"Crowley was filled with sadness for two young men who took advantage of a drunk and possibly drugged young girl because the judge actually held them accountable for what they did. Instead of wondering aloud why they weren't tried as adults, she was instead very concerned that now they would have to register for the rest of their lives as sex offenders."
I can't believe CNN handled that case this way.
ADDED: "'This is the most pointless thing,' Mr. Mays said in one text message to the girl. 'I’m going to get in trouble for something I should be getting thanked for taking care of you.' But the girl made clear that she was not having any more of it, telling Mr. Mays in another exchange: 'It’s on YouTube. I’m not stupid. Stop texting me.'"
March 17, 2013
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
174 comments:
Now she's suddenly concerned with ethics.
Candy Crowley wishes she was that girl.
..just wow. I don't know what else to say.
I haven't followed the case all that closely but I don't like the general trend of excusing drunk women from their decisions yet holding drunk men accountable for everything they do.
But last I read some people said she wasn't unconscious and others said she was. So I don't know. I've been pretty drunk with drunk girls before and had them grab my junk. If the roles were reversed would it have been rape?
Guys involved were clearly idiots, but rapists? That I'm less certain of from my scant understanding of the issue.
So, the court made the decision. That's the way criminal cases ought to be decided, not as feminist causes in the press.
I have my reservations about branding the boys with the scarlet "A" for life.
We used to think that that was a remarkably bad thing to do to women, but, what the fuck... they're just males.
The other thing that gives me pause about the case, besides what Ben said above, is the masked protesters that descended on the town demanding punishment for the accused. They are too much like a lynch mob. And the masks makes them too much like the KKK. If they believe the cause they espouse is just, then they should show their faces.
Cry real tears for real victims.
If those young men were falsely accused and convicted it would be a tragedy. If the girl brought a false accusation and got away with it that would be a tragedy.
Societal morality, gone.
Liberal news... poison.
The result...just a mess.
Good thing the perps weren't black, Candy would be crying racism
But I thought Obama said it was an act of terror.
But I thought Obama said it was an act of terror.
I stopped reading at "Candy Crowley Oozes."
FTAA: 'I can't believe CNN handled that case this way.'
!!!SNARK ALERT!!!SNARK ALERT!!!
Professor?
Where have you been the past 20 years? Under a rock?
That channel is FILLED with hack reporters with questionable editorial positions and after her performance moderating the Presidential debate WHY are you surprised she would OR the channel would take this tact?
SteveR said...
Good thing the perps weren't black, Candy would be crying racism
If they were, they'd look just like Barry's sons.
Or Willie's.
Or maybe, if they got SSMed...
They're all children. They all screwed up. I feel a little worse for the girl.
I saw this episode. Turns out both Veronica Mars and the guy (can't remember his name) were drugged.
"That channel is FILLED with hack reporters with questionable editorial positions and after her performance moderating the Presidential debate WHY are you surprised she would OR the channel would take this tact?"
I would have thought CNN knew not to sympathize with rapists! I know they are biased and ratings-hungry, but violence against women is a well-known sensitive topic.
It's like they're suddenly Todd Akin and not seeing this as legitimate rape.
One rapist is black.
Was the girl charged with illegal alcohol
? No one forced her to drink. There's no doubt she broke the law.
How should we "hold responsible" drunk women for being raped? We don't hold drunk mugging victims responsible, regardless of what wrong alleys they stumble down. If someone commits a crime when drunk, they are responsible. A drunk victim is just a victim.
@ Ben
"If the roles were reversed would it have been rape?"
That's the key. It's always rape. No matter what the relationship is it is always rape. Double-rape when a Republican is involved. Triple-rape if a conservative. Unless the female is Republican or conservative in which case "she was asking for it".
And if the assailant is a Democrat then it is never rape.
SteveR said...
Good thing the perps weren't black, ...
edutcher said...
If they were, they'd look just like Barry's sons.
Ding! Ding! HELLO?
How should we "hold responsible" drunk women for being raped?
You don't. Whatever she did wrong she paid for and then some when she was raped.
Now the men have to be held responsible. I don't see how it's wrong to sympathize with everyone involved.
/sarc
Illegal alcohol consumption that is. If girls were prosecuted for drinking, fewer would get drunk and put themselves in compromising situations. I teach my kids that if you walk to the edge enough, sooner or later you'll slip and fall off.
It's like they're suddenly Todd Akin and not seeing this as legitimate rape.
you should make a headline of it. Maybe at least then more lefties, even CNN may see it.
Whatever she did wrong she paid for and then some when she was raped.
At what point does this "logic" end? How bad of a crime to you have to suffer to be exempted from laws you broke? How bad of a crime can you be exempted from? Enforce the laws equally.
Fortunately for these two little assholes they aren't going to an adult correction facility where they might gather a new appreciation for what they did.
I think the weird CNN coverage is at least in part the result of the weirdness of the conviction being "rape."
The facts apparently are that after the 16 year old girl got drunk and left one party with the drunk 17 year old she "liked," she gave the guy a "hand job" and he inserted his finger in her vagina. They then went to another party, where she became even more drunk, and the first guy and a second guy again inserted their fingers in her vagina while she was passed out or semi-passed out. People took photos of her naked and she woke up on a couch the next morning naked with very little memory of what happend. The criminal charges happened because of the publicity from the cell phone photos and text message photos and messages regarding what was going on and what happened. The princpal evidence was other guys who, in exhange for immunity, testified that they witnessed the finger penetration. The judge barred testimony about previous instances of drunken/sexual conduct by the girl. The victim's female friends (or former friends) testified to some extent for the defense and presumably would have told much more about the victim's prior conduct if the judge allowed it.
On these facts, it is clear that the two guys took sexual advantage in an abusive way of a very drunk girl and, under Ohio law, that constitues "rape." I think the reason for the weird CNN coverage by the female CNN reporters is that they knew the true story (which could not really be told on TV) and did not view the case as "rape" in the normal sense of the word. I am not saying what the guys did was in any way okay; just that it is weird that such conduct results in a criminal conviction for rape.
Rape: Unwanted Orifice Intrusion.
Does that cover enough or too much?
I don't know anything about juvenile law in Ohio, but it also seems like a case that might have been plea bargained to a lesser charge. Instead, the guys apparently took their chances on a consent defense, that in hindight, was a mistake if a lesser plea bargain was available.
DADvocate said...
