If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.
Fark SearchWeb Fark

         more options... Create account

(NewsAdvance.com) Scary If you're a 60-year-old man and your 27-year-old female coworker dresses you in her underwear and then ties you to a chair, you're about to be farked   (newsadvance.com) divider line 75
More: Scary  
•       •       •

31930 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Jan 2008 at 8:04 PM   |  Make this a Fark FavoriteFavorite    |   share: Share on OMGTWITTER WEB2.0share on StumbleUponshare on Facebook  more»   |    Get this fabulous T-Shirt and impress the methane out of your friends! shirt it!

75 Comments   (+0 »)


Archived thread
First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
thamike 2008-01-13 02:49:04 PM  
Ha! The judge's son is a friend of mine.

 
muzzrphochr 2008-01-13 02:59:43 PM  
Coulda swore that said Judge Leybum!

 
rmoose 2008-01-13 03:31:43 PM  
This woman might consider more lucrative career opportunities.

 
dahmers love zombie [TotalFark] 2008-01-13 05:33:35 PM  
If you're a 60-year-old man and your 27-year-old female coworker dresses you in her underwear and then ties you to a chair, you're about to be farked

As opposed to the situation where you're in a WHEELchair and some dude pushes you off of the pier, in which case you're just plain farked.

/very old joke
//don't make me explain it, cherry

 
quickdraw [TotalFark] 2008-01-13 07:25:22 PM  
I shouldn't have done that?

 
Chemical Stump Remover 2008-01-13 08:10:20 PM  
... Dad?

 
Cyclonic Cooking Action 2008-01-13 08:12:35 PM  
Where do I sign up?

 
Denial_of_Death 2008-01-13 08:12:35 PM  
FTA: He testified that she also hit him in the head with a liquor bottle.

But what brand? This is a golden product-placement opportunity!

 
Lord Summerisle 2008-01-13 08:15:46 PM  
Lynchburg Circuit Judge Leyburn Mosby sentenced Harriett Sharta Bailey, 27, to 12 months probation Friday.
"This is a most unusual case and in this court's opinion, the victim is as much at fault for bringing on this matter as you were," Mosby told Bailey.


Imagine if this was a case of a man doing this to a woman and the judge said that.

 
Nick Nostril 2008-01-13 08:15:57 PM  
Kissyface27?

 
theorellior 2008-01-13 08:17:54 PM  
FTA: Harriett Sharta Bailey

You knowa you'va farked upa when you sharta.

 
ultraholland 2008-01-13 08:17:54 PM  
Pics or it didn't happen.

 
superdude72 2008-01-13 08:18:54 PM  
Tying him up: consensual.

Then she hit him with a liquor bottle, threatened him with a knife, took photos and attempted to extort $7,000 from him.

She's clearly guilty of assault & battery, unlawful imprisonment, assault with a deadly weapon, terroristic threats, and extortion. How the fark did that get barained down to petit larceny? Consent to be tied up != consent to continue with that after you've revoked your consent.

 
40oz_A_Knight 2008-01-13 08:20:05 PM  
THIS IS SHARTA!!!

 
swahnhennessy 2008-01-13 08:20:29 PM  
Wow. She got off easy for all that. Reverse those roles and that man would be gone for 5 years.

 
undefgeek 2008-01-13 08:21:56 PM  
This thread is worthless (though possibly less disgusting) without pics.

/TTIW(TPLD)WOP

 
FriarReb98 [TotalFark] 2008-01-13 08:23:31 PM  
This relates to something we were just discussing on TFD, doesn't it?

\don't bother looking for it :\

 
ARagingRebel 2008-01-13 08:25:35 PM  
reminds me of a porno/snuff film i once saw

 
richie65 2008-01-13 08:26:30 PM  
Nobody else catch this one?
"petit larceny"

small / miniature larceny...

 
radioman_ 2008-01-13 08:30:06 PM  
Once again the woman gets off easy. Did the judge take a bribe from NOW?

 
GoodOmens 2008-01-13 08:30:16 PM  
If this had been the other way around the man would be sitting in jail for a very very long time.

What a bunch of BS

 
aiiee [TotalFark] 2008-01-13 08:30:33 PM  
"petit larcency" oy

 
MykeXero 2008-01-13 08:30:43 PM  
Why did that headline turn me on?

 
Voldemort 2008-01-13 08:31:45 PM  
Sounds kind of hot to me.

 
olddinosaur 2008-01-13 08:39:02 PM  
Hey, if I'd had kinky sex with some 27-year-old chick, no way would they blackmail me to keep quiet.

