Ha! The judge's son is a friend of mine.

Coulda swore that said Judge Leybum!

This woman might consider more lucrative career opportunities.

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

I shouldn't have done that?

... Dad?

Where do I sign up?

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!

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.

Kissyface27?

FTA: Harriett Sharta Bailey

You knowa you'va farked upa when you sharta.

Pics or it didn't happen.

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.

Wow. She got off easy for all that. Reverse those roles and that man would be gone for 5 years.

This thread is worthless (though possibly less disgusting) without pics.

/TTIW(TPLD)WOP

This relates to something we were just discussing on TFD, doesn't it?

\don't bother looking for it :\

reminds me of a porno/snuff film i once saw

Nobody else catch this one?
"petit larceny"

small / miniature larceny...

Once again the woman gets off easy. Did the judge take a bribe from NOW?

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

"petit larcency" oy

Why did that headline turn me on?

Sounds kind of hot to me.

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.

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

FTA: Harriett Sharta Baileys

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?

I think the proper response would have been to convince her to release you and then beat the shiat out of her.

Where do I sign up for this?

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.

Why hasn't anyone mentioned what would happen if the roles were reversed?

Has anyone given one moment's thought to what if the roles were reversed in this case?

/well, have you, punk?

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

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.

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.

WTF, is there anything women DON'T get away with lately?

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

Dear Penthouse, I always thought those letters were fake until...

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

I don't get it. Which part didn't he like?

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?

I don't belive in revoking your consent

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.