At what point does this "logic" end? How bad of a crime to you have to suffer to be exempted from laws you broke?
Okay then ...
1.)She got drunk under age...that's good for 6 months juvenile probation and some community service.
2.) The two guys fucked her without anyone testifying to her giving permission. That's rape and good for 5 years of juvenile detention and sex offender registry.
By all means sentence them ALL for their infractions as they stand.
Simple issue: If she didn't say yes, it's rape. Did anyone testify she said yes?
That hasn't changed since I played high school football. A girl, or woman, getting drunk does not equate with "permission" even in my frat house days. And that was on the U of W campus, Langdon Street, in the beer at 18 days...e.g., every house had a beer bar in it. Whole lot of drunkenness in those days.
"I would have thought CNN knew not to sympathize with rapists! "
Leftism is applied haphazardly at times, as there's no underlying principle.
Here they recognized the rape charge was mostly done because of factors having nothing to do with the actual assault: football players, nude cell photos and videos.
Crowley got confused over which victim to support. Lefties need a style book to keep the balkan hierarchy straight.
NPR and Yahoo! blame the rape on high school football.
Just think, all those law-abiding, upstanding football players, like my own son, being lumped in with rapist because they play the same sport and some people hate jocks.
... and the first guy and a second guy again inserted their fingers in her vagina while she was passed out or semi-passed out.
Holy Shit. That's all. Just holy shit.
"If the girl brought a false accusation and got away with it that would be a tragedy. "
It's happened before. It will happen again.
DADvocate said...
NPR and Yahoo! blame the rape on high school football ... Just think, all those law-abiding, upstanding football players, like my own son, being lumped in with rapists ...
Why would you give NPR, Yahoo, or anyone else who conflates the issue any respect or concern?
The two guys fucked her without anyone testifying to her giving permission.
I'm not sure what's your definition of "fucked", but I don't consider fucking in the sexual sense to be fucking unless a penis enters an orifice. That didn't happen in this case.
I'm not excusing the boys actions. Everyone involved was incredibly stupid in their choices.
Fortunately for these two little assholes they aren't going to an adult correction facility where they might gather a new appreciation for what they did." -- garage mahal
Beautiful. You are lamenting that they won't get raped themselves. This is what I love about leftists. Their shameless embrace of their own hypocrisy.
Really, makes me gag. Those guys were guilty and i feel no sympathy for them at all.
Vicki from Pasadena
Crowley had just seen the video of the black teenager breaking down in court. It was probably impossible for a well-programmed liberal like Candy to feel anything other than sympathy at that exact moment. Well, sympathy and guilt.
Must have been a real brain twister. Two victims - one of sexual abuse, one of the system.
Fortunately for these two little assholes they aren't going to an adult correction facility where they might gather a new appreciation for what they did.
I dunno about that, garage. I hear juvie time can be pretty shattering, depending on where you are.
As I read it, the two charged penetrated her with their fingers only. They probably thought that they were copping a feel rather than raping her. The real crime was photographing her naked and passed out and posting the pictures around. That seems to me to be more violative of her person than digital penetration.....The kids involved are guilty of something more than being jerks but, in my estimation, something less than rape. For the girl, the collateral publicity of this case is probably more traumatic than the rape. And win or lose, those boys (and the passive observers of the crime) will not walk away from this without a mark. I don't see how justice can possibly triumph in a case like this. Making someone the biggest loser doesn't make you the winner.
No need for a remake of A Clockwork Orange.
We're nearly there.
Why would you give NPR, Yahoo, or anyone else who conflates the issue any respect or concern?
Because they create and perpetrate harmful myths about various groups. I assume you're not and have never been a jock. I was a jock and you can still tell by looking at me although I'm 61. The most liberal, "open-minded" people do not hesitate to make negative evaluations of you or to pigeon hole you as a dumb jock.
Ever have a professor tell you they were surprised by your academic performance because you seemed like a jock? I have. Ever have people assume you care a great deal about sports because you look like a jock? I have.
These were people who would raise holy hell if you made a racist or sexist comment, but they don't hesitate to use the jock/dumb jock stereotype. Read my posts. Other than actually playing, I care little about sports. I can't name all the teams in MLB or the NBA (maybe the NFL). I can't tell you who won the World Series two years ago.
But our pseudo intellectuals want to classify big, bad jocks as big, bad, stupid people, even when they're qualified to join MENSA.
Fortunately for these two little assholes they aren't going to an adult correction facility where they might gather a new appreciation for what they did."
A proud liberal displays his approval of rape. Disgusting. Garage is no better than the onlookers who let this girl be violated.
AP summed this whole sordid mess up best. We normally don't names the accused if they are juveniles but, since everybody knows who these kids are anyway, we'll just go ahead and name them. But we don't names alleged rape victims, regardless of age or how many people know them.
DADvocate said...
I'm not sure what's your definition of "fucked", but I don't consider fucking in the sexual sense to be fucking unless a penis enters an orifice. That didn't happen in this case.
You know this how? Pay attention to this video ...especially to the "wang in her butt hole" line, and a few others....like "she is so raped her p-ssy is as dry as the sun."
You know, normally I agree with you , but you're off on a tangent here vis a vis jocks. You assume I never was one (your words) which is another error....both high school and collegiate. Some asshole media conflates sports with rape and you explode due a chip you apparently carry on your should over it from years ago.
No, no professor ever congratulated me for doing well in spite of being a jock....I just wasn't that smart. However, my room-mate, playing Big Ten football had a 4.0 in Math and Physics and didn't suffer from it...in fact he told the Dean of his Engineering school to pound sand when said Dean remarked his sports activity wasn't compatible...and then promptly transferred to Liberal Arts majoring in Math & Physics.In short, in my experience I associate "jock" with "brilliance."
You are who you are, not something some shit-head media assholes imply about you or anyone like you. I am sure you really do know that.
Wow, such crocodile tears. If he was so sorry, he should have pleaded guilty. It's easy to feel sorry after your punishment is announced.
A proud liberal displays his approval of rape. Disgusting. Garage is no better than the onlookers who let this girl be violated.
Oh fuck off. I said "fortunately", which is the opposite of "unfortunately". The point is they knew what they did was wrong, because if you asked them what they feared most about going to prison, what would the answer be?
And we wouldn't even be having this conversation if someone's son was buggered while passed out at party, would we? It's always wrong. Full stop.
Read the linked article. It wasn't only "digital penetration."
