Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(Daily Mail)   Mr Ilg woke from a night out at the strip club with no memory of the previous night but a credit card bill for more than $28k so does he. A) Pay the bill. C) Sue the club because he was drunk & 'no longer capable of conducting financial transactions'   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line 181
    More: Dumbass, Mr Ilg, Hustler Club, Friendly's, duty to protect, credit card bill  
•       •       •

8657 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Dec 2012 at 12:25 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



181 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-12-13 10:39:58 AM  
If I don't remember it didn't happen.

Unless the club wants to show me a video of me up and moving during my blackout, then I'm guessing they drugged me and charged up my credit card.

img202.imageshack.us

stripper thread!
 
2012-12-13 10:47:53 AM  
So what they're saying is that despite having consumed sufficient alcohol to severely impair his judgement, he's still legally considered responsible for his own actions.

I wonder if that legal principle could carry over to any other aspects of the law.
 
2012-12-13 11:06:35 AM  
Hahahaha, that's exactly the kind of thing I imagine is going on at Larry Flynt's Hustler Club every time I drive past it.
 
2012-12-13 11:08:11 AM  

DammitIForgotMyLogin: I wonder if that legal principle could carry over to any other aspects of the law.


It does. You have impaired judgement, however if you get behind the wheel you cant use that impairment as a mitigating circumstance

img820.imageshack.us
 
2012-12-13 11:10:44 AM  
There's no guarantee that the transactions he was making, whilst absolutely paralytic, were done in good faith. They could bring him beers, ask for his credit card, he thinks "pfft, $10-$20 tops", but he gets back in the morning he sees that it was $500 a drink, and they ran it through twice, or maybe even 3 times for the one drink, whilst no where in the bar does it say beers are $500.

If a dance is $300 there's no way he had nearly 100 of them. He was just ripped off because they saw he was drunk so could take advantage and ramp up the prices.

Strip bars are very dangerous places to lose control whilst drunk.
 
2012-12-13 11:26:14 AM  

DammitIForgotMyLogin: So what they're saying is that despite having consumed sufficient alcohol to severely impair his judgement, he's still legally considered responsible for his own actions.

I wonder if that legal principle could carry over to any other aspects of the law.


Well, considering every strip club in the world is pretty much a clip joint, especially the bigger ones, it probably only applies to these types of cases where "services" are provided.
 
2012-12-13 11:30:58 AM  
He said he had a huge gap in his memory and woke up the next day in Delaware after being driven home by a club employee

He got done over so hard that the employees decide to drive you home.... damn....


img442.imageshack.us
 
2012-12-13 11:52:49 AM  
I've been waiting for this to happen. A contract is not legally enforceable if the signatory is drunk.
 
2012-12-13 12:02:48 PM  
Many moons ago I had a brief gig as a B girl in a strip club in the Quarter. I was broke but walked out the second night I was there after learning what the place was all about.
Get 'em in, get a credit card, blah blah.

Because People in power are Stupid: I've been waiting for this to happen. A contract is not legally enforceable if the signatory is drunk.


Shame is a big factor in these negotiations. Many people will pay to get it to go away.
 
2012-12-13 12:07:41 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: A contract is not legally enforceable if the signatory is drunk.


Lucy v. Zehmer says your statement is naive and incorrect and that you need to ask for your law school tuition back. Try telling them you were drunk when you enrolled.
 
2012-12-13 12:20:32 PM  

Theaetetus: Lucy v. Zehmer


"is immaterial except when an unreasonable meaning which he attaches to his manifestations is known to the other party."

They drove the drunk guy home. They must have known this manifestation.

And asshat, I'm not in Law School nor have I ever made that claim.
 
2012-12-13 12:20:36 PM  

Theaetetus: Because People in power are Stupid: A contract is not legally enforceable if the signatory is drunk.

Lucy v. Zehmer says your statement is naive and incorrect and that you need to ask for your law school tuition back. Try telling them you were drunk when you enrolled.


...and would a credit card payment count as a 'contract'? I think it should be payment under false pretences, or something, because they used the fact he was drunk to overcharge, probably repeatedly, for something he may not even have wanted.
 
2012-12-13 12:23:45 PM  

Theaetetus: Because People in power are Stupid: A contract is not legally enforceable if the signatory is drunk.

Lucy v. Zehmer says your statement is naive and incorrect and that you need to ask for your law school tuition back. Try telling them you were drunk when you enrolled.


Legally speaking - If you are drunk and can prove it there are situations where you cannot be held liable or give true consent.
 
2012-12-13 12:25:59 PM  

AbbeySomeone: Theaetetus: Because People in power are Stupid: A contract is not legally enforceable if the signatory is drunk.

Lucy v. Zehmer says your statement is naive and incorrect and that you need to ask for your law school tuition back. Try telling them you were drunk when you enrolled.

Legally speaking - If you are drunk and can prove it there are situations where you cannot be held liable or give true consent.


Why don't we go out drinking -just you and me. I'll ply you with liquor, women, cocaine whatever you want. The next day you will have signed a contract that you don't remember signing and I'll hold you up to it.

Sounds fair? I wonder what the judge will do.
 
2012-12-13 12:28:55 PM  
Ah, the old "I was too drunk to know that I was drunk" defense.
Was outlawed in North Carolina, because too many drunk drivers got off using it.
 
2012-12-13 12:30:47 PM  
At 28,000, yes and he probably has a very strong case.
 
2012-12-13 12:31:53 PM  
Reads Article

Citrate1007:
At 28,000, yes and he probably has a very strong case. should have hired a better lawyer.
 
2012-12-13 12:32:04 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: AbbeySomeone: Theaetetus: Because People in power are Stupid: A contract is not legally enforceable if the signatory is drunk.

Lucy v. Zehmer says your statement is naive and incorrect and that you need to ask for your law school tuition back. Try telling them you were drunk when you enrolled.

Legally speaking - If you are drunk and can prove it there are situations where you cannot be held liable or give true consent.

Why don't we go out drinking -just you and me. I'll ply you with liquor, women, cocaine whatever you want. The next day you will have signed a contract that you don't remember signing and I'll hold you up to it.

Sounds fair? I wonder what the judge will do.


Fantastic. I prefer young, hot boys as long as I don't have to deal with their drama. Cocaine? Nah.
Methinks you don't have a real good law savvy. The Judge will do whatever he is bribed to do, and if he is not corrupt he will abide the law which will cancel drunken/impaired contracts.
 
2012-12-13 12:32:18 PM  
They should have made him settle up at five thousand dollar intervals or something, if it's legitimate.
 
2012-12-13 12:32:56 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: AbbeySomeone: Theaetetus: Because People in power are Stupid: A contract is not legally enforceable if the signatory is drunk.

Lucy v. Zehmer says your statement is naive and incorrect and that you need to ask for your law school tuition back. Try telling them you were drunk when you enrolled.

Legally speaking - If you are drunk and can prove it there are situations where you cannot be held liable or give true consent.

Why don't we go out drinking -just you and me. I'll ply you with liquor, women, cocaine whatever you want. The next day you will have signed a contract that you don't remember signing and I'll hold you up to it.

Sounds fair? I wonder what the judge will do.


It could easily be worse than that. They may have given him rapenol or whatever it's called. He's the second guy this has happened to.

In Minnesota, at least, serving alcohol to a a person who's visibly drunk is a crime. At the very least, the bar should lose its liquor license.
 
2012-12-13 12:34:30 PM  
FTA: However, the New Yorker's case was thrown out by a judge and adding to what must have already been a terrible hangover, he will now have to pay the credit card bill of $28,109.60.

Not to mention his "attorney's" fees.

1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-12-13 12:36:19 PM  
Subby has obviously not heard of this scam.

1. Provide potential "mark" with lap dances, women and promises of "happy endings".
2. Slip drug into drink and ring up CC with things he didn't purchase when he passes out.
3. Leave him back at the hotel.
4. Profit.
 
2012-12-13 12:37:07 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: Why don't we go out drinking -just you and me. I'll ply you with liquor, women, cocaine whatever you want. The next day you will have signed a contract that you don't remember signing and I'll hold you up to it.

Sounds fair? I wonder what the judge will do.


Can I have that offer?

img849.imageshack.us

I bet I can make the cost of doing business less than profitable for you...

/willing to try
 
2012-12-13 12:37:13 PM  
Was "Ilg" what he said when he saw the bill?
 
2012-12-13 12:38:35 PM  
If I woke up with a CC bill for over $28k I'd sure as hell lawyer up. That being said... what kind of stripper takes CC?
 
2012-12-13 12:38:58 PM  

DammitIForgotMyLogin: So what they're saying is that despite having consumed sufficient alcohol to severely impair his judgement, he's still legally considered responsible for his own actions.

I wonder if that legal principle could carry over to any other aspects of the law.


I would love to see a woman try out this line of defense. It would be very illuminating. Anybody care to speculate on how that might play out?
 
2012-12-13 12:39:08 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: I bet I can make the cost of doing business less than profitable for you...


Is that you? You are interesting.
 
2012-12-13 12:42:47 PM  

Plant Rights Activist: If I woke up with a CC bill for over $28k I'd sure as hell lawyer up. That being said... what kind of stripper takes CC?


All of them?
 
2012-12-13 12:42:50 PM  
I thought this was going to be about a broken atm at the strip club running on an ancient Apple computer.
 
2012-12-13 12:44:35 PM  

AbbeySomeone: I prefer young, hot boys


Um, have a seat over there.
 
2012-12-13 12:45:00 PM  

Plant Rights Activist: If I woke up with a CC bill for over $28k I'd sure as hell lawyer up. That being said... what kind of stripper takes CC?