Probably have a hard time shutting me up.

 
Sharing Artist's Boobies 2008-01-13 08:43:35 PM  
Denial_of_Death: But what brand? This is a golden product-placement opportunity!

FTA: Harriett Sharta Baileys

 
BubbaJones [TotalFark] 2008-01-13 08:48:40 PM  
FTFA:Bailey maintained, however, that the man had promised her money in exchange for the encounter. Her testimony about when the promise was made and when money or credit cards were to have been exchanged, however, was inconsistent.

So....I guess she would rather be known as a hooker than as an extortionist?

 
Superjoe 2008-01-13 08:57:11 PM  
I think the proper response would have been to convince her to release you and then beat the shiat out of her.

 
Keystone Copout 2008-01-13 09:01:19 PM  
Where do I sign up for this?

 
drb9 2008-01-13 09:12:14 PM  
Reverse the roles? Dress up a woman in tighty whiteys and an undershirt and take pictures of her? What do you think she would pay to suppress those photos? $0.05?

That said, I agree that if the judge were a man, and the roles were reversed, there'd be hell to pay.

 
From_The_Year_2000 2008-01-13 09:18:02 PM  
Why hasn't anyone mentioned what would happen if the roles were reversed?

 
Mudo 2008-01-13 09:22:58 PM  
Has anyone given one moment's thought to what if the roles were reversed in this case?

/well, have you, punk?

 
Lar Jorgen 2008-01-13 09:28:52 PM  
If you're a 60-year-old man and your 27-year-old female coworker dresses you in her underwear and than ties you to a chair, you're about to be farked

/sorry
//pet peeve

 
drb9 2008-01-13 09:29:51 PM  
FWIW, I was disputing the "reverse the roles" theory, speculating that pictures of a woman dressed up in men's underwear is not worth nearly the coin of pictures of a man dressed up in woman's underwear. I'm sure someone here can come up with a pictoral representation of this, just like the teacher-with-student matrix.

 
A Tout Le Monde 2008-01-13 09:32:01 PM  
Bailey maintained, however, that the man had promised her money in exchange for the encounter.

Wow, that most certainly makes everything legal and legit. She should appeal the probation.

 
Kinan 2008-01-13 09:32:57 PM  
WTF, is there anything women DON'T get away with lately?

 
A Tout Le Monde 2008-01-13 09:34:36 PM  
swahnhennessy: Wow. She got off easy for all that. Reverse those roles and that man would be gone for 5 years.

Indeed. Sex offender too, initial consent or not. I thought if you were convicted of anything at all remotely related to sex or sexuality you became a sex offender. Not if you have a vag, apparently.

/penises are evil

 
Bestbank Tiger 2008-01-13 09:41:18 PM  
Dear Penthouse, I always thought those letters were fake until...

 
From_The_Year_2000 2008-01-13 09:42:54 PM  
Lar Jorgen: If you're a 60-year-old man and your 27-year-old female coworker dresses you in her underwear and than ties you to a chair, you're about to be farked

/sorry
//pet peeve


than? I thought that was a then case, what am I missing here?

/not submitter
//still doesn't like being wrong

 
NakedApe 2008-01-13 09:45:55 PM  
I don't get it. Which part didn't he like?

 
ciocia [TotalFark] 2008-01-13 09:48:39 PM  
A Tout Le Monde: swahnhennessy: Wow. She got off easy for all that. Reverse those roles and that man would be gone for 5 years.

Indeed. Sex offender too, initial consent or not. I thought if you were convicted of anything at all remotely related to sex or sexuality you became a sex offender. Not if you have a vag, apparently.

/penises are evil


Maybe, but if that happened, there would be a shiatload of farkers arguing against any conviction because the victim changed her mind in the middle of the process--too late to change your mind, little girl, you consented right up to the camera part--and would be screaming for an acquittal. And he DID consent until the camera came out. The farkers would be hollering "buyer's remorse," which seems to be the case here. Am I wrong in this assumption?

 
Rossi_84 2008-01-13 09:49:17 PM  
I don't belive in revoking your consent

 
From_The_Year_2000 2008-01-13 09:51:00 PM  
ciocia: A Tout Le Monde: swahnhennessy: Wow. She got off easy for all that. Reverse those roles and that man would be gone for 5 years.

Indeed. Sex offender too, initial consent or not. I thought if you were convicted of anything at all remotely related to sex or sexuality you became a sex offender. Not if you have a vag, apparently.