In another message, Mr. Mays admitted to the girl that he had taken the picture, already circulated among other students, of her lying naked in a basement with what he told her was his semen on her body, from what he stated was a consensual sex act.
Aridog - in the account I read they only mentioned digital penetration.
Garage - Nice cya
Chief mono - I was once a juvenile probation officer. In many cases u r right.
At what point does this "logic" end? How bad of a crime to you have to suffer to be exempted from laws you broke?
Foregoing prosecution of someone who was the victim of a violent felony for a misdemeanor offense (which is what I assume teenage drinking is in this state) seems like a reasonable use of prosecutorial discretion. But I guess your mileage may vary if you're the type who wants to teach that girl a lesson.
"And we wouldn't even be having this conversation if someone's son was buggered while passed out at party, would we? It's always wrong. Full stop"
What Garage said. I'm the mother of football players, and I don't think this reflects on my sons at all. This was disgusting behavior.
When does Candy Crowley not ooze something?
Politicized justice is no justice, for anyone.
When CNN takes a side, the viewer automatically knows which side the political establishment endorses.
Whatever you think of the original, probably politicized charging decision, this volte-face is a betrayal, and there is no question, rape or not, that this girl was subjected to I humane treatment. Maybe this is a good lesson; the government that can make you a victim can turn around and make you the perpetrator. Just like that. And now, the weather. No one will see this, though. Too busy pushing their personal grievances to see the big picture.
Inhumane treatment.
Obv
Stupid smart phone.
Watching the Crowley video for the first time, I don't think she was oozing sympathy. The situation is tragic for all involved. One of the boys never had a real father in his life. It's terribly sad that no one taught these kids, all involved - not just the 3 primary players, what is acceptable and unacceptable behavior.
My kids got pissed at me because I would occasionally track them down and make sure they were where they were supposed to be and doing what they were supposed to be doing. But, there were a significant number of adults that neglected their duties and responsibilities for too long. There's no guarantees, but someone other than kids owns the houses where this was going on.
I don't see Crowley "oozing." She simply seems to see the larger picture.
Althouse said:
"It's like they're suddenly Todd Akin and not seeing this as legitimate rape."
More like they're suddenly Whoopi. Crowley at 4:45:
"What's the lasting effect, though, on two young men being found guilty in juvenile court of rape essentially?"
Don't worry. Although it's "essentially rape," apparently it's not "rape rape."
"The situation is tragic for all involved. One of the boys never had a real father in his life. It's terribly sad that no one taught these kids, all involved - not just the 3 primary players, what is acceptable and unacceptable behavior."
OMG! You're implying that Dads and positive male role models are a GOOD THING! Don't you know that single moms can do just as good a job raising boys as can married couples? It's the truth! The newspapers and people like Candy Crowley keep telling us that! How can you disbelieve them?
And this is partly what I feared.
The misbehavior of the boys was apparently bad enough to warrant a "guilty" verdict on some level of criminal sexual misconduct. But it may not match up fully with the images normally conjured by the description "rape".
(The behavior by Julian Assange, dismissed as "not rape-rape" by Whoopi Goldberg, definitely does match up with the mental images conjured by the word "rape". Both she and he should be regularly reminded of that.)
A punishment of some sort should have been meted out.
And the previous behavior of the young woman may have had something to do with her behavior that night. The law intends to shield victims from being tried for past behavior when it has no relevance to the case at hand. But what if the past behavior does have relevance?
And, deals made by prosecutors to get testimony have shielded many from even being cited for underage drinking.
But is that the best way to deal with the problems that sometimes come out of underage drinking-parties?
But what if the past behavior does have relevance?
The girl was passed out, you fucking moron.
But is that the best way to deal with the problems that sometimes come out of underage drinking-parties?
As I said before, where were the adults that own and live in these houses? Ohio has some pretty strict laws regarding allowing underage drinking in your house.
The girl was passed out, you fucking moron.
The voice of reason speaks.
what did you expect? that she would go to the trial and stop a question that might lead to a conviction? What evidence do you have that she would do such a thing.
and it wasn't rape rape. you know, like todd aiken does to girls who want an abortion.
If the guilty of rape verdict in this case prevents an intoxicated passed out girl from being taken advantage of, I for one am glad these two young men have been held accountable for their boorish, exploitive behavior.
The victim was 16 years old. The perps are 16 and 17!years old. That night of drunken debauchery was not kids being kids.
Is there some question as to what happened? The boys were convicted then? Did the girl feel raped or did she feel raped after it got on You Tube?
The thing about registering as a sex offender for the rest of your life is that it treats every sex offense as identical, if you're a pervert who rapes a four year old or if you're a 17 year old that had consensual sex with your 15 year old girl friend.
It creates a huge disincentive to convict someone who is guilty of "date rape" or consensual but "statutory rape" or "I didn't realize she was that drunk rape."
You know... Assange is an ass but they were wanting to try him for "yes, I had great sex with you last night but I didn't want you to wake me up with sex this morning rape."
Certainly not all rapists receive the same punishment and jail time or anything else, why isn't how long you're on the sex offender registry also part of sentencing?
(The behavior by Julian Assange, dismissed as "not rape-rape" by Whoopi Goldberg, definitely does match up with the mental images conjured by the word "rape". Both she and he should be regularly reminded of that.)
Are you thinking of Assange or the other guy (I'm forgetting his name, P-something, the movie director) that had a 13 year old over, drugged her, and then sodomized her?
Ann Althouse:
Or rape-rape, or "definition of is" for that matter; although, the latter was not a case of involuntary, but superior exploitation, which was a cause du jour at an earlier time.
Synova:
Polanski. Roman Polanski. Film directory extraordinaire, who commits acts of rape, but not rape-rape.
This is why you don't go changing the definition of words, especially legal words. Words mean things. Even the word "rape" means something, and for hundreds of years in the common law it meant penile-vaginal penetration, while penile-anal penetration, as well as penile-oral and vaginal-oral contact, were called sodomy. Meanwhile, digital or inanimate object penetration were rightly called something else entirely. They are rightly called different things because they involve different kinds of conduct.
It doesn't help anyone to have all of these various types of criminal sexual conduct called "rape." It is not a one-size-fits-all word, just as the word "penis" is not a one-size-fits-all word. A finger is not a penis and a penis cannot logically be defined to include a finger, just as digital penetration is not rape.
Now that does not mean that digital penetration should not be punished the same as rape, but punishing something the same as rape does not make it rape.