NSFW
Link
 
2012-12-13 12:45:17 PM  
i50.tinypic.com
 
2012-12-13 12:45:24 PM  
Okay, leaving aside the idiot with the charge card for a second.

Honest girl question to the guys about the pictures. What is with men and lusting after women who can get into extreme poses? Do you have any proof that this makes sex better when she has one foot touching a ceiling fixture and the other perched on the top of the back of the chair? Do you think she could actually hold that pose while you are farking her? Is it just a recognition that she probably has some serious body strength? (So why not getting turned on by the body building chicks?)
 
2012-12-13 12:46:19 PM  
Well now wait...how many times have we seen bars and bartenders get in major trouble because they over-served a patron who was later involved in a drunk driving wreck? Bars can be held liable but judge's ruling may cause a bit of a legal stir.

'There is no duty upon (Hustler Club) to protect the plaintiff from the results of his (voluntary) intoxication.'

So, which is it? Does this now mean bartenders can keeping feeding you drinks until you get alcohol poisoning and not be held liable? Can they suddenly decide to start serving you ultra high end liquors and charge $500 a shot after you're so drunk you can't even decide for yourself?

Something tells me this judge doesn't really get out much or live in the real world.
 
2012-12-13 12:47:19 PM  

LaraAmber: Do you have any proof that this makes sex better


Only one way to find out.
 
2012-12-13 12:47:20 PM  

AbbeySomeone: Theaetetus: Because People in power are Stupid: A contract is not legally enforceable if the signatory is drunk.

Lucy v. Zehmer says your statement is naive and incorrect and that you need to ask for your law school tuition back. Try telling them you were drunk when you enrolled.

Legally speaking - If you are drunk and can prove it there are situations where you cannot be held liable or give true consent.


Don't even need to go there. It is a crime for a bar to serve alcohol to a person they know to be intoxicated. Therefore all the drinks he consumed after being drunk were illegally provided and you cannot validly contract to do an illegal act. Furthermore since the bar had to commit a crime to get him to the point where he consented to the 300+ lapdances it would be against public policy to enforce the "contract" he made for those services.
 
2012-12-13 12:47:24 PM  
Unless they have video of him (I'm sure they have camera's in there) this should have been a very easy win for him. $28k is one hell of a bill for one night at a strip club. Did he get the all night treatment by every girl in there.
 
2012-12-13 12:47:25 PM  
where's GD when we need her?
 
2012-12-13 12:48:15 PM  
What's interesting is that a person who's drunk/drugged can claim they were sexually assaulted because they were too intoxicated, yet they can't claim there robbed or defrauded because they were too intoxicated?

I always wonder how this would work with an age of consent nexus: If an 18 year old (in California for example) is very drunk and a 17 year old has sex with them, who's guilty of a crime? The 17 year old for having sex with someone unable to consent, or the 18 year old for having sex with a minor because being drunk is not an an excuse?
 
2012-12-13 12:48:16 PM  

Superjew: DammitIForgotMyLogin: So what they're saying is that despite having consumed sufficient alcohol to severely impair his judgement, he's still legally considered responsible for his own actions.

I wonder if that legal principle could carry over to any other aspects of the law.

I would love to see a woman try out this line of defense. It would be very illuminating. Anybody care to speculate on how that might play out?


Are you trying to turn this into a rape thread? I am not a fan of rape threads.
 
2012-12-13 12:49:39 PM  

LaraAmber: Honest girl question to the guys about the pictures.


It's art. Sexy sexy art. In the case of the pics posted. Now throw in a few c-section scars bad ink and clear heels and it gets sad (not that it still can't be a good time). But the stuff posted is quality.

/don't bring a CC to a strip club, that is bad idea 101.
 
2012-12-13 12:50:13 PM  

LaraAmber: Okay, leaving aside the idiot with the charge card for a second.

Honest girl question to the guys about the pictures. What is with men and lusting after women who can get into extreme poses? Do you have any proof that this makes sex better when she has one foot touching a ceiling fixture and the other perched on the top of the back of the chair? Do you think she could actually hold that pose while you are farking her? Is it just a recognition that she probably has some serious body strength? (So why not getting turned on by the body building chicks?)


In answer to your questions. It not only makes the skin appear more taut (and therefore youthful), but that type of flexibility usually speaks to some amount of physical fitness indicating not all the work will need to be done by you. From personal experience though no. Women that are that flexible tend to be smaller (and bonier, sharp knees, etc...) in size, which isn't always that comfortable. As far as body building chicks go... nobody wants to sleep with someone with bigger biceps.
 
2012-12-13 12:51:21 PM  

Superjew: DammitIForgotMyLogin: So what they're saying is that despite having consumed sufficient alcohol to severely impair his judgement, he's still legally considered responsible for his own actions.

I wonder if that legal principle could carry over to any other aspects of the law.

I would love to see a woman try out this line of defense. It would be very illuminating. Anybody care to speculate on how that might play out?


Tricky to say. Do we have any examples of a woman who's been drinking who consents to something, later regrets it, finds someone else to blame, and gets them into legal trouble?
 
2012-12-13 12:51:32 PM  
Let's see... If a girl goes into a bar, is overserved to the point she blacks out, and wakes up to discover she was gangbanged by the patrons, she has a strong criminal case. But a guy goes to a bar, is overserved to the point he blacks out, and wakes up to discover he's been financially gangbanged by the bar - and he's expected to just live with the shame and damage.

It's sexist!!!

/only partly kidding.
 
2012-12-13 12:51:53 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: He said he had a huge gap in his memory and woke up the next day in Delaware after being driven home by a club employee

He got done over so hard that the employees decide to drive you home.... damn....


[img442.imageshack.us image 300x400]


His house has already been burglarized.
 
2012-12-13 12:52:32 PM  
i877.photobucket.com

WTF Subbsey?
 
2012-12-13 12:52:50 PM  

LaraAmber: Okay, leaving aside the idiot with the charge card for a second.

Honest girl question to the guys about the pictures. What is with men and lusting after women who can get into extreme poses? Do you have any proof that this makes sex better when she has one foot touching a ceiling fixture and the other perched on the top of the back of the chair? Do you think she could actually hold that pose while you are farking her? Is it just a recognition that she probably has some serious body strength? (So why not getting turned on by the body building chicks?)


The one with the young lady bent the wrong way is a little unsettling. As for limber poses the idea of the new and exotic have an appeal. Just like a new outfit, toy or scenario
 
2012-12-13 12:53:04 PM  

DammitIForgotMyLogin: I wonder if that legal principle could carry over to any other aspects of the law.


Theaetetus: Lucy v. Zehmer says your statement is naive and incorrect and that you need to ask for your law school tuition back. Try telling them you were drunk when you enrolled.


That isn't what Lucy v. Zehmer says. That case is in law school text to illustrate the fact that the intent to contract is based upon an objective test. That is, if a reasonable person observing your behavior would assume that you intended to enter into a contract, then you will be held to have the requisite intent even if you subjectively did not intend to enter a contract.

In simpler terms, Lucy v. Zehmer means you can't sign a contract while appearing to be serious, then later get out of it by saying 'Heh, I was only joking,' even if you really were only joking. It's your outward conduct that matters, not your internal thoughts.

Lucy v. Zehmer would have little application here, because this isn't a case about whether the person had a subjective or objective intent to contract. It would be about whether or not he had the capacity to contract at the time of the agreement. Given the facts described, that case will turn largely on whether or not voluntary intoxication is a valid defense in civil cases in this jurisdiction. Lets look at that, shall we?

The Restatement (2d) of Contracts § 16. Intoxicated Persons
A person incurs only voidable contractual duties by entering into a transaction if the other party has reason to know that by reason of intoxication

(a) he is unable to understand in a reasonable manner the nature and consequences of the transaction, or
(b) he is unable to act in a reasonable manner in relation to the transaction.


If what this person alleges is true, and it took place in a jurisdiction that follows the Restatement rule, he would not be liable.

So yes, there's at least one person in this thread that needs to take a remedial contracts class. But I don't think it's the person you were talking to.
 
2012-12-13 12:53:58 PM  
Judge is wrong. Any bar will tell you they have to remove over-served people (and shouldn't over-serve to begin with..

/"I didn't want to be drunk in public, I was drunk in a bar and they threw me out"
 
2012-12-13 12:57:17 PM  
The only time I have ever had a credit card lifted and actually used was after going to the Gold Club in Atlanta back in the late '90s when I was working an IT gig there. They had bought gas and used it at a mall. Thankfully I got it all back.
 
2012-12-13 12:57:25 PM  
I worked as a bartender at a... um... salacious bar. It it totally illegal to serve someone who is obviously schmammered. If we over-serve and he kills someone driving home, the bar (bartender) can be held partially at fault.*

/this is in Michign
//*unless the cops that would come in to do stings were big fat liars, which is totally possible
///still can't over-serve. Shouldn't over-lap dance, either
 
2012-12-13 12:57:35 PM  

LaraAmber: Okay, leaving aside the idiot with the charge card for a second.

Honest girl question to the guys about the pictures. What is with men and lusting after women who can get into extreme poses? Do you have any proof that this makes sex better when she has one foot touching a ceiling fixture and the other perched on the top of the back of the chair? Do you think she could actually hold that pose while you are farking her? Is it just a recognition that she probably has some serious body strength? (So why not getting turned on by the body building chicks?)


A bendy girl fits neatly into a duffel bag.
 
2012-12-13 12:58:10 PM  
Clarification: I was not working an IT gig at the Gold Club, I was working for the American Cancer Society.
 
2012-12-13 12:58:13 PM  
Also, YAY STRIPPER ARTICLE!

Happy Friday!
 