/penises are evil

Maybe, but if that happened, there would be a shiatload of farkers arguing against any conviction because the victim changed her mind in the middle of the process--too late to change your mind, little girl, you consented right up to the camera part--and would be screaming for an acquittal. And he DID consent until the camera came out. The farkers would be hollering "buyer's remorse," which seems to be the case here. Am I wrong in this assumption?


Once someone says no, no matter what happened until that point, the deal is off. I think that is what most rational people think.

 
ciocia [TotalFark] 2008-01-13 09:53:20 PM  
From_The_Year_2000: ciocia: A Tout Le Monde: swahnhennessy: Wow. She got off easy for all that. Reverse those roles and that man would be gone for 5 years.

Maybe, but if that happened, there would be a shiatload of farkers arguing against any conviction because the victim changed her mind in the middle of the process--too late to change your mind, little girl, you consented right up to the camera part--and would be screaming for an acquittal. And he DID consent until the camera came out. The farkers would be hollering "buyer's remorse," which seems to be the case here. Am I wrong in this assumption?

Once someone says no, no matter what happened until that point, the deal is off. I think that is what most rational people think.


Yes, but apparently you don't read FARK, because on most threads involving rape, that isn't the consensus.

 
Lar Jorgen 2008-01-13 09:53:20 PM  
From_The_Year_2000: Lar Jorgen: If you're a 60-year-old man and your 27-year-old female coworker dresses you in her underwear and than ties you to a chair, you're about to be farked

/sorry
//pet peeve

than? I thought that was a then case, what am I missing here?

/not submitter
//still doesn't like being wrong


You're not wrong.

 
From_The_Year_2000 2008-01-13 10:04:35 PM  
ciocia: From_The_Year_2000: ciocia: A Tout Le Monde: swahnhennessy: Wow. She got off easy for all that. Reverse those roles and that man would be gone for 5 years.

Maybe, but if that happened, there would be a shiatload of farkers arguing against any conviction because the victim changed her mind in the middle of the process--too late to change your mind, little girl, you consented right up to the camera part--and would be screaming for an acquittal. And he DID consent until the camera came out. The farkers would be hollering "buyer's remorse," which seems to be the case here. Am I wrong in this assumption?

Once someone says no, no matter what happened until that point, the deal is off. I think that is what most rational people think.

Yes, but apparently you don't read FARK, because on most threads involving rape, that isn't the consensus.


No, I read fark, I just don't give a shiat that most people here, and in the rest of the world, are idiots. It's why I qualified my comment with "rational" :) That said, I give more credit to farkers that aren't trolls than I think you do.

 
WrongTrousers 2008-01-13 10:08:01 PM  
Lar Jorgen: From_The_Year_2000: Lar Jorgen: If you're a 60-year-old man and your 27-year-old female coworker dresses you in her underwear and than ties you to a chair, you're about to be farked

/sorry
//pet peeve

than? I thought that was a then case, what am I missing here?

/not submitter
//still doesn't like being wrong

You're Your not wrong.


/sorry
//pet peeve

 
ciocia [TotalFark] 2008-01-13 10:24:10 PM  
From_The_Year_2000:

No, I read fark, I just don't give a shiat that most people here, and in the rest of the world, are idiots. It's why I qualified my comment with "rational" :) That said, I give more credit to farkers that aren't trolls than I think you do.

Yeah, the "rational" should have been a tipoff.

 
sseye 2008-01-13 10:28:16 PM  
I got an Imus ad at the bottom of that article and for a brief, glorious moment, I imagined that Imus was the guy in the story.

Only a matter of time.

 
A Tout Le Monde 2008-01-13 10:29:27 PM  
ciocia: A Tout Le Monde: swahnhennessy: Wow. She got off easy for all that. Reverse those roles and that man would be gone for 5 years.

Indeed. Sex offender too, initial consent or not. I thought if you were convicted of anything at all remotely related to sex or sexuality you became a sex offender. Not if you have a vag, apparently.

/penises are evil

Maybe, but if that happened, there would be a shiatload of farkers arguing against any conviction because the victim changed her mind in the middle of the process--too late to change your mind, little girl, you consented right up to the camera part--and would be screaming for an acquittal. And he DID consent until the camera came out. The farkers would be hollering "buyer's remorse," which seems to be the case here. Am I wrong in this assumption?


No means no, to me.

Buyers remorse implies "No" was not said during the act, and is the result of regret the day/week after.

 
Displayed 50 of 75 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all


[Continue Farking]