I would have thought CNN knew not to sympathize with rapists!
Arguing from your position Ann, you have not demonstrated this "rape" is anomalous. Particularly not for young men filled with testosterone. Perhaps it is merely a social more. Perhaps the woman should not have put herself in that compromising position. Perhaps she is the criminal.
I'm frankly disgusted with intellectuals using their fundamental principles to define a world at odds with human nature. Male human nature is to fuck as much as possible, with variety. That's the biological drive.
Female nature is to be quite circumspect, because it's costly. 9 months of pregnancy, and 12+ years to self sufficiency, are the biological imperatives. Having a man around helps tremendously to increase progeny survival.
And to those who say a man is not genetically wound into family, imagine the shotgun wedding. The need of a man to find a good husband for his girl child. His little girl having sex. What man can deal with that, well. Few, and many of those disconnect from the biological imperatives.
So Ann thinks she has a great recipe for Marriage, because she elevates a liberal value, "Equal Treatment" which isn't fair at all, to homosexuals.
How about this, Ann. Prove your ideas. Don't push out stupid ideas like "Fairness," "Enlightenment," "Tolerance," and all those code words. The proof is in a better society, one that provides better future opportunities to the next generation. Despite tremendous advances in productivity, it seems that these, and other ideas like them, are brakes on progress, and a better off next generation.
Finally, the idea of "short" notes are the ones that are most pertinent is short-sighted. These must, by necessity, build on abstract "truths," which in my view are not at all in evidence.
I will give you an example. As a first quarter junior, I took a course in Combinatorial Algorithms, and ended up writing a five page proof for a homework assignment. Because there were so many bits that had to be proved underneath. I got a very low score on that proof, though it was, in fact, what was required. Others in the class wrote high level mumbo jumbo. Others wrote a few sentences.
When the first midterm came around, I got 45/50, and the average on that test was 16. The people that didn't dig, and understand the fundamentals, were actually clueless zombies regurgitating.
Yes, it is nice when it is possible to distill results, such as e=mc^2, but underneath that equation is years of equations.
Short script is sloppy. Maybe it's good for blogs in which people can express their viewpoints, etc., but the proof is always in the details. It takes experimentation an proof, not some set of dumb abstract principles this generation thinks are the reality, when the next generation has to pay for it.
And I have to wonder... how is putting a video of a naked girl *without her consent* onto You Tube not a sexual assault?
I don't see how this is any more tragic than the idiot junior high school kids who kill and/or rob people and then put pictures of themselves up on Facebook brandishing weapons.
Maybe they were in an unsober state too and not thinking rationally! They should not be held accountable then, right? Maybe the people they shot were also on drugs... in which case they are being unfairly demonized for their rash decisions while their VICTIMS, who made the bad decision to hang out with them, GOT OFF SCOTT FREE!!
Boo freaking hoo, people. They're freaking idiots. It's a year. That's not much.
Is it too soon to predict that these boys will be used as an example of why the life-time registration of sex-offenders should end?
Because I'm pretty confident that the black guy will be used as an example of a racist justice system ruining a promising young black man's life.
betamax3000 said...
I stopped reading at "Candy Crowley Oozes.
She exudes gamey confidence.
I believe men are programmed to fuck as much as possible, and therefore there is no problem with men raping drunk, unconscious men. They were asking for it. The horn dogs. And it doesn't mean they're gay. It's merely situational homosexuality, not homosexual homosexuality. You know, like prison.
Consent is implied because guys understand how guys suffer so terribly from that sex drive. To allow yourself to get that drunk around horny young men is to signal that you are getting ready and letting your inhibitions go. Guard down, push it on in. Does the sphincter relax when extremely drunk? See, it's how God designed it.
Anyone being so racist as to blame gangsta rap yet?
K-Liz:
I believe men are programmed to fuck as much as possible, and therefore there is no problem with men raping drunk, unconscious men.
Believe it or not, I had a friend who drunk himself to the point of not remembering, was mugged, lost his wallet, and I asked him "What would have happened if you were raped while unconscious?" his response was "So what? So long as it didn't harm me."
Anyway, lest there be any misunderstanding in my post, I'm merely trying to point out that pushing the base evolutionary morality built up at least over thousands of years, should not be taken lightly, and replaced with modern mores of "Fairness," or whatever the latest code-word is.
I think there are strong evolutionary ties to families. It's a great cornerstone of society. Tearing it down has led to no good, as far as I can see.
I do not condone men taking advantage of women when they are not able to consent, and nor do I think women should intentionally let them selves get into the situation where they can not consent.
But, I'm old school.
If only someone would set up a hypothetical so we could understand this thing. ; )
So who are engaged in a war on women?
And I have to wonder... how is putting a video of a naked girl *without her consent* onto You Tube not a sexual assault?
If you can see it, and it's public, why not.
The Lindsey Lohan mentality has to go. I'm not talking about guys taking pictures they never should have, and posting them, but if you are a drunk woman at at a party, doing the Lambada, and someone snaps a compromising picture and puts it on the internet, my view is that's OK. I wouldn't post it, but I wouldn't prevent someone from doing it.
Embarrassing, yes, illegal, no. I think there are better ways of dealing with this.
"I can't believe CNN handled that case this way."
I can.
Anyone who doesn't think race and class matter should watch this.
Shouting this: THE ABSENCE OF A "NO" IS ***NOT*** CONSENT!!!!!!!!
Shouting this: THE ABSENCE OF A "NO" IS ***NOT*** CONSENT!!!!!!!!
CNN has an audience. Evidently, they think a lot of them are parents who are thinking, "OMG, my sons could have ended up like those boys!"
...
Why they aren't thinking about daughters, I don't know.
Maybe they are trying to play both sides.
Or, so many young people get drunk at parties that it's a parental nightmare for everyone. Parents watch the news.
Shouting this: THE ABSENCE OF A "NO" IS ***NOT*** CONSENT!!!!!!!!
3/18/13, 12:40 AM
People seem to think this is meaningful, but it really isn't.
We all know two people deciding to have sex is often complicated. There simply is no cut and dried "comsent" and it certainly isn't just the guy's responsibility to get some iron-clad agreement
Having said that, doing sexual things and getting sexual gratification from a passed out human body is pretty sick.
