RunOverByHubbard » Mon Jul 17, 2017 4:31 pm
The definition of "having sex" has changed from when I grew up. Gee, "sex" was almost as broadly defined as feeling up a girl's boobs. Really, though, in 1968, if you put your fingers in "there," or, she fiddled with your Johnson, you told your friends, "I had sex with her." I know for a fact that today's younger generation all the way up to maybe 30 years old doesn't consider it sex until intercourse is achieved.Raider_Dave » Mon Jul 17, 2017 4:50 pm
You can thank Bill Clinton and the left for that.RunOverByHubbard wrote Mon Jul 17, 2017 4:31 pm:The definition of "having sex" has changed from when I grew up. Gee, "sex" was almost as broadly defined as feeling up a girl's boobs. Really, though, in 1968, if you put your fingers in "there," or, she fiddled with your Johnson, you told your friends, "I had sex with her." I know for a fact that today's younger generation all the way up to maybe 30 years old doesn't consider it sex until intercourse is achieved.
Sir Raider Duck, OMS » Mon Jul 17, 2017 4:52 pm
No, that's our entire point. HE says it was only oral. SHE says there was vaginal contact. So either the DNA tests they took from her vaginal regions show his DNA or they don't. If they do, we know he's lying. If they don't, we know she's lying.Atlasffa wrote Mon Jul 17, 2017 4:26 pm:Posters just seem to ignore that her account was not "only oral."
Sir Raider Duck, OMS » Mon Jul 17, 2017 4:55 pm
This is also why you have Teen Vogue running an article about how to have anal sex: Some young men and women think that anything but actual vaginal intercourse doesn't "count," so they do everything else and still think of themselves as virgins.RunOverByHubbard wrote Mon Jul 17, 2017 4:31 pm:I know for a fact that today's younger generation all the way up to maybe 30 years old doesn't consider it sex until intercourse is achieved.
Attyla » Mon Jul 17, 2017 4:57 pm
I got nothingSir Raider Duck, OMS wrote Mon Jul 17, 2017 4:55 pm: This is also why you have Teen Vogue running an article about how to have anal sex: Some young men and women think that anything but actual vaginal intercourse doesn't "count," so they do everything else and still think of themselves as virgins.
Atlasffa » Mon Jul 17, 2017 5:11 pm
However, if a condom was used, there may not have been semen to collect... which may be the reason he said it was oral. And the report does not say, or was redacted, regarding whether the penetration was vaginal or anal. The rape exam could determine without semen, whether or not she had been forcibly penetrated vaginally or anally, but even that doesn't mean it was done while saying "no". DNA could be detected on her clothing to see if he did undo her pants. As a Raiders fan, the longer this takes, the more nervous I am... This is not a simple case.Sir Raider Duck, OMS wrote Mon Jul 17, 2017 4:52 pm:No, that's our entire point. HE says it was only oral. SHE says there was vaginal contact. So either the DNA tests they took from her vaginal regions show his DNA or they don't. If they do, we know he's lying. If they don't, we know she's lying.
Attyla » Mon Jul 17, 2017 5:40 pm
http://memecrunch.com/meme/19QQI/so-you ... ?w=400&c=1Atlasffa wrote Mon Jul 17, 2017 5:11 pm:However, if a condom was used, there may not have been semen to collect... which may be the reason he said it was oral. And the report does not say, or was redacted, regarding whether the penetration was vaginal or anal. The rape exam could determine without semen, whether or not she had been forcibly penetrated vaginally or anally, but even that doesn't mean it was done while saying "no". DNA could be detected on her clothing to see if he did undo her pants. As a Raiders fan, the longer this takes, the more nervous I am... This is not a simple case.
BigJerk » Mon Jul 17, 2017 6:20 pm
There is also a chance she spit a wad of Baby Butter into her hand and shoved it wrist deep into her own gaping maw of cooch... when she devised the plan to pay him back for his anemic portrayal of chivalry and call the cops on way to a civil court payday.
Owsley Stanley » Mon Jul 17, 2017 6:36 pm
Would you like me to re write my post? Let me know. I can change it to any scenario anyone wants, cuz I do not know exactly what happened. The reason I do not know exactly what happened is I wasn't exactly there.Atlasffa wrote Mon Jul 17, 2017 3:31 pm:Not sure why posters keep calling the alleged act a BJ. From the report: "At this time Conley was behind (Redacted). (Redacted) said Conley reach into his sock and grabbed (Redacted)(Redacted) spun around and unbuttoned her pants. (Redacted) was spun back around and Conley pulled her pants down. Conley bent (Redacted) over in the bathroom and began to (Redacted). During the sexual act, (Redacted) was saying, “no stop, it hurts!” After a few minutes Conley was done and kicked (Redacted) out of the room. (Redacted) described Conley as a black male who wouldn’t take his sunglasses off and had an Ohio State tattoo on his left forearm."
This narrative does not match my definition of BJ. What did he reach for in his sock? A condom? Who wears a condom for a BJ? Who keeps condoms in their socks? But what else would he be reaching for in his sock? There are a lot of unanswered questions in this he said/she said story.
Atlasffa » Mon Jul 17, 2017 7:06 pm
I don't want anyone to rewrite anything. Just wanted to point out that the alleged act was not a BJ; she is alleging an act of either vaginal or anal penetration. His response to the allegation was she gave him a BJ. And you make an excellent point--none of us know exactly what happened because we were not there. We have to trust that law enforcement is doing due diligence and we just have to wait. In the meantime, he is assumed innocent until found guilty in a court of law or he pleads guilty. In this thread the accuser is being called lots of names, etc., and is demonstrating why rape victims often do not come forward.Owsley Stanley wrote Mon Jul 17, 2017 6:36 pm:Would you like me to re write my post? Let me know. I can change it to any scenario anyone wants, cuz I do not know exactly what happen. The reason I do not know exactly what happened is I wasn't exactly there.
mad stork 83 » Mon Jul 17, 2017 8:31 pm
I think that is the alias that Vick used when he got treatment for herpes. I am not sure what relevance that has to anything.Raider_Dave wrote Mon Jul 17, 2017 7:48 am:LOL... are you familiar with the legend of Ron Mexico?
mad stork 83 » Mon Jul 17, 2017 8:36 pm
could be but they would be able to detect saliva (digestive enzymes) in the sample that they pulled from her. If they find any of his pubic hairs around her vaginal area, that could also be incriminating. Whatever happened, I hope they get it right. No need for a non-rapist to be in jail and if he did it, no need to have that kind of person walking the streets.BigJerk wrote Mon Jul 17, 2017 6:20 pm:There is also a chance she spit a wad of Baby Butter into her hand and shoved it wrist deep into her own gaping maw of cooch... when she devised the plan to pay him back for his anemic portrayal of chivalry and call the cops on way to a civil court payday.
Owsley Stanley » Mon Jul 17, 2017 9:11 pm
Jerk ya sure got away with words, and who knows could be a possibility. Now go fuck yourself you marauding, plundering Raider. LOLBigJerk wrote Mon Jul 17, 2017 6:20 pm:There is also a chance she spit a wad of Baby Butter into her hand and shoved it wrist deep into her own gaping maw of cooch... when she devised the plan to pay him back for his anemic portrayal of chivalry and call the cops on way to a civil court payday.
Sir Raider Duck, OMS » Mon Jul 17, 2017 9:23 pm
Anyone else think this thread should have an NSFW tag? (And yes, I'm as responsible for that as anyone.)