This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Weirdo guy

Index

窶禿塒弯
Joined
26 Feb 2005
Messages
601
Reaction score
27
Excuse the title for it's a little redneck, but I was just wondering what the guy who was the 'victim ' in this affair was thinking and what his motivation for bringing this matter to the courts was. From anectodes of what some would say men are like, the majority of guys would be quite happy to wake up in this situation.
 
Why weirdo?

The only problem I see is the fact that there were onyl those 2, hence no independent witness (at least not mentioned in the article, since it was at a party there may have been some). From the article I can't see on which grounds the woman could be convicted.
 
Loves me, loves me not !

All goo points, gentlemen, and furthermore I find these points too amusing to take the report seriously. Possibly another regurgiated city legend from a poor, desperate reporter not wanting to fdisappoint his(her ?) boss for not having anything to report on, who resorted to his inner fear of losing the job, sheer eagerness to stay on thru self-and other humiliation, so that he (she ?) could brag about his (her ?) social adroitness of not getting the axe for underperformance. Perhaps he (she ?) wanted to send her the secret love signal that he (she ?) would sometimes appreciate some oral administering of her (his ?) love in such private parts of the person. Nevertheless, these, I find quite hilarious against my will.

Reuters said:
The 31-year-old man...woke up to find the 23-year-old woman...having oral sex with him.
This has to be an intentional misapplication of expression "have *** with." To be exact and to effectively home in on the point of the article, should have written

"The 31-year-old man...woke up to find himself being administered oral *** being performed upon him without asking for it." or...

"The 31-year-old man...woke up to find himself having oral sex with the 23-year-old-woman without remembering asking her consent, which drove him into a panic of being accused for sexual harassment at a drinking party."

"Having *** with someone" always implies willingness or cognizance of both parties engaging in the act, and cannot mean one party being unaware of the act.
all sexual acts with someone who is "unconscious or for other reasons unable to oppose the act" are considered rape.
How about too readly consenting to sexual behavior in one's sleep although not really wanting it per se, for the simple fact that he was always horny, or every 20 seconds, whether sober, drunk, unconscious, or dead. And perhaps his little arousal on the 23-year-old was too much for her to resist; in which case, he becomes responsible for indecent exposure, although his genitalia may still have been under his pants (but could equally have slipped out of his them during his wild, seductive, and heavily sexually overtoned turnovers in such an wasily viewable spot as the sofa ?) Could she expect to be recomensated for the unwanted sexual messages emanating from his concquettish, temping, alluring, defenseless demeanor in his particular sleeping postures ? Strange logic I'd say; How does "first woman convicted for rape" fit into Norway's "long tradition of equality" ? I'd say 40% cabinet seats is fair enough, considering P&PMS and paternity, oops, maternity leave, but unless the figure is 50% straight down to half a person, not equal.

As I have argued by more than one count of convoluted logic, I believe I have made my point that the report is a flake !
 

from this article no, but in some other it says that was some other guy who taped or took photos of this 'event'.
 

Really? I'd wonder what his motivation for not bringing it to the courts would have been.
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…