She was 16 and a party girl. Blame her parents. They're the ones responsible for her. Did they never tell her that she's going to end up on YouTube? Or pregnant? Or with some incurable STD? Or maybe even dead? Alcohol poisoning is very real for one thing. Yes, I'm being very judgmental. Where the hell were her loving parents? Look, if you can't keep your kids safe, if you too busy with your own life, then don't have kids. And that goes for the boys too. Did their parents never tell them about consent? I blame the parents. They have no idea where their kids are or what they're doing. And who was the owner of the house where it the underage drinking party took place, that enabled these irresponsible kids?
Having said that, doing sexual things and getting sexual gratification from a passed out human body is pretty sick.
It seems to me like necrophilia. But, on the other hand, bestiality is on the decline, though in the 1800s I understand it was quite common.
Women are unable to understand the extreme power of the sexual drives of males, even though they react to it.
As an example, I offer up my experience with my rooster. Normally, I go into the fenced off area, throw down some food pellets on the ground, despite that it takes the chickens more time than eating from the food dispenser. They like to eat this way. The rooster loved this, and grew accustomed to me doing this.
Our remaining hen had managed to escape the fenced in area, and I captured her, put her under my arm, and walked into the enclosed area. I felt a pain in my leg, and realize the rooster was attacking me. I tried my best to express to the rooster that I was vastly superior in power and strength, without hurting him. My efforts including making myself large with my arms, loud with my voice, and indeed it had a momentary effect. That's it: the rooster came back to fight again, and I realized he would fight to the death for his hen.
That's how deep these things are. To the death.
It's not just chickens. It's all kinds of mammals. Lions, who not only kill their rivals, but even kill the offspring of their rivals. Walruses, Apes, etc.
Suddenly, through the power of ill-defined liberal ideals, the government can change the social compromises and institutions to deal with this. I say horseshit.
Dante, with all your talk of overwhelming urges, are you suggesting women need to be covered under a burka?
Are you suggesting men are unable to control their own urges, women must avoid being looked at?
When I was in grad school, one night I picked up a girl and went to her home to have sex with her. We never made an explicit agreement that we would have sex. We were both drunk but were able to walk fine and communicate on a reasonably intelligent level. She undressed and was lying on her bed, and the next thing I noticed was that she was asleep/passed out. Now, I didn't think she was so drunk as to be passing-out drunk, but there you go: She was unconsious. Maybe she had taken a drug. Who knows? I was pissed. I wouldn't be getting laid that night. I dressed and went home.
Understand that the thought never passed my mind that, if I had had sex with her, it would have been rape. Rather, I thought it would have been creepy -- i.e., "wrong." Legality did enter into my math.
So, if I had fucked her, would that have constituted rape? What if I had only fingered her?
I think this whole thing is pretty silly. That girl I picked up wanted to have sex. She went to a bar, drank there, spoke to other drunk men, including me, allowed me to go to her apartment with her, allowed me to help her undress (she helped me with the bra -- thanks, stranger!), she didn't object to my getting undressed, etc. Yet somehow -- today -- the majority of you would happily convict me, if I had inseted my finger into her vagina, and you would be fine branding me as life-long sexual predator, if the two of us had 17 at the time. (Monique would have branded it rape if I had had any kind of sex with her even if she had been consious, given she never explicitly say "yes" to having sex).
Dante, with all your talk of overwhelming urges, are you suggesting women need to be covered under a burka? Are you suggesting men are unable to control their own urges, women must avoid being looked at? -- Mark
Way to go in misssing a point, dude.
Hmm. Gonna go with yes, Nomennovum, if the statute in your jurisdiction says so. Rape essentially. Which is basically why you stopped yourself. The system works.
Nomennovun-
What if you then passed around nekkid pics of her to your buddies and then the whole interwebs?
"I haven't followed the case all that closely but I don't like the general trend of excusing drunk women from their decisions yet holding drunk men accountable for everything they do."
I haven't been following it either, but my pet peeve is: actual adults (i.e., parents of teenagers) abandoning their responsibilities to guide and control their children, and setting the stage for events like this.
"Gonna go with yes, Nomennovum, if the statute in your jurisdiction says so. Rape essentially."
Well, Sharc, that is a sad commentary, then. We live in an extremely legalistic culture. We need a law for everything. This is becasue our culture is broken, not becasue we are more enlightened. It's wonderful, Sharc, that you are so enlightened that you can see there is a law against something and you can then apply it, but why don't you ask yourself, "Why is there a law for this particular scenario to begin with?"
We need laws now for this type of thing -- where someone like me might finger a drunk girl -- becasue feminism has failed us. Women and men. What used to be guided by a moral code now requires a legal code. Feminism encouraged sluttiness without judgment. This had predicable results: Increased caddish behaviors. The feminist solution? Legislate chivalry.
Fuck that, Sharc. I see where this is leading. Soon written sex contracts will be required, otherwise, rape! You think that's absurd? Try to put your mind back in time and imagine a person like Monique crying rape when there is no explicit consent to sex. Monique's position is current feminist thinking, Sharc. It is very damaging to s society.
So, everyone can agree that the girl shouldn't have been drunk and with no supervision at a party full of badly behaved teenage boys. She may have had a history. Great!
If you get drunk at a bar and stumble around in a bad part of town, and some teenage thugs kill you, take your wallet, and post it on youtube, I am perfectly justified in saying that your Mama DID raise a fool. But you are no less dead, and the thugs are no less murderers. Victims are sometimes stupid. They are still victims of a crime.
Note that the incident I speak of happened in 1984. I don't know whether feminist-insired rape laws were quite so ... progressive ... then, pace Sharc and Monique
Of course, Shana. However, rape is in the process of being redefined. Murder and robbery are not.
This is not a case of he said/she said morning after a date regrets, Nomennovum. I am not a feminist, and I have some sympathy with your position. But this one isn't even questionable. Maybe it should be classified as sexual assault instead of rape, but that has always been a jurisdictional issue. It isn't that hard. Don't do sexual things or violate a person's body while he or she is passed out, and then boast about it and post pics of the victim on youtube. Simple. Easy. Keeps you out of trouble every time.
Rape laws seem to have eliminated the "reasonable doubt" standard.
But this one isn't even questionable.
I'm talking about my scenario, not the Steubenville football players case.
But you brought up your scenario as a comparison point. Once again, did you post pics of the girl and distribute them? No. Did you violate her? No. Quit feeling sorry for these little assholes.