2012-12-13 12:58:14 PM  

Plant Rights Activist: Superjew: DammitIForgotMyLogin: So what they're saying is that despite having consumed sufficient alcohol to severely impair his judgement, he's still legally considered responsible for his own actions.

I wonder if that legal principle could carry over to any other aspects of the law.

I would love to see a woman try out this line of defense. It would be very illuminating. Anybody care to speculate on how that might play out?

Are you trying to turn this into a rape thread? I am not a fan of rape threads.



But you said it twice...
 
2012-12-13 12:58:18 PM  
There is no duty upon (Hustler Club) to protect the plaintiff from the results of his (voluntary) intoxication

Wait. Don't bars get sued and lose all the time if someone gets plowed the drives and kills someone? I fail to see the difference. Either they're responsible for their patrons actions or they're not. Make up your farking mind.
 
2012-12-13 12:59:58 PM  

Talondel: So yes, there's at least one person in this thread that needs to take a remedial contracts class. But I don't think it's the person you were talking to.


She claims in her profile to be a Patent Attorney and I would like to find out which law office so that I can tell our company officers to avoid that office like the plague.
 
2012-12-13 01:00:07 PM  
why didn't i think of that?
 
2012-12-13 01:03:13 PM  
Well, if being drunk can make you unable to consent to sex, it should also make you unable to consent to other important decisions -- right?
 
2012-12-13 01:04:00 PM  

abhorrent1: There is no duty upon (Hustler Club) to protect the plaintiff from the results of his (voluntary) intoxication

Wait. Don't bars get sued and lose all the time if someone gets plowed the drives and kills someone? I fail to see the difference. Either they're responsible for their patrons actions or they're not. Make up your farking mind.



Something's definitely askew with that.

This is no duty upon (pedrop357) to protect the plantiff (actual, not fark.com, hottie) from the results of her (voluntary) intoxication.
 
2012-12-13 01:04:49 PM  
I would demand an itemized bill detailing each and every transaction, some color 8 x 10 glossy photographs would be beneficial

ALSO -

Is this not the tidiest strip club and best dressed clientel evah at a strip club? Hell, even the bar has been wiped off

i.dailymail.co.uk
 
2012-12-13 01:05:09 PM  
That's a brilliant defense! But I have a feeling it won't hold up unless the joint took his credit card and spammed it with obviously ludicrous charges.
 
2012-12-13 01:06:47 PM  

jshine: Well, if being drunk can make you unable to consent to sex, it should also make you unable to consent to other important decisions -- right?


Yes, coercion is bad. I doubt any victims of what so many people are alluding to, would disagree that this guy should get his money back. 28k?
 
2012-12-13 01:08:05 PM  
On another note, he has a credit card which will accept $28k in charges in a single night, yet still visits shiatty strip clubs. Shouldn't he be able to afford a more reputable escort service? $10,000 should be able to buy a lot of escorting without the fraud. Last I checked, those high end escort services weren't scamming their high end clientele.
 
2012-12-13 01:09:17 PM  

LaraAmber: Okay, leaving aside the idiot with the charge card for a second.

Honest girl question to the guys about the pictures. What is with men and lusting after women who can get into extreme poses? Do you have any proof that this makes sex better when she has one foot touching a ceiling fixture and the other perched on the top of the back of the chair? Do you think she could actually hold that pose while you are farking her? Is it just a recognition that she probably has some serious body strength? (So why not getting turned on by the body building chicks?)


They don't complain. So I've heard. Or something.
 
2012-12-13 01:11:30 PM  
Pro tip: When you go to a strip club only bring as much money in cash as you are willing to spend. Leave the ATM and credit cards at home or in the car. When you run out of cash, go home. Works well in casinos too.
 
2012-12-13 01:13:06 PM  
Am I really the first to point out that you should never use a credit card at a strip club like that? You go with a wad of cash and leave the cards at home.

Once you run out of cash, you walk out of the club and it's over.
 
2012-12-13 01:13:15 PM  

LaraAmber: Okay, leaving aside the idiot with the charge card for a second.

Honest girl question to the guys about the pictures. What is with men and lusting after women who can get into extreme poses? Do you have any proof that this makes sex better when she has one foot touching a ceiling fixture and the other perched on the top of the back of the chair? Do you think she could actually hold that pose while you are farking her? Is it just a recognition that she probably has some serious body strength? (So why not getting turned on by the body building chicks?)


Most men fantasize about the nasty, kinky things they'd do to a woman if they were allowed to. The pictures in this thread merely reinforce the idea that with certain women, some of those things could actually be physically possible.
 
2012-12-13 01:13:36 PM  

2BuckChuck: Pro tip: When you go to a strip club only bring as much money in cash as you are willing to spend. Leave the ATM and credit cards at home or in the car. When you run out of cash, go home. Works well in casinos too.


So much this.
 
2012-12-13 01:14:01 PM  

LaraAmber: Okay, leaving aside the idiot with the charge card for a second.

Honest girl question to the guys about the pictures. What is with men and lusting after women who can get into extreme poses? Do you have any proof that this makes sex better when she has one foot touching a ceiling fixture and the other perched on the top of the back of the chair? Do you think she could actually hold that pose while you are farking her? Is it just a recognition that she probably has some serious body strength? (So why not getting turned on by the body building chicks?)


I think it just comes off as them having a extremely high degree of control and precision over their bodies. Sort of a completely physical analog of confidence. Well, the first few in this thread at least... the one upside down in an S just makes me feel a sudden pain in my back.
 
2012-12-13 01:15:02 PM  
Make perfect sense. You can't sign legal documents while on some medications. Just attach breathalyser to the ATM.
 
2012-12-13 01:16:07 PM  

pedrop357: Shouldn't he be able to afford a more reputable escort service? $10,000 should be able to buy a lot of escorting without the fraud. Last I checked, those high end escort services weren't scamming their high end clientele.


And most likely he would've got laid too.
 
2012-12-13 01:16:10 PM  

Karac: LaraAmber: Okay, leaving aside the idiot with the charge card for a second.

Honest girl question to the guys about the pictures. What is with men and lusting after women who can get into extreme poses? Do you have any proof that this makes sex better when she has one foot touching a ceiling fixture and the other perched on the top of the back of the chair? Do you think she could actually hold that pose while you are farking her? Is it just a recognition that she probably has some serious body strength? (So why not getting turned on by the body building chicks?)

Most men fantasize about the nasty, kinky things they'd do to a woman if they were allowed to. The pictures in this thread merely reinforce the idea that with certain women, some of those things could actually be physically possible.


Unfortunately in reality 20 seconds into those nasty, kinky things the average guy is a) bent over trying to catch his breath and praying he isn't having a heart attack or b) wondering how he is going to explain his sprained knee to his wife when he told her he was with the guys watching a movie.
 
2012-12-13 01:16:44 PM  
stupid club. If they'd held it to, say, $500-700, he probably wouldn't have fought. Hell he might be rich enough to blow off a $2000-$4000 bill. But there's no damned way anyone in the 99.9% would blow off a $28,000 charge.
 
2012-12-13 01:17:21 PM  
Roofies, they're not just for date rape.
 
2012-12-13 01:17:25 PM  

2BuckChuck: Pro tip: When you go to a strip club only bring as much money in cash as you are willing to spend. Leave the ATM and credit cards at home or in the car. When you run out of cash, go home. Works well in casinos too.


Also, don't go with a bunch of shiatheads who will let the employees run up $28k on your cards then dump you somewhere.
 
2012-12-13 01:18:43 PM  
NEVER go in to a strip club with a credit card. If you take a preset amount of cash, not only do you pace yourself better, you will also have more fun (not worrying about how much you are spending) and won't get ripped off through extra charges.

I go in with my ID in one front pocket and my cash in the other. Nothing else. Especially in Mexico. Plus I only go to one about 1-2x per year.
 
2012-12-13 01:19:26 PM  

megarian: Also, YAY STRIPPER ARTICLE!

Happy Friday!


Are you from the future?
 
2012-12-13 01:19:48 PM  

AxL sANe: NEVER go in to a strip club with a credit card. If you take a preset amount of cash, not only do you pace yourself better, you will also have more fun (not worrying about how much you are spending) and won't get ripped off through extra charges.

I go in with my ID in one front pocket and my cash in the other. Nothing else. Especially in Mexico. Plus I only go to one about 1-2x per year.


You might want to include a pack of Clorox wipes in your preparations. Especially in Mexico.
 
2012-12-13 01:19:51 PM  
1. A lot of you farkers are getting hung up on the whole contract angle. The problem is this is charges for goods or services consumed, not a contract. There's a huge difference. If I'm stoned and drunk and walk into the Qwik-E Mart across the way and buy some Doritos and Beef Jerky, I can't come back the next day and say I didn't really mean to buy that stuff. I consumed the goods, and therefore should have to pay for them. If he was drunk and wanted strippers, give him strippers! Even drunk dudes know they want naked chicks.

2. That leads us to the other point that farkers are getting hung up on. $28,000 is a lot to spend at a strip club. However, that amount doesn't automatically mean that the the customer was robbed, or that he was taken advantage of while he was drunk. There are bottles or wine and champagne that cost six figures. This dude could have have bought a $25,000 bottle of wine when he came in sober, and then people around him thanked him by buying him shots and well drinks, farking him up. This stuff happens (to people other than me).

Despite my last point, I do realize it's possible that he was to drunk to order more drinks. However, the burden of proof is on him. The case isn't an automatic slam dunk.
 
2012-12-13 01:19:51 PM  

LaraAmber: Karac: LaraAmber: Okay, leaving aside the idiot with the charge card for a second.

Honest girl question to the guys about the pictures. What is with men and lusting after women who can get into extreme poses? Do you have any proof that this makes sex better when she has one foot touching a ceiling fixture and the other perched on the top of the back of the chair? Do you think she could actually hold that pose while you are farking her? Is it just a recognition that she probably has some serious body strength? (So why not getting turned on by the body building chicks?)

Most men fantasize about the nasty, kinky things they'd do to a woman if they were allowed to. The pictures in this thread merely reinforce the idea that with certain women, some of those things could actually be physically possible.

Unfortunately in reality 20 seconds into those nasty, kinky things the average guy is a) bent over trying to catch his breath and praying he isn't having a heart attack or b) wondering how he is going to explain his sprained knee to his wife when he told her he was with the guys watching a movie.


Sometimes, 20 seconds is all it takes.
 
2012-12-13 01:20:16 PM  
I don't go to strip clubs and the ones I have, goddamn everyone knows what's going on. Someone WILL remember. What possible farking defens....oh yeah...that guy.

This dude should have protected his "interests" better. God knows if I fark up and become a Fark thread, well you are: A) with me, B) Not in Florida or Ohio, or C) fill in the blanks when you wake up, just STFU and stay off Facebook. Don't ask don't tell.
 
2012-12-13 01:20:48 PM  

LaraAmber: Karac: LaraAmber: Okay, leaving aside the idiot with the charge card for a second.

Honest girl question to the guys about the pictures. What is with men and lusting after women who can get into extreme poses? Do you have any proof that this makes sex better when she has one foot touching a ceiling fixture and the other perched on the top of the back of the chair? Do you think she could actually hold that pose while you are farking her? Is it just a recognition that she probably has some serious body strength? (So why not getting turned on by the body building chicks?)

Most men fantasize about the nasty, kinky things they'd do to a woman if they were allowed to. The pictures in this thread merely reinforce the idea that with certain women, some of those things could actually be physically possible.

Unfortunately in reality 20 seconds into those nasty, kinky things the average guy is a) bent over trying to catch his breath and praying he isn't having a heart attack or b) wondering how he is going to explain his sprained knee to his wife when he told her he was with the guys watching a movie.


A) a quite memorable, if not best, 20 seconds of his life. And the only reason he's praying it isn't a heart attack is because he wants to try for 30.
B) One of the guys tried to copy a wrestling move he saw in the film and hurt me.
 
2012-12-13 01:21:56 PM  
use a debit card next time, shiat for brains!
 
2012-12-13 01:22:57 PM  

LaraAmber: AxL sANe: NEVER go in to a strip club with a credit card. If you take a preset amount of cash, not only do you pace yourself better, you will also have more fun (not worrying about how much you are spending) and won't get ripped off through extra charges.

I go in with my ID in one front pocket and my cash in the other. Nothing else. Especially in Mexico. Plus I only go to one about 1-2x per year.

You might want to include a pack of Clorox wipes in your preparations. Especially in Mexico.


Better yet, find a buddy who doesn't drink and use him as a designated walker.
 
2012-12-13 01:25:34 PM  
THIS JUST IN: People that go to strip clubs are idiots.
 
2012-12-13 01:25:39 PM  

WI241TH: megarian: Also, YAY STRIPPER ARTICLE!

Happy Friday!

Are you from the future?


HA!

I spent too much time in the Argentina time vortex thread.

And pot.

/Happy Thursday?
 
2012-12-13 01:26:36 PM  

skrame: 1. A lot of you farkers are getting hung up on the whole contract angle. The problem is this is charges for goods or services consumed, not a contract. There's a huge difference. If I'm stoned and drunk and walk into the Qwik-E Mart across the way and buy some Doritos and Beef Jerky, I can't come back the next day and say I didn't really mean to buy that stuff. I consumed the goods, and therefore should have to pay for them. If he was drunk and wanted strippers, give him strippers! Even drunk dudes know they want naked chicks.


But is there any evidence that the goods were actually consumed? I get that the burden of proof should generally be on the one bringing the suit, but how do you prove you didn't consume something. If I walk into a Qwik-E Mart, buy a Red Bull and leave, then find you charged me an extra $5k for, let's say, beef jerky... how do I prove I didn't actually buy and eat 312 lbs of teriyaki goodness in the shop? Or, if I did pay for it, that I ever took possession of it.

I'm sure there's established law for that already, but having to prove a negative is... yeah.
 
2012-12-13 01:27:34 PM  
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-12-13 01:30:06 PM  

LaraAmber: Okay, leaving aside the idiot with the charge card for a second.

Honest girl question to the guys about the pictures. What is with men and lusting after women who can get into extreme poses? Do you have any proof that this makes sex better when she has one foot touching a ceiling fixture and the other perched on the top of the back of the chair? Do you think she could actually hold that pose while you are farking her? Is it just a recognition that she probably has some serious body strength? (So why not getting turned on by the body building chicks?)


Lust and admiration are complementary, unless you're the kind who lusts after people you despise.
 
2012-12-13 01:35:38 PM  
I know the law doesn't say so, and it's not an excuse for taking advantage of a drunk person...But i still wholeheartedly believe:

"Your sober self is responsible for your drunk self".

Meaning you made the choice to get drunk, you need to deal with the consequences of your actions. If you can't handle your drunk self, don't get drunk.
 
2012-12-13 01:37:09 PM  

LaraAmber: Okay, leaving aside the idiot with the charge card for a second.

Honest girl question to the guys about the pictures. What is with men and lusting after women who can get into extreme poses? Do you have any proof that this makes sex better when she has one foot touching a ceiling fixture and the other perched on the top of the back of the chair? Do you think she could actually hold that pose while you are farking her? Is it just a recognition that she probably has some serious body strength? (So why not getting turned on by the body building chicks?)


It's unusual and exotic, since most women can't. Additionally, the women pictured are generally young, well-toned and little dressed. That's about it.

Don't pretend it doesn't get you a little hot in the box when you come across pics of a guy doing likewise

i.imgur.com

/ bie eip bb
 
2012-12-13 01:37:18 PM  

megarian: HA!

I spent too much time in the Argentina time vortex thread.

And pot.

/Happy Thursday?


Payday is always a happy day
 
2012-12-13 01:38:06 PM  
Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Manuel Mendez dismissed the case saying: 'There is no duty upon (Hustler Club) to protect the plaintiff from the results of his (voluntary) intoxication.'

New York dram shop law is found in section 11-101 of the New York General Obligations law. Under this law, it is illegal for businesses to serve alcohol to persons who are visibly intoxicated. New York is unique in that patrons themselves may not sue the business establishment. Instead, the bar or tavern may be held liable for damages caused to third parties who were injured by the patrons of the bar who were served alcohol.

Link
 
2012-12-13 01:39:01 PM  

Plant Rights Activist: If I woke up with a CC bill for over $28k I'd sure as hell lawyer up. That being said... what kind of stripper takes CC?


They all take cards for drinks. I think you can charge VIP room too. Some even allow you to buy $1 certificates to tip for dollar dances. Usually you get a big surcharge though.
 
2012-12-13 01:42:08 PM  

megarian: 2BuckChuck: Pro tip: When you go to a strip club only bring as much money in cash as you are willing to spend. Leave the ATM and credit cards at home or in the car. When you run out of cash, go home. Works well in casinos too.

So much this.


Tuck cab fare into your shoe.
 
2012-12-13 01:43:28 PM  

Gordon Bennett: [upload.wikimedia.org image 800x600]


That's exactly what I thought when I saw this headline. Damn you for being so brilliant.
 
2012-12-13 01:44:14 PM  

AxemRed: Plant Rights Activist: If I woke up with a CC bill for over $28k I'd sure as hell lawyer up. That being said... what kind of stripper takes CC?

They all take cards for drinks. I think you can charge VIP room too. Some even allow you to buy $1 certificates to tip for dollar dances. Usually you get a big surcharge though.


And the "dancer dollars" expire after two weeks. And the dancer pays a fee to cash them.
 
2012-12-13 01:45:36 PM  

JohnCarter: Is this not the tidiest strip club and best dressed clientel evah at a strip club? Hell, even the bar has been wiped off


I know, right? I wouldn't be surprised to see a guy like Don Draper to be sitting in a corner and sipping a cocktail. Must be one of them fancy-pants clubs.
 
2012-12-13 01:46:05 PM  

CrazyCracka420: I know the law doesn't say so, and it's not an excuse for taking advantage of a drunk person...But i still wholeheartedly believe:

"Your sober self is responsible for your drunk self".

Meaning you made the choice to get drunk, you need to deal with the consequences of your actions. If you can't handle your drunk self, don't get drunk.


So if a girl gets blackout drunk at a bar she "consented"... then she was responsible for getting raped?
 
2012-12-13 01:48:33 PM  

DammitIForgotMyLogin: So what they're saying is that despite having consumed sufficient alcohol to severely impair his judgement, he's still legally considered responsible for his own actions.

I wonder if that legal principle could carry over to any other aspects of the law.


Let me answer the question you're really asking: NO.

If you have sex with her while she is intoxicated- and therefore unable to give consent- you cannot use "that legal principle" as a defense. Well, not successfully anyhow.

/dope slap for even wondering
 
2012-12-13 01:49:37 PM  

CrazyCracka420: I know the law doesn't say so, and it's not an excuse for taking advantage of a drunk person...But i still wholeheartedly believe:

"Your sober self is responsible for your drunk self".

Meaning you made the choice to get drunk, you need to deal with the consequences of your actions. If you can't handle your drunk self, don't get drunk.


So no ladies can get drunk then get sexually assualted because they were asking for it.
 
2012-12-13 01:51:17 PM  
$300 for a lap dance? iirc, hustler club charges $20 for a lap dance and $120 for a "private" dance (don't get worked up, the private booths have cams in it). they also have "hustler bucks", alternate $20 bills you can buy with your credit card, no need for an atm and you really don't want to be walking around on the edge of town with alot of cash.

way too many details missing from this story, especially what he bought to rack up $28K in charges. he probably got a private room and a few girls, it doubles as a hostess club. they probably have vids of him ordering/drinking everything that was on the bill and signing it.

csb:
a friend spent $20K at a strip club, he tried disputing it. the manager brought him the bill and told him they have vids of him ordering everything on the bill.
 
2012-12-13 01:53:32 PM  

KatjaMouse: So if a girl gets blackout drunk at a bar she "consented"... then she was responsible for getting raped?


No. She is responsible for her own actions. Rape is someone else's action. She would be responsible if she voluntarily slept with someone who she wouldn't have slept with sober. Or she's responsible if she got in trouble for exposing herself outside or blowing all her money or something.
 
2012-12-13 01:54:25 PM  

KatjaMouse: CrazyCracka420: I know the law doesn't say so, and it's not an excuse for taking advantage of a drunk person...But i still wholeheartedly believe:

"Your sober self is responsible for your drunk self".

Meaning you made the choice to get drunk, you need to deal with the consequences of your actions. If you can't handle your drunk self, don't get drunk.

So if a girl gets blackout drunk at a bar she "consented"... then she was responsible for getting raped?


No, dear, it's perfectly all right to get blackout drunk and get raped. Carry on without a care in the world.
 
2012-12-13 01:55:44 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: He said he had a huge gap in his memory and woke up the next day in Delaware after being driven home by a club employee

He got done over so hard that the employees decide to drive you home.... damn....


[img442.imageshack.us image 300x400]


1) They probably wanted to make sure he remained safe until he paid his credit card bill.

2) Would you mind posting those stripper photos on all your posts, regardless of the topic?
 
2012-12-13 01:55:57 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: If I don't remember it didn't happen.


Ah, yes. That'll definitely hold up in court. Case dismissed.
 
2012-12-13 01:57:55 PM  
CSB incoming

I work in the claims division for Bank of America. A few years ago, one of my co-workers who worked fraud claims told me about a customer she had dealt with who was disputed something like $7K on his debit card from a strip club in Vegas. He claimed his wallet had been stolen, so after he completed the form we requested we went ahead with the chargeback. The merchant performed a representment (basically a rebuttal of the chargeback) and sent along a series of supporting documents including photos of him at their ATM making the withdrawals, a series of signed sales receipts for everything from dances to drinks, a carbon copy image of the front and back of his card with a note from him confirming that it was his card, an image of his BofA credit card (where he had another claim for a few thousand), another bank's Mastercard, and his Amex (each of which probably had similar charges), as well as an affidavit that he had signed stating that he was making these purchases of his own free will and that he was not impaired.

Suffice to say, his claim was denied.
 
2012-12-13 02:01:16 PM  
So here's my thoughts, and I know you have been impatiently waiting, shouldn't the bill be tossed because the bar failed to cutoff an excessively drunk person? One would think even strip clubs are obligated to cut people off
 
2012-12-13 02:02:07 PM  
Stripper thread!

Naomi Knight, naked in the rain NSFW
 
2012-12-13 02:04:34 PM  
I'm sitting here trying to figure out how he could have racked up a bill this high, and I think I might have figured it out. Drinks and normal dances won't cut it, but some of the higher end strip clubs have ridiculously expensive VIP rooms. I have seems some that are $1000/30min. You get 2 girls and a bottle of wine or something. That would bring the price up to $12000 for 6 hours for yourself. But if you were drunk and offered to pay for a friend to join you, that would bring the total up to $24k. It also wouldn't surprise me if that "friend" was a stripper who was "off work that night" and was "just hanging out there."
 
2012-12-13 02:04:35 PM  
Even if the drinks are overpriced, there is no way anyone on earth can suck down $28,000 worth of booze and stay alive.

Even by FARK standards that is impossible.
 
2012-12-13 02:06:19 PM  

DirkTheDaring: Stripper thread!

Naomi Knight, naked in the rain NSFW


"Image removed for violating TOS." That was quick.
 
2012-12-13 02:06:57 PM  

Stile4aly: CSB incoming


hah, a friend did something similar but in japan hostess club. he tried to dispute the bill but they strong armed him into signing it. disputed the charge when he came back and won.


strip clubs in the states do not mess around when it comes to collecting on the bill.
 
2012-12-13 02:07:39 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: DirkTheDaring: Stripper thread!

Naomi Knight, naked in the rain NSFW

"Image removed for violating TOS." That was quick.


Damn.
 
2012-12-13 02:09:34 PM  

olddinosaur: Even if the drinks are overpriced, there is no way anyone on earth can suck down $28,000 worth of booze and stay alive.

Even by FARK standards that is impossible.


You pay I'll play.

Challenge accepted
 
2012-12-13 02:09:55 PM  

olddinosaur: Even if the drinks are overpriced, there is no way anyone on earth can suck down $28,000 worth of booze and stay alive.

Even by FARK standards that is impossible.


girls in hustler club will hang out with you if you get them drinks. who's to say he wasn't there to entertain his friends/clients and got carried away?
 
2012-12-13 02:11:56 PM  

DirkTheDaring: Stripper thread!

Naomi Knight, naked in the rain NSFW


:(

http://imageshack.us/a/img543/2830/nap0541.jpg
 
2012-12-13 02:13:01 PM  

AxemRed: KatjaMouse: So if a girl gets blackout drunk at a bar she "consented"... then she was responsible for getting raped?

No. She is responsible for her own actions. Rape is someone else's action. She would be responsible if she voluntarily slept with someone who she wouldn't have slept with sober. Or she's responsible if she got in trouble for exposing herself outside or blowing all her money or something.


Works at high level, but you start splitting hairs real quick. For example, if a guy was able to sit there, and through words alone convince a drunk woman to perform sexual acts on him, are those her actions or his actions? Making purchases while drunk is obviously the drunks action... but if a establishment exploits that situation? You've got to solve the question of culpability for convincing someone who's impaired to act. Seems like a messy question.

Also, it's creepy how naturally the consent to money v. consent to sex analogies seem to crop up. Our society is sort of farked up.
 
2012-12-13 02:16:36 PM  
Let's try that again:

Naomi Knight, naked in the rain NSFW
 
2012-12-13 02:19:18 PM  

ProfessorOhki: Also, it's creepy how naturally the consent to money v. consent to sex analogies seem to crop up. Our society is sort of farked up.


No, it's how the issue of consent seems to vary wildly without a real logical explanation.

The issue of sex comes up because A LOT of people have found themselves facing charges or damaging accusations that they had sex with someone who was drunk. Ostensibly, the rational behind the accusation or charges is that a person who is intoxicated cannot give consent to have sex, thus making the encounter rape, sexual assault, etc.

How then can we square that concept with one where a person is very drunk, supposedly consents to buy expensive things, and is told that intoxication is his problem? It's not that way with a drunk person having sex. In sexual situation, the (more?) sober person is held responsible for not "taking advantage" of the less sober person.

Apparently in sexual situations, and only sexual situations, the person who is drunk cannot give consent and anything done to/with them is a crime. In all other situations, you're responsible for what happens to you while drunk and everyone else apparently bears no burden or liabilities for soliciting expensive purchases from you, etc.

Gee, I wonder why the comparisons keep coming up.
 
2012-12-13 02:20:25 PM  
The Superintendant of schools in my home town got nailed for running up $185,000 in charges at strip clubs.

Tax money too.
 
2012-12-13 02:20:35 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: She claims in her profile to be a Patent Attorney and I would like to find out which law office so that I can tell our company officers to avoid that office like the plague.


Patent Attorneys aren't lawyers.
/Can appear in front of patent courts though
 
2012-12-13 02:21:42 PM  
The club I frequent most often (loose interpretation) is a real stickler about getting signatures on tabs for this exact reason. It happens all the time, even on small tabs because the husband freaks out when he gets the bill and the wife makes him dispute the charges because "baby, they are not mine I swear!". There is not much of a risk of over charging in Atlanta since the Gold Club was ran out of business for doing that back in the 90's.

My buddy has a system. Instead of starting a CC tab he brings cash and asks the manager that works the bar (a guy he trusts) to hold it for him. He tells him to pay for his rounds out of the cash, and cut him off when he gets to the last 20% or so, which becomes the tip. So far, no problems.
 
2012-12-13 02:22:25 PM  

ProfessorOhki: Also, it's creepy how naturally the consent to money v. consent to sex analogies seem to crop up. Our society is sort of farked up.


Just bringing up the alcohol/judgement impairment arguments. I'm sick of hearing guys saying that a drunk chick waking up sober the next morning suffered "buyers remorse". And considering that's the phrase most often thrown out there after an accusation of rape we can flip it around in this case as well.
 
2012-12-13 02:23:28 PM  
I cannot see, how someone could spend 28 grand at a strip club.
this wasn't cash he was throwing around, these were charges on a card.

totally ripping him off
or epic evening ...

I'm calling shenanigans on the club
 
2012-12-13 02:26:28 PM  
Maybe she told him she was working her way through college so he bought her a year at Arizona State?
It's not his fault he didn't notice the "Bursar's Office" was a meth lab
 
2012-12-13 02:26:45 PM  

skrame: 1. A lot of you farkers are getting hung up on the whole contract angle. The problem is this is charges for goods or services consumed, not a contract. There's a huge difference. If I'm stoned and drunk and walk into the Qwik-E Mart across the way and buy some Doritos and Beef Jerky, I can't come back the next day and say I didn't really mean to buy that stuff. I consumed the goods, and therefore should have to pay for them. If he was drunk and wanted strippers, give him strippers! Even drunk dudes know they want naked chicks.

