Men aren't pieces of meat woman can suck on whenever they want.
They are on my planet. :lol:
Men aren't pieces of meat woman can suck on whenever they want.
Paulie Walnuts said:Men aren't pieces of meat woman can suck on whenever they want.
They are on my planet. :lol:
Didn't they say she broke in or forced entry or something? What kind of sane person does that once to have sex with a sleeping person they're not in a sexual relationship with, even once much less twice...Bocefish said:She supposedly did this twice on two separate occasions. Unless she's touched in the head, I can't see any sane woman doing this.
Jupiter551 said:Didn't they say she broke in or forced entry or something? What kind of sane person does that once to have sex with a sleeping person they're not in a sexual relationship with, even once much less twice...Bocefish said:She supposedly did this twice on two separate occasions. Unless she's touched in the head, I can't see any sane woman doing this.
Prosecution documents, filed with the court, allege both offences took place at a suburban location between September 20 and September 23 last year.
I think the vagueness is to do with law that victims of sexual crimes can't be named by the media while a court case is in progress, or maybe not at all without consent, not sure but I see it a lot. Same with the dates, it's police prosecution shorthand to say one happened on the 20th of sept and one happened on the 23rd, dunno why but they summarise like that all the time, further into the document they would give a full description with the actual date and approximate time (if known). Basically, the reporter is just quoting what he pulled from the public record, because no one involved has directly contacted the media.Bocefish said:Prosecution documents, filed with the court, allege both offences took place at a suburban location between September 20 and September 23 last year.
All the vagueness with the date and the male occupant - who cannot be named - that was lawfully on the premises... leads me to believe it's either a bunch of hooey or possibly a VIP of some sort. :dontknow:
lol yeah that's fucked up. Different from rape, his choice not to have a condom on hand, wanting his ex-girlfriend in jail is just wrong, and the child support is for the child, not her...god what an idiot. I hope he gets nailed to the wall for child support.Paulie Walnuts said:Unrelated but somewhat related...
So I'm sitting here tinkering with a laptop that some kid somehow killed (never will understand how kids can wreck a spotless mostly new laptop, they do it all the time... but it helps keeps my bills paid) and on the TV Here is Dr.Phil, talking about a guy who claims he was raped.
Orly? Proceed....
So it turns out after 30 min of sob story he filed charges 3 years after the event.
Why you asked?
Well.... the mother of the child he knew was his from conception filed for child support.
But no he whines that's not why he filed charges... 3 yrs after.
Of course not.
They were at the time 2 15 yr olds. He said he was "overly concerned about getting pregnant as he didnt want to be a parent" and he was uber traumatized by noonday sex at the beach in a car with his GF who... lived with him and his mom.
Sounds like maybe, when child support came up all of a sudden the stigma of rape was better than half his paycheck.
:lol:
He also told Dr.Phil yes, he does want this girl to serve hard prison time.... and he also thinks it would be best that the child NOT be given to him. He has apparently thought of every angle to avoid paying child support.
because the one thing that will get you out of child support is.... if the conception was not consensual.
![]()
I feel a new trend coming on. "child support? Wait! No! It was rape!"
:roll:
Paulie Walnuts said:So... did waking up to an unexpected mouth hug traumatize you and did you consider reporting a rape to the police?
![]()