You see, boys and girls, right now -- today -- almost any time a man has sex with a woman (outside of marriage), he risks a rape accusation. This is a fact. That most of the time no accusation by the woman is made is immaterial. Also, remember that almost all "hook up" sex involves alcohol or drugs, which only increases the liklihood of a rape accusation.
did you post pics of the girl and distribute them?"
Cut the shit. Immaterial. Besides, you know I didn't. It was 1984, as I said.
Quit feeling sorry for these little assholes.
Did I say I felt sorry for them, Shana? Where???
Try dealing with what I say, rahter than trying to use shame to win an argument.
Actually, Shana, it's probably a good idea for a man to record his sex act if he has nothing to hide. It can be used as evidence at his trial. In fact, I recommend it, just as I recommend a man record every conversation he has with his wife, if they are in the process of divorcing.
You seem to find some point of commonality with them, I dunno. You seem a tad defensive.
"I think this whole thing is pretty silly. That girl I picked up wanted to have sex. She went to a bar, drank there, spoke to other drunk men, including me, allowed me to go to her apartment with her, allowed me to help her undress (she helped me with the bra -- thanks, stranger!), she didn't object to my getting undressed, etc. Yet somehow -- today -- the majority of you would happily convict me, if I had inseted my finger into her vagina, and you would be fine branding me as life-long sexual predator, if the two of us had 17 at the time. (Monique would have branded it rape if I had had any kind of sex with her even if she had been consious, given she never explicitly say "yes" to having sex)."
Kinda think we're arguing over your own typo, Nomennovum. Your scenario said "Rather, I thought it would have been creepy -- i.e., 'wrong.' Legality did enter into my math."
So I said, "Which is basically why you stopped yourself. The system works."
But you said, "Well, Sharc, that is a sad commentary, then. We live in an extremely legalistic culture. We need a law for everything. This is becasue our culture is broken, not becasue we are more enlightened."
So I now assume you meant that legality "didn't" enter into your math, or you would not be caterwauling about how sad it is we need laws to prohibit creepy conduct. I agree it's sad to need such laws, I guess, but we still need them. Some men (unlike you) would never stop themselves but for the possible legal repercussions.
In your scenario, once she passed out, she can't continue or refine her consent. Maybe she originally had in mind just playing around, and you mistakenly thought she had in mind full-on orgy plus photos. Once she's unconscious, can't say stop, can't say never mind, anything you do to her is non-consensual. That's why you would have felt "creepy" (I think we're past the concept of "chivalry" in this conversation, don't you?), but if legislating creepy is the best we can do, I'll support it.
"if legislating creepy is the best we can do, I'll support it.
It's just about the worst thing we can do, actually.
Yes, I had a typo, but you got my gist, since the typo was obvious from its context.
You seem to find some point of commonality with them, I dunno. You seem a tad defensive.
I you say so. You seem a tad shrewish. And idiotic.
Throw a rock into a pack of dogs, the one that yelps the loudest is the one that got hit.
They were football "stars". Candy Crowley and the pro-democrat journalists have empathy for "stars". Like hollywood "stars".
There is no way to know how many young girls have gotten drunk, had sex and don't remember it because they blacked out before eventually passing out. Booze and libidos often lead to sex.
If there is a lesson here for anyone it seems to be when in doubt don't. Even when not in doubt don't. Just don't. You can't get in trouble for what you don't do.
Is that a bad thing? Maybe, or maybe not.
It's all about control. Use self-control or someone else, who has their own motives, will control you. I don't like it that this has become almost the only option in the question of sex, but it has.
I agree--I can't believe that CNN handled this case that way either. What a sad day for women.
THE ABSENCE OF A "NO" IS ***NOT*** CONSENT!!!!!!!!
What is consent, then?
Perhaps consent should be a filed contract, something that can be entered into a kiosk when you're out on a date, like getting a condom from a restroom dispenser. The contract can include "bases" so everyone knows just how much has been consented to.
That's ridiculous, of course. Because this is true:
"We all know two people deciding to have sex is often complicated. There simply is no cut and dried "consent" and it certainly isn't just the guy's responsibility to get some iron-clad agreement."
And if it's supposed to be "normal" for kids to get drunk and hook up (AND put videos on You Tube), heaven forbid repressed prudes suggest young people not have sex. Then some of the people supporting this new "normal" need to take responsibility for it and for the increased ambiguity about consent that results from what we prudes aren't supposed to fuss over... drunk and drugged teenagers f*cking like bunnies. It EMPOWERS the girls, you know. Ugh!
I thought that boys had actually had sex with her, everyone was so upset. Now I can't help but think that the only real thing anyone was upset about was the You Tube videos.
The teenage sport "stars" messed up. They went too far. Perhaps the glorification of sex and drunken pleasure displayed in the media by our cultural betters on the left isn't such a grand example for our youth?
Maybe it's mostly about exploitation. Using another person to get something you want without regard for the other persons rights or dignity.
Isn't that the basis for the social contract?
Throw a rock into a pack of dogs, the one that yelps the loudest is the one that got hit.
Very colorful, Shana. Doesn't mean that you can argue with logic and without emotion. All it means is that if a man objects to your illogical shaming tactics, it must mean he's guitly -- of something -- and has lost. So be it. We see it all the time.
Noven- under those circumstances, I wouldn't convict you of rape. Your instincts to not go there once she passed out were good ones, though.
I see them being football players being as relevant as them being educated in a union school.
On the contrary, you are the one who has been illogical and emotional. I just asked a few questions. I' ve got no dog in this fight. I'm the mother to football player sons and daughters as well, and I am not in favor of rape convictions based on the word of the woman alone. You are the one who seems to take this personally.
Sorry, mine comment should have been addressed to nomennovum
Don't have sex with unconscious people. Seems easy enough to not do?
Nomennovum said ...
... the thought never passed my mind that, if I had had sex with her, it would have been rape. Rather, I thought it would have been creepy -- i.e., "wrong."
Somehow, we've lost this sense of what is creepy or wrong. It is this loss that has corrupted us and our legal morass. I commend anyone who can still recall it. Once upon a time we guys all knew it and abided by it. WTF happened?
In reading so many of the remarks here, vis a vis what is "rape," I am convinced very few of those commenters watched & listened the video I posted at 8:11 PM yesterday. So be it...
We now debate "rape" without bothering to listen to the words of the perpetrators on the subject in the incident.
I credit Nomennovum for recognizing what is missing today.
Where is Camile Paglia when we need her?
