and knows the material better than anybody, yet she is continually passed over for advancement. All because she doesn't have a bachelors. I asked him what would happen if applicants were to learn all the specific accounting practices needed yet don't have degrees, and he said their applications wouldn't even be reviewed

    None of this practice makes sense unless you look at what the incentives and sensibilities created by incentives do. Because of the mass subsidization of education, it is in companies' best interest to have hamfisted practices like this since the state is already sorting talent for them. The problem is it's majorly inefficient and expensive, and it makes everybody poorer and worse off. Furthermore, it just encourages the belief that education is holy. I thought it was holy as well until I got into the system and found that people in college are just as dumb as everybody else. The only difference is that those who get educations are the ones that can listen to lectures without squirming. The education system spits out those who prefer doing things then calls them stupid for it


    Well that turned into a monster and probably unclear. Sorry
  35. #35
    I should add that I don't necessarily think people are dumb. I think the education system is so dysfunctional and this dysfunction has permeated the culture to the core. Things we take for granted, like teenage rebellion and angst, I think are merely just a product of education subsidization. It does the opposite of what it intends. It just isolates growing youths from the real world, teaching them that the most important skills in life are to figure out how to get away with doing as little as possible and to have immature relationships with immature people

    I don't think it's a coincidence that every home-schooled person I meet acts like adults and are much smarter than average. All this time I thought teenagers were supposed to be naturally stupid, but then I learn the stupidity is hammered into them by none other than byproducts of state policies
  36. #36
    If I have sex with a pineapple, is it rape?
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  37. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    If I have sex with a pineapple, is it rape?
    no. that makes you a pineapple fucker, which just makes you weird.
    I will destroy you with sunshine and kittens.
  38. #38
    But how can a pineapple give consent?
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  39. #39
    stick to consent rated pineapple juice.
  40. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    If I have sex with a pineapple, is it rape?
    If it's your word versus a pineapple, who's gonna believe a pineapple?

    (I'm using "you" in the general sense; if I'm saying "you" as in "you, OngBonga," then honestly, I'd probably sooner believe a pineapple.)
  41. #41
  42. #42
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,499
    Location
    North Carolina
    lolololol

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •