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.

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.

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



/ bie eip bb

DirkTheDaring: Because People in power are Stupid and Theaetetus

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

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.

Outdoor strippers need lots of sunblock NSFW

Let's try that again:

Naomi Knight, naked in the rain NSFW

use a debit card next time, shiat for brains!

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.