Isn't kind of obvious to everyone that feminism is trying to legislate the type of behavior that used to be expected of men -- except without any demands or expectations made of women of the kind that used to be made or expected of them?
Men were once not supposed to "take advantage" of women. Now the legal definition of rape is changing in order to have the same effect. Whereas once women were supposed to act lady-like, now sluttiness is celebrated.
Men were expected to marry a woman he got pregnant. Now men are legally required to support their bastards till the bastards are emanicpated, and men have no say-so as to whether the woman has the baby or puts it up for adoption. Whereas once women were supposed to be chaste prior to marriage, now that's consider patriarchal.
A husband was once expected to take care of his wife for the rest of her life and offspring until they became independent or married. Whereas once women were expected to become one with their husbands for the rest of their lives and to honor and obey their husbands, now a woman can divorce her husband for no resaon whatsoever and use the force of law and the threat of jail to destroy her family, take half of her husband's assets, and extract support for herself and the children, with minimal continuing fatherly input from the schlub.
Isn't kind of obvious to everyone that feminism is trying to legislate the type of behavior that used to be expected of men
Rape being illegal is not a result of feminism.
Besides, the worst parts about this for me are the picture taking and the passing around to his buddy while passed out, both of which make my skin crawl.
Meanwhile, digital or inanimate object penetration were rightly called something else entirely.
I do agree with this; it seems like that should have been sexual battery. At least you can’t get pregnant or diseases from a finger.
Rape being illegal is not a result of feminism.
Show me exactly where I said that rape being made illegal is a result of feminism.
Why do you insist on putting words in my mouth. What, exactly, is your problem, Shanna?
Besides, the worst parts about this for me are the picture taking and the passing around to his buddy while passed out, both of which make my skin crawl.
Who gives a damn about your emotional response to this? What bearing do that have on -- you know -- what I said? Does your emotional response to that Ohio case give you the right to lie about what I said?
The lack of respect for the dignity of another human being is what is vile and hard to comprehend. The comments attempting to minimize the horror of this, or suggest the victim should be brought up on charges for underage drinking, or that this is okay because she may have agreed, etc., are so disturbing. I have been a long time devoted reader of this blog. Based on this, I am done. I am deleting this blog from my favorites list.
What, exactly, is your problem, Shanna?
That was my first comment in this thread, there are two Shanna's (well, Shanna and Shana at any rate).
Who gives a damn about your emotional response to this?
Also, you are coming off as sort of unhinged at this point. This is an internet thread where people are talking about their emotional responses. Your response is sure as hell emotional.
That seems to be a rather hysterical response, Marylou.
Novumnovem, are you getting Shanna with two n's and me confused? We seem to have similar opinions on this so perhaps it is understandabel. But once again, you are the one getting a bit overwrought in your reactions.
suggest the victim should be brought up on charges for underage drinking
Should the law not be enforced equally and fairly? If not, who's going to be the arbiter of when, where and what for laws are applied?
Pretty interesting how that most people commenting here know nothing about the case.
I read a article once that put forward the idea that the reason that "Twilight" was so very popular and Edward so very very dreamy, was because Bella wanted sex and Edward said "no." Edward was the "adult" so that Bella didn't need to be. He would do what was right so she didn't have to be responsible for what was right.
Marylou - to be honest, I've been playing the devil's advocate much of the time in this thread. But, if parents, teachers, coaches, law enforcement, etc enforced drinking laws and such more consistently incidents like this would most likely be less frequent.
These kids are paying a terrible price for our parental and other societal failings. The attack on Crowley is purely opportunistic partisan politics. Far too many people in this thread seem to think drunk teenage boys should have far better judgement than they do or can reasonably expected to have. I have no problem with the sentences the boys received, but I can assure you the cold, hard-hearted attitudes towards them I've seen in this thread disturbs me as much as you're disturbed. Over the long run, they harmed themselves far more than they did the girl. As the girl's mother said, this incident won't define the girl and her future. But, it will the boys.
Mark:
Dante, with all your talk of overwhelming urges, are you suggesting women need to be covered under a burka?
I get it. Because I try to make clear how powerful the male sex drive can be, you think I want to control women.
How about understanding my basic points:
A) I don't think women should get themselves so intoxicated around young men they can't say "No." It's stupid and asking for trouble.
B) It's stupid for the government to try to rearrange social institutions and mores that have evolved over thousands of years for the current view of "Fairness," and "Compassion." Neither of which seem to be the primary motivator since much of that money is borrowed from the productivity of future generations, and some of the compassion oddly seems to be destroying marriage as a societal unit.
And answering your stupid "gotcha" remark, fashion and the mores associated with it should be left up to the people.
But, Dadvocate, the girl did nothing to the boys. NOTHING. They didn't just violate her, they shared it around. And yes, she will feel the repurcussions for a long time. If I was her parents, I would certainly be planning to move elsewhere. She'll have people saying horrible things to her in that town forever.
I completely agree that the underage drinking is a huge problem, but it was when I was in high school, too. The difeerence is that now instead of just gossip, there is video and photographic footage being passed around. The boys were their own worst enemies in that regard. They wouldn't have gotten caught 20 years ago. That doesn't mean it wasn't a rape or sexual assault back then. The evdence just wouldn't have been enough to convict.
Being a white man, if I walk through the ghetto in my finest closhes, I'm inviting trouble. As I said in an earlier comment, if you go to the edge often enough, sooner or later you'll fall off. It's popular nowadays to argue that a woman can do anything, wear anything, etc and nothing should happen to her. While technically this is correct, it is also patent stupidity because of ignoring reality. People aren't victims of crimes because they did something to the perpetrator, but it's not uncommon to be the victim of a crime because you knowingly put yourself in the wrong place at the wrong time and/or wrong circumstances.
I'm 61 years old and you would hear about things like this happening occasionally when I was in high school. It doesn't take a genius to teach your kids to avoid these situations and every concerned parent should take steps to help insure their child takes the warnings seriously.
I haven't seen anyone argue that what the girl did wasn't stupid. Lots of murder and robbery victims do stupid things, too, as you said. They are victims nonetheless. Whay is this so hard?
the girl did nothing to the boys. NOTHING
Then what is the point of this statement?
I understand she is a victim. I also understand there is a lot more to it than that. Why is that so hard?
Your response is sure as hell emotional. - Shanna
Whatever you want to believe. Just don't tell lies and people won't get pissed. Easy, liar.