2. That leads us to the other point that farkers are getting hung up on. $28,000 is a lot to spend at a strip club. However, that amount doesn't automatically mean that the the customer was robbed, or that he was taken advantage of while he was drunk. There are bottles or wine and champagne that cost six figures. This dude could have have bought a $25,000 bottle of wine when he came in sober, and then people around him thanked him by buying him shots and well drinks, farking him up. This stuff happens (to people other than me).

Despite my last point, I do realize it's possible that he was to drunk to order more drinks. However, the burden of proof is on him. The case isn't an automatic slam dunk.


SO much this. I bar tend in a strip club. Typically some douche will come in with a credit card, try to be the big dude and buy drinks for everyone at the bar (for the girls it's $20/ea) + champagne (can be $1000/bottle) plus whatever table dances/lap dances/vip. At the club I work in, you can buy monopoly money to tip the girls (this is for people who don't have cash available but lots of room on the credit cards) with your credit card---there's a surcharge added on to this of 10%---and I'm in Florida. I'm sure that the charges for everything are MUCH MUCH higher in NY. It wouldn't take much time but lots of douchebaggery to make a $28k bill happen.
 
2012-12-13 02:27:06 PM  
Ilg

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-12-13 02:27:27 PM  

LaraAmber: Okay, leaving aside the idiot with the charge card for a second.

Honest girl question to the guys about the pictures. What is with men and lusting after women who can get into extreme poses? Do you have any proof that this makes sex better when she has one foot touching a ceiling fixture and the other perched on the top of the back of the chair? Do you think she could actually hold that pose while you are farking her? Is it just a recognition that she probably has some serious body strength? (So why not getting turned on by the body building chicks?)


As a woman who is a former gymnast and ballet dancer and who is still very toned and flexible, BFs/lovers in my past have said it is that physical ability that allows for all kinds of positioning. Also, years of gymnastics and ballet also create a much tighter vag.
 
2012-12-13 02:28:21 PM  

TNel: CrazyCracka420: I know the law doesn't say so, and it's not an excuse for taking advantage of a drunk person...But i still wholeheartedly believe:

"Your sober self is responsible for your drunk self".

Meaning you made the choice to get drunk, you need to deal with the consequences of your actions. If you can't handle your drunk self, don't get drunk.

So no ladies can get drunk then get sexually assualted because they were asking for it.


You're tossing a red herring... There is an idea floating around that if a person is intoxicated when they consent, it is not legitimate because they cannot legitimately consent to actions while intoxicated. Ifa person can be held accountable for the decision to drive a car, the decision to purchase services, the decision to physically assault, etc. while intoxicated, why does the decision to engage in sexual activities fall into a separate category.
 
2012-12-13 02:28:29 PM  

Talondel: DammitIForgotMyLogin: I wonder if that legal principle could carry over to any other aspects of the law.

Theaetetus: Lucy v. Zehmer says your statement is naive and incorrect and that you need to ask for your law school tuition back. Try telling them you were drunk when you enrolled.

That isn't what Lucy v. Zehmer says. That case is in law school text to illustrate the fact that the intent to contract is based upon an objective test. That is, if a reasonable person observing your behavior would assume that you intended to enter into a contract, then you will be held to have the requisite intent even if you subjectively did not intend to enter a contract.

In simpler terms, Lucy v. Zehmer means you can't sign a contract while appearing to be serious, then later get out of it by saying 'Heh, I was only joking,' even if you really were only joking. It's your outward conduct that matters, not your internal thoughts.

Lucy v. Zehmer would have little application here, because this isn't a case about whether the person had a subjective or objective intent to contract.


Au contraire, Zehmer also raised the defense that he was drinking and therefore lacked capacity to contract. The court noted that there was no evidence of his lack of capacity, and absent that, the fact that he was drinking was irrelevant.
Thus, as I said, his statement that "a contract is not legally enforceable if the signatory is drunk" is incorrect and naive, in that it's overly broad. If the other party to the contract has no reason to believe the signatory is drunk, then the contract is not necessarily voidable.
Consider, for example, the statement in The Restatement (2d) of Contracts § 16. Just in case you haven't seen it before, I'll quote it for you:
"A person incurs only voidable contractual duties by entering into a transaction if the other party has reason to know that by reason of intoxication

(a) he is unable to understand in a reasonable manner the nature and consequences of the transaction, or
(b) he is unable to act in a reasonable manner in relation to the transaction."

The above is an accurate description of why Zehmer's defense failed, and is why his statement was overbroad.
 
2012-12-13 02:29:44 PM  

AbbeySomeone: Many moons ago I had a brief gig as a B girl in a strip club in the Quarter. I was broke but walked out the second night I was there after learning what the place was all about.
Get 'em in, get a credit card, blah blah.
Because People in power are Stupid: I've been waiting for this to happen. A contract is not legally enforceable if the signatory is drunk.

Shame is a big factor in these negotiations. Many people will pay to get it to go away.


Dammit! Don't say you worked in a titty bar, with no pics in your profile.

/mmph.
 
2012-12-13 02:29:58 PM  

LaraAmber: Okay, leaving aside the idiot with the charge card for a second.

Honest girl question to the guys about the pictures. What is with men and lusting after women who can get into extreme poses? Do you have any proof that this makes sex better when she has one foot touching a ceiling fixture and the other perched on the top of the back of the chair? Do you think she could actually hold that pose while you are farking her? Is it just a recognition that she probably has some serious body strength? (So why not getting turned on by the body building chicks?)


You sound fat.
 
2012-12-13 02:34:16 PM  

Theaetetus: if the other party has reason to know


Uh huh, Talondel very clearly said that. So in this case where the bar had been serving the guy drinks. They didn't know that he was intoxicated?

Which firm do you work for? Our company has multiple IP firms and I'd like to make sure that yours is not one of them.
 
2012-12-13 02:34:20 PM  

pedrop357: ProfessorOhki: Also, it's creepy how naturally the consent to money v. consent to sex analogies seem to crop up. Our society is sort of farked up.

No, it's how the issue of consent seems to vary wildly without a real logical explanation.

The issue of sex comes up because A LOT of people have found themselves facing charges or damaging accusations that they had sex with someone who was drunk. Ostensibly, the rational behind the accusation or charges is that a person who is intoxicated cannot give consent to have sex, thus making the encounter rape, sexual assault, etc.

How then can we square that concept with one where a person is very drunk, supposedly consents to buy expensive things, and is told that intoxication is his problem? It's not that way with a drunk person having sex. In sexual situation, the (more?) sober person is held responsible for not "taking advantage" of the less sober person.

Apparently in sexual situations, and only sexual situations, the person who is drunk cannot give consent and anything done to/with them is a crime. In all other situations, you're responsible for what happens to you while drunk and everyone else apparently bears no burden or liabilities for soliciting expensive purchases from you, etc.

Gee, I wonder why the comparisons keep coming up.


But... once you get out of college you figure out that people are constantly consenting to sex while drunk constantly. The whole "chicks can't consent while drunk" is to try to keep dumb kids from date-raping, that's all.
 
2012-12-13 02:35:35 PM  

Izunbacol: TNel: CrazyCracka420: I know the law doesn't say so, and it's not an excuse for taking advantage of a drunk person...But i still wholeheartedly believe:

"Your sober self is responsible for your drunk self".

Meaning you made the choice to get drunk, you need to deal with the consequences of your actions. If you can't handle your drunk self, don't get drunk.

So no ladies can get drunk then get sexually assualted because they were asking for it.

You're tossing a red herring... There is an idea floating around that if a person is intoxicated when they consent, it is not legitimate because they cannot legitimately consent to actions while intoxicated. Ifa person can be held accountable for the decision to drive a car, the decision to purchase services, the decision to physically assault, etc. while intoxicated, why does the decision to engage in sexual activities fall into a separate category.


Because women are good at nagging.
 
2012-12-13 02:37:46 PM  

ProfessorOhki: Also, it's creepy how naturally the consent to money v. consent to sex analogies seem to crop up. Our society is sort of farked up


I don't think it comes up because there is a "connection" but because people have double standards.
 
2012-12-13 02:38:54 PM  

dk47: pedrop357: ProfessorOhki: Also, it's creepy how naturally the consent to money v. consent to sex analogies seem to crop up. Our society is sort of farked up.

No, it's how the issue of consent seems to vary wildly without a real logical explanation.

The issue of sex comes up because A LOT of people have found themselves facing charges or damaging accusations that they had sex with someone who was drunk. Ostensibly, the rational behind the accusation or charges is that a person who is intoxicated cannot give consent to have sex, thus making the encounter rape, sexual assault, etc.

How then can we square that concept with one where a person is very drunk, supposedly consents to buy expensive things, and is told that intoxication is his problem? It's not that way with a drunk person having sex. In sexual situation, the (more?) sober person is held responsible for not "taking advantage" of the less sober person.

Apparently in sexual situations, and only sexual situations, the person who is drunk cannot give consent and anything done to/with them is a crime. In all other situations, you're responsible for what happens to you while drunk and everyone else apparently bears no burden or liabilities for soliciting expensive purchases from you, etc.

Gee, I wonder why the comparisons keep coming up.

But... once you get out of college you figure out that people are constantly consenting to sex while drunk constantly. The whole "chicks can't consent while drunk" is to try to keep dumb kids from date-raping, that's all.


dumb meaning.. gay??
 
2012-12-13 02:39:30 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: Theaetetus: if the other party has reason to know

Uh huh, Talondel very clearly said that.


