05 Dec 2021, 4:23 pm
funeralxempire wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
It was misfeasance, and not malfeasance.
He accidently raped a consenting adult (himself), instead of intentionally molesting an underage child.
I wonder if he had a nickname for the artillery piece, like "Steely Dan" (the name of a dildo in the Burroughs novel "the Naked Lunch").
He accidently raped a consenting adult (himself), instead of intentionally molesting an underage child.
I wonder if he had a nickname for the artillery piece, like "Steely Dan" (the name of a dildo in the Burroughs novel "the Naked Lunch").
You can't rape yourself, if you're the perpetrator you're also consenting.
I know...it would seem like a contradiction. But it got too wordy to express it otherwise. But actually its not really a contradiction. Because he did NOT consent to have the thing permanently stuck in his orafice. So for practical purposes he ...violated himself ...through incompetence. Or through "misadventure".
Even if it wasnt through malice or greed.
funeralxempire
Veteran
Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 39
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 25,516
Location: Right over your left shoulder
05 Dec 2021, 4:30 pm
naturalplastic wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
It was misfeasance, and not malfeasance.
He accidently raped a consenting adult (himself), instead of intentionally molesting an underage child.
I wonder if he had a nickname for the artillery piece, like "Steely Dan" (the name of a dildo in the Burroughs novel "the Naked Lunch").
He accidently raped a consenting adult (himself), instead of intentionally molesting an underage child.
I wonder if he had a nickname for the artillery piece, like "Steely Dan" (the name of a dildo in the Burroughs novel "the Naked Lunch").
You can't rape yourself, if you're the perpetrator you're also consenting.
I know...it would seem like a contradiction. But it got too wordy to express it otherwise. But actually its not really a contradiction. Because he did NOT consent to have the thing permanently stuck in his orafice. So for practical purposes he ...violated himself ...through incompetence. Or through "misadventure".
Even if it wasnt through malice or greed.This why one always needs an exit strategy before they become involved in something.
05 Dec 2021, 4:34 pm
funeralxempire wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
It was misfeasance, and not malfeasance.
He accidently raped a consenting adult (himself), instead of intentionally molesting an underage child.
I wonder if he had a nickname for the artillery piece, like "Steely Dan" (the name of a dildo in the Burroughs novel "the Naked Lunch").
He accidently raped a consenting adult (himself), instead of intentionally molesting an underage child.
I wonder if he had a nickname for the artillery piece, like "Steely Dan" (the name of a dildo in the Burroughs novel "the Naked Lunch").
You can't rape yourself, if you're the perpetrator you're also consenting.
I know...it would seem like a contradiction. But it got too wordy to express it otherwise. But actually its not really a contradiction. Because he did NOT consent to have the thing permanently stuck in his orafice. So for practical purposes he ...violated himself ...through incompetence. Or through "misadventure".
Even if it wasnt through malice or greed.This why one always needs an exit strategy before they become involved in something.
Exactly.
Without an exit strategy you will always ...come to a hard end!
Double Retired
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2020
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,253
Location: U.S.A. (Mid-Atlantic)
05 Dec 2021, 6:32 pm
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,470
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
05 Dec 2021, 8:07 pm
05 Dec 2021, 9:32 pm
Double Retired wrote:
Isn't the usual expectation that after something like this the lawyers insist on the addition of "Not for internal use." labels? That could be a problem with several of the items on Fnord's list—some of them are meant for internal use.
So..you're proposing that the Defense Department should now have all of it's ordinance stenciled with the words "not for use as a sex toy"?
Or "for use a marshal aid, not