That was my first comment in this thread, there are two Shanna's
You're lack of explaination or apology for the lie is noted. Your attempt at deflection is typical.
But once again, you are the one getting a bit overwrought in your reactions.
Thanks for your opinion, but, like 2 n girl, you have no idea of my emotions other than annoyance. I can see how emotional basket cases think that annoyance is tantamount to your emotional reaction to the posting of video tapes, but I assure you that it is not.
What's your reaction to lies told about you, 1 n?
My question for Prof. Althouse is related to the fact that Ohio law presumes that a woman who is drunk does not have the capacity to form consent.
If alcohol impairs one's ability to form consent does it not stand to reason that alcohol also impairs one's ability to form intent?
You're lack of explaination or apology for the lie is noted.
I saw you going apeshit on '1n' Shana and wasn't sure if you were mad at me or continuing your freakout from before, that's all.
But, Dadvocate, the girl did nothing to the boys. NOTHING.
According to the testimony, she gave one of the boys a hand job. While the law may distinguish between putting fingers in a vagina and putting fingers around a penis, they're functionally equivalent acts.
This reminds me of a statutory rape case at a Detroit area high school. Some seniors were having consensual sex with girls in the lower grades at the school. The prosecutors, though, only filed statutory rape charges against the boys who were over the age of consent, not the younger boys. They realized that if they charged the younger boys, the defense could claim that the girls who had sex with those boys were equally guilty of statutory rape.
I saw you going apeshit on '1n' Shana and wasn't sure if you were mad at me or continuing your freakout from before, that's all.
Thanks for giving us a great example of how so many women resort to the shame game when trying to demean men.
"Nothing" as in nothing criminal, or dehumanizing, unless I missed something about the boy being passed out or saying "no". Perhaps I missed that? Not being snarky at all.
I don't see where either Shanna or I tried to demean anyone. We were accused of being irrational and emotional, and just correctly pinted out who the emotional party actually was.
I saw you going apeshit on '1n' Shana and wasn't sure if you were mad at me or continuing your freakout from before, that's all. -- shanna
Nice try. I know it's hard, but try to take the time out of your excuse making and blame-shifting and type:
"I'm sorry for lying."
I don't see where either Shanna or I tried to demean anyone. We were accused of being irrational and emotional, and just correctly pinted out who the emotional party actually was. - Shana
You lie like Shanna, Shana.
See:
Quit feeling sorry for these little assholes.
3/18/13, 7:05 AM
And you never showed where I did evince feeling sorry for them.
You seem to find some point of commonality with them, I dunno. You seem a tad defensive.
3/18/13, 7:38 AM
And:
Throw a rock into a pack of dogs, the one that yelps the loudest is the one that got hit.
3/18/13, 8:04 AM
See? That was easy to find, fibber.
Careful Shana and Shanna, people might begin to think it's a gender thing.
And Shana/Shanna's next excuse/blame shifting is ...
Who knows? It won't be "I'm sorry." Everyone knows that.
The best we can all hope for is ... blessed silence from the harridans.
@Nomennovum
It's "creepy" because when someone is passed out like that, it borders on necrophilia.
We've all had people pass out on us. Yes, it's terrible. Again, boo freaking hoo. You don't grab your buds and start filming your molestation of a temporary corpse.
Yes, your "partner's" judgment probably is impaired. This is why I have very little sympathy for very fat girls that go home with obviously, seriously drunk guys and then act surprised when he doesn't want to talk to them after that. Yeah, you had sex with a seriously drunk guy who never would have had sex with you under normal conditions, what did you expect?
Now, what if the guy had passed out and the fat girl who he wouldn't get near when he was sober molested him with an object while he was passed out, filmed it and put it online? Fair play since he went home with her with the drunken intent to have sex? I would say no. Maybe guys just butch up and don't have a problem, but I would say that crosses a line.
Sorry, fat ladies, but I'm describing a certain common scenario that does happen. No offense.
"We've all had people pass out on us."
Actually... no.
I'm sorry for what?
I responded to: " You seem a tad shrewish. And idiotic."
For some reason, you got all bent out of shape when I tried to point out that your circumstance was not the same as the boys' circumstance, which is to your credit. You said you would have felt creepy, which is a rather emotionally charged word come to think of it. So it is okay for you to say you felt creepy, but not okay for Shanna to express her gut reaction to the filming. Emotion for thee, but not for we ladies. We wouldn't want to come across as hysterical womenfolk, now would we?
The whole point of drunken parties is for people to do things they wouldn't normally do. Otherwise why not stay sober?
People who keep pushing the edge generally end up with something bad happening to them. A former coworker of mine passed out drunk in the cold, got frostbite, and had large sections of his feet amputated. Then there are DUIs, run-ins with the cops, drunken fights, angry neighbors, etc.
All this is "fun."
"Nothing" as in nothing criminal, or dehumanizing,
True. But, I don't see that as relevant to what I'm saying.
DADvocate-
I was trying to unpack the idea that the girl should have been prosecuted for underage drinking, and the lamenting that the boys' lives are ruined vs the girl's not being ruined (though that is debatable, at least in the near future). I agree it is sad all around, and the parenting is lacking. Just trying to keep the categories of victim and criminal clear.
I saw this via Iain Murray's Facebook page, and saw an opportunity for a certain sluggish comedy program:
"Saturday Night Live has a golden opportunity to parody two opposite extremes of media coverage of rape trials, with actresses portraying Candy Crowley as defending attorney and Nancy Grace (of Duke lacrosse case infamy) as prosecutor. I can imagine the bailiff passing popcorn to the jurors..."
"So I don't know. I've been pretty drunk with drunk girls before and had them grab my junk. If the roles were reversed would it have been rape?" Any of them stick their finger up your ass?
"We've all had people pass out on us."
Actually... no.
Heh heh. That's what I was thinking. Apparently either I dated relatively sober women or they were too smart to get drunk around me.
Just trying to keep the categories of victim and criminal clear.
You can be a criminal and a victim. If a criminal kills another criminal without just cause, it's murder. There's no question the girl broke the law. Should she be prosecuted? Not really. She's paid a big enough price and is now getting death threats. I hope she learned to control herself though. But, they do need to be going after some others, boys, girls, and parents if involved, now and in the future.
@Synova You've never, including when you were young and sparky, had a guy enjoy his 'special moment' and then pass out cold? Lucky you. (It doesn't have to be alcohol related. It's still infuriating.)
Post a Comment