Yep, and so did I. Talondel and I are in agreement on the law, and merely disagree on whether my calling your statement "incorrect and naive" was right or not. Maybe he's kinder to idiots giving bad legal advice than I am.
 
2012-12-13 02:42:59 PM  

Theaetetus: Because People in power are Stupid: Theaetetus: if the other party has reason to know

Uh huh, Talondel very clearly said that.

Yep, and so did I. Talondel and I are in agreement on the law, and merely disagree on whether my calling your statement "incorrect and naive" was right or not. Maybe he's kinder to idiots giving bad legal advice than I am.


We are in agreement. You shouldn't give legal advice.
 
2012-12-13 02:52:31 PM  

Jon iz teh kewl: dk47: pedrop357: ProfessorOhki: Also, it's creepy how naturally the consent to money v. consent to sex analogies seem to crop up. Our society is sort of farked up.

No, it's how the issue of consent seems to vary wildly without a real logical explanation.

The issue of sex comes up because A LOT of people have found themselves facing charges or damaging accusations that they had sex with someone who was drunk. Ostensibly, the rational behind the accusation or charges is that a person who is intoxicated cannot give consent to have sex, thus making the encounter rape, sexual assault, etc.

How then can we square that concept with one where a person is very drunk, supposedly consents to buy expensive things, and is told that intoxication is his problem? It's not that way with a drunk person having sex. In sexual situation, the (more?) sober person is held responsible for not "taking advantage" of the less sober person.

Apparently in sexual situations, and only sexual situations, the person who is drunk cannot give consent and anything done to/with them is a crime. In all other situations, you're responsible for what happens to you while drunk and everyone else apparently bears no burden or liabilities for soliciting expensive purchases from you, etc.

Gee, I wonder why the comparisons keep coming up.

But... once you get out of college you figure out that people are constantly consenting to sex while drunk constantly. The whole "chicks can't consent while drunk" is to try to keep dumb kids from date-raping, that's all.

dumb meaning.. gay??


Dumb gays dumb straights, pretty much anybody dumb enough to try it.
 
2012-12-13 03:01:52 PM  
Uh, $300 for one 'dance'?

You gotta be kidding me.
 
2012-12-13 03:04:52 PM  

CujoQuarrel: Uh, $300 for one 'dance'?

You gotta be kidding me.


You can get a nice escort for about that price and get some action out of it.
 
2012-12-13 03:06:08 PM  

Stile4aly: I work in the claims division for Bank of America.


I hate your employer
 
2012-12-13 03:09:42 PM  
 
2012-12-13 03:17:54 PM  

DirkTheDaring: Outdoor strippers need lots of sunblock NSFW


I there some point to all this? Porn is free. We don't need Fark to go find it. You must be new.
 
2012-12-13 03:22:24 PM  
Oh hai guize, is the the thread where people with internet GEDs in law pontificate?
 
2012-12-13 03:30:26 PM  

fanbladesaresharp: DirkTheDaring: Outdoor strippers need lots of sunblock NSFW

I there some point to all this? Porn is free. We don't need Fark to go find it. You must be new.


F*ck you. There is always a point to porn. ALWAYS. 

i46.tinypic.com
 
2012-12-13 03:36:49 PM  

liam76: ProfessorOhki: Also, it's creepy how naturally the consent to money v. consent to sex analogies seem to crop up. Our society is sort of farked up

I don't think it comes up because there is a "connection" but because people have double standards.


I didn't mean that there was a connection; I just meant it's telling that "being taken advantage of" in general is pretty much default sexual for women and default financial for men. It's awkward when you're writing something then pause and go, "wait, why did I just equivocate those."
 
2012-12-13 03:45:49 PM  

fanbladesaresharp: DirkTheDaring: Outdoor strippers need lots of sunblock NSFW

I there some point to all this? Porn is free. We don't need Fark to go find it. You must be new.


I'm sorry that I forced you to click on that link and hurt you personally.
 
2012-12-13 03:51:28 PM  
If you have sex with a girl in that physical state, the law is quite clear...
 
2012-12-13 03:56:19 PM  

fanbladesaresharp: DirkTheDaring: Outdoor strippers need lots of sunblock NSFW

I there some point to all this? Porn is free. We don't need Fark to go find it. You must be new.


You go to hell and you die.
 
2012-12-13 03:57:43 PM  

Fark Rye For Many Whores: Ilg

[upload.wikimedia.org image 800x600]


Way to go, dumbass.
 
2012-12-13 04:09:35 PM  

edmo: If you have sex with a girl in that physical state, the law is quite clear...


As long as you don't spoog in her ear?
 
2012-12-13 04:19:03 PM  

edmo: If you have sex with a girl in that physical state, the law is quite clear...


Yes, it is. We're discussing why it's so clear only in this case.
 
2012-12-13 04:34:47 PM  

unfarkingbelievable: LaraAmber: Okay, leaving aside the idiot with the charge card for a second.

Honest girl question to the guys about the pictures. What is with men and lusting after women who can get into extreme poses? Do you have any proof that this makes sex better when she has one foot touching a ceiling fixture and the other perched on the top of the back of the chair? Do you think she could actually hold that pose while you are farking her? Is it just a recognition that she probably has some serious body strength? (So why not getting turned on by the body building chicks?)

As a woman who is a former gymnast and ballet dancer and who is still very toned and flexible, BFs/lovers in my past have said it is that physical ability that allows for all kinds of positioning. Also, years of gymnastics and ballet also create a much tighter vag.


Way too many posts went by without a "how YOU doin'?"... y'all are slipping.
 
2012-12-13 05:25:28 PM  
If this holds up in court, can you imagine all the paternity suits it will affect?

"I was shiatfaced Judge. If I wasn't shiatfaced I never woulda stuck my dick in that. I mean, just look at her, Judge. Would you hit that sober? I didn't think so".
 
2012-12-13 06:04:23 PM  

dk47: Jon iz teh kewl: dk47: pedrop357: ProfessorOhki: Also, it's creepy how naturally the consent to money v. consent to sex analogies seem to crop up. Our society is sort of farked up.

No, it's how the issue of consent seems to vary wildly without a real logical explanation.

The issue of sex comes up because A LOT of people have found themselves facing charges or damaging accusations that they had sex with someone who was drunk. Ostensibly, the rational behind the accusation or charges is that a person who is intoxicated cannot give consent to have sex, thus making the encounter rape, sexual assault, etc.

How then can we square that concept with one where a person is very drunk, supposedly consents to buy expensive things, and is told that intoxication is his problem? It's not that way with a drunk person having sex. In sexual situation, the (more?) sober person is held responsible for not "taking advantage" of the less sober person.

Apparently in sexual situations, and only sexual situations, the person who is drunk cannot give consent and anything done to/with them is a crime. In all other situations, you're responsible for what happens to you while drunk and everyone else apparently bears no burden or liabilities for soliciting expensive purchases from you, etc.

Gee, I wonder why the comparisons keep coming up.

But... once you get out of college you figure out that people are constantly consenting to sex while drunk constantly. The whole "chicks can't consent while drunk" is to try to keep dumb kids from date-raping, that's all.

dumb meaning.. gay??

Dumb gays dumb straights, pretty much anybody dumb enough to try it.


anyone stupid is gay. that's what gay means: stupid
 
2012-12-13 06:25:55 PM  

Theaetetus: Yep, and so did I. Talondel and I are in agreement on the law, and merely disagree on whether my calling your statement "incorrect and naive" was right or not. Maybe he's kinder to idiots giving bad legal advice than I am.


His statement of the law was overly broad, but only because he didn't state an exception to the law that didn't apply in this case. He had the general rule correct, and the exception to the general rule didn't apply. The case you cited to prove him wrong doesn't directly state any rules relating to voluntary intoxication. There was no reason to state any of those rules because the court found that factually he wasn't actually intoxicated. (although the court did cite to a case that states rules that are similar to the restatement rules.

So his statement of the law was incorrect, but your attempt to rebut him was just as bad. BPIPAS at least got the result correct, which is that in this case, given the facts alleged, the guy has a argument that the agreement should be voidable at his option due to his intoxication.
 
2012-12-13 07:30:14 PM  
How come women can't consent to sex when drunk while men can? How come if both are drunk the man is at fault?

//Equality when people want it for everyone
 
2012-12-13 08:18:33 PM  

fanbladesaresharp: DirkTheDaring: Outdoor strippers need lots of sunblock NSFW

I there some point to all this? Porn is free. We don't need Fark to go find it. You must be new.


notsureifserious.jpg
 
2012-12-13 08:19:10 PM  
William Ilg claimed that the Hustler Club in Manhattan should not have given him the drinks because he was 'no longer capable of conducting financial transactions'.

A strip club
i2.kym-cdn.com
 
2012-12-13 09:08:48 PM  

Pangea: Stile4aly: I work in the claims division for Bank of America.

I hate your employer


For what it's worth, I'm sorry that you had whatever experience that caused you to hate my employer.
 
2012-12-14 12:11:35 AM  

Talondel: So his statement of the law was incorrect, but your attempt to rebut him was just as bad. BPIPAS at least got the result correct, which is that in this case, given the facts alleged, the guy has a argument that the agreement should be voidable at his option due to his intoxication.


Truthfully, Theaetetus wasn't concerned with being right as much as proving me wrong. She is as student of Andrea Dworkin and believes in some pretty crazy stuff like that Gender isn't biologically based. Since I troll people like this:

upload.wikimedia.org
Frowns on your stripper shenanigans


and the subject is law. (She thinks it's her specialty) -She is here to assert her dominance over me. Being right or wrong is not her concern. When her feelings get the best of her, she's all attack and little thought.

The irony is that as Strip Clubs plying men with drinks and dancers is something that Dworkin would have found to be an antithesis to the safety and freedom of women. But hey, why worry about such trivialities when you can lay a verbal smackdown on your perceived enemy.

I also like her choice of words. "idiots giving bad legal advice". Yeah, as if I was giving legal advice.
 
2012-12-14 04:18:45 AM  

Theaetetus: Talondel: DammitIForgotMyLogin: I wonder if that legal principle could carry over to any other aspects of the law.

Theaetetus: Lucy v. Zehmer says your statement is naive and incorrect and that you need to ask for your law school tuition back. Try telling them you were drunk when you enrolled.

That isn't what Lucy v. Zehmer says. That case is in law school text to illustrate the fact that the intent to contract is based upon an objective test. That is, if a reasonable person observing your behavior would assume that you intended to enter into a contract, then you will be held to have the requisite intent even if you subjectively did not intend to enter a contract.

In simpler terms, Lucy v. Zehmer means you can't sign a contract while appearing to be serious, then later get out of it by saying 'Heh, I was only joking,' even if you really were only joking. It's your outward conduct that matters, not your internal thoughts.

Lucy v. Zehmer would have little application here, because this isn't a case about whether the person had a subjective or objective intent to contract.


Au contraire, Zehmer also raised the defense that he was drinking and therefore lacked capacity to contract. The court noted that there was no evidence of his lack of capacity, and absent that, the fact that he was drinking was irrelevant.
Thus, as I said, his statement that "a contract is not legally enforceable if the signatory is drunk" is incorrect and naive, in that it's overly broad. If the other party to the contract has no reason to believe the signatory is drunk, then the contract is not necessarily voidable.
Consider, for example, the statement in The Restatement (2d) of Contracts § 16. Just in case you haven't seen it before, I'll quote it for you:
"A person incurs only voidable contractual duties by entering into a transaction if the other party has reason to know that by reason of intoxication

(a) he is unable to understand in a reasonable manner the nature and consequences of the transaction, or
(b) he is unable to act in a reasonable manner in relation to the transaction."

The above is an accurate description of why Zehmer's defense failed, and is why his statement was overbroad.


There's a fundamental difference between this case and Lucy v. Zehmer that you're failing to take into account.

Zehmer was drinking, but the evidence strongly suggested that he was not so intoxicated as to fail to understand what he was doing, and from the ruling: "It was in fact conceded by defendants' counsel in oral argument that under the evidence Zehmer was not too drunk to make a valid contract."

As you point out, if the other party has reason to know then Lucy v. Zehmer doesn't apply. In this case, the establishment would have been well aware of the amount of alcohol that Mr. Ilg consumed, as they were serving it to him. As evidenced by their conduct in driving him home, they were well aware that he was extremely intoxicated at the end of the evening, and they were aware that their conduct in serving him alcohol would have made them liable under New York's dram shop law if he had injured someone on his way home.

Now, the New York dram shop law makes it illegal to serve someone who is visibly intoxicated, and we can't determine if that was the case here, since we don't have access to the testimony or the video of Mr Ilg in the club, but I would suspect that someone who had blacked out and was so intoxicated that the club felt compelled to provide transportation home was very likely visibly intoxicated earlier in the evening; if that was the case, the club was likely acting illegally by serving him.

That being the case, it stretches credibility to suggest that the club didn't have reason to know that Mr. Ilg was in a sufficiently intoxicated state to be unable to competently contract for goods and services.
 
2012-12-14 08:16:02 AM  

Plant Rights Activist: Superjew: DammitIForgotMyLogin: So what they're saying is that despite having consumed sufficient alcohol to severely impair his judgement, he's still legally considered responsible for his own actions.

I wonder if that legal principle could carry over to any other aspects of the law.

I would love to see a woman try out this line of defense. It would be very illuminating. Anybody care to speculate on how that might play out?

Are you trying to turn this into a rape thread? I am not a fan of rape threads.


files.myfrogbag.com
 
2012-12-14 08:24:56 AM  

Because People in power are Stupid: Talondel: So his statement of the law was incorrect, but your attempt to rebut him was just as bad. BPIPAS at least got the result correct, which is that in this case, given the facts alleged, the guy has a argument that the agreement should be voidable at his option due to his intoxication.

Truthfully, Theaetetus wasn't concerned with being right as much as proving me wrong. She is as student of Andrea Dworkin and believes in some pretty crazy stuff like that Gender isn't biologically based. Since I troll people like this:

[upload.wikimedia.org image 220x193]
Frowns on your stripper shenanigans

and the subject is law. (She thinks it's her specialty) -She is here to assert her dominance over me. Being right or wrong is not her concern. When her feelings get the best of her, she's all attack and little thought.

The irony is that as Strip Clubs plying men with drinks and dancers is something that Dworkin would have found to be an antithesis to the safety and freedom of women. But hey, why worry about such trivialities when you can lay a verbal smackdown on your perceived enemy.

I also like her choice of words. "idiots giving bad legal advice". Yeah, as if I was giving legal advice.


The funny part is that almost every sentence of yours here has at least one error. The sole exception is that you like my choice of words. Thanks.
 
2012-12-14 08:33:18 AM  

Theaetetus: The funny part is that almost every sentence of yours here has at least one error. The sole exception is that you like my choice of words. Thanks.


Yeah, you've been proven wrong in just about everything. As a female supremacist -that is impossible without rape being involved. So, there's that.
 
2012-12-14 08:36:43 AM  

Because People in power are Stupid: Theaetetus: The funny part is that almost every sentence of yours here has at least one error. The sole exception is that you like my choice of words. Thanks.

Yeah, you've been proven wrong in just about everything. As a female supremacist -that is impossible without rape being involved. So, there's that.


No, no, keep digging. It's amusing.
 
2012-12-14 09:11:05 AM  

Theaetetus: Because People in power are Stupid: Theaetetus: The funny part is that almost every sentence of yours here has at least one error. The sole exception is that you like my choice of words. Thanks.

Yeah, you've been proven wrong in just about everything. As a female supremacist -that is impossible without rape being involved. So, there's that.

No, no, keep digging. It's amusing.


Sorry, babe I'm just not that into you.
 
2012-12-14 10:20:06 AM  

Because People in power are Stupid: Theaetetus: Because People in power are Stupid: Theaetetus: The funny part is that almost every sentence of yours here has at least one error. The sole exception is that you like my choice of words. Thanks.

Yeah, you've been proven wrong in just about everything. As a female supremacist -that is impossible without rape being involved. So, there's that.

No, no, keep digging. It's amusing.

Sorry, babe I'm just not that into you.


Your gendered insults are revealing of your misogyny, but they're also hilarious, since your base assumption is incorrect.
 
2012-12-14 10:44:20 AM  

Theaetetus: Your gendered insults are revealing of your misogyny, but they're also hilarious, since your base assumption is incorrect.


Sorry, I'm not into pegging.
 
2012-12-14 10:46:17 AM  

Because People in power are Stupid: Theaetetus: Your gendered insults are revealing of your misogyny, but they're also hilarious, since your base assumption is incorrect.

Sorry, I'm not into pegging.


Real penis is more your thing? Then have I got a surprise for you...
 
2012-12-14 10:56:18 AM  

Theaetetus: Because People in power are Stupid: Theaetetus: Your gendered insults are revealing of your misogyny, but they're also hilarious, since your base assumption is incorrect.

Sorry, I'm not into pegging.

Real penis is more your thing? Then have I got a surprise for you...


I also don't believe that you are a patent attorney.
 
2012-12-14 11:10:34 AM  

Because People in power are Stupid: Theaetetus: Because People in power are Stupid: Theaetetus: Your gendered insults are revealing of your misogyny, but they're also hilarious, since your base assumption is incorrect.

Sorry, I'm not into pegging.

Real penis is more your thing? Then have I got a surprise for you...

I also don't believe that you are a patent attorney.


You apparently have a lot of problems when reality doesn't fit your preconceived notions, which is why you assume that anyone who isn't a misogynist must be female. Maybe you should leave your basement at some point and experience the grandeur and infinite variety of the real world.
 
2012-12-14 11:26:56 AM  

Theaetetus:
You apparently have a lot of problems when reality doesn't fit your preconceived notions, which is why you assume that anyone who isn't a misogynist must be female. Maybe you should leave your basement at some point and experience the grandeur and infinite variety of the real world.


That really twists your panties, doesn't it?
 
2012-12-14 11:31:32 AM  

Theaetetus: Because People in power are Stupid: Theaetetus: Because People in power are Stupid: Theaetetus: Your gendered insults are revealing of your misogyny, but they're also hilarious, since your base assumption is incorrect.

Sorry, I'm not into pegging.

Real penis is more your thing? Then have I got a surprise for you...

I also don't believe that you are a patent attorney.

You apparently have a lot of problems when reality doesn't fit your preconceived notions, which is why you assume that anyone who isn't a misogynist must be female. Maybe you should leave your basement at some point and experience the grandeur and infinite variety of the real world.


You two have completely jacked this thread and made yourselves look like childish assholes. Get a room!
 
2012-12-14 02:51:02 PM  
Because People in power are Stupid and Theaetetus

Would you two just fnck and get it over with already? Damn.
 
2012-12-14 02:59:13 PM  

DirkTheDaring: Because People in power are Stupid and Theaetetus

Would you two just fnck and get it over with already? Damn.


i2.kym-cdn.com
 
2012-12-14 07:00:03 PM  
Looks like subby's B) is still blacked out in an alley somewhere after getting robbed by the stripper and her bouncer boyfriend.
 
Displayed 181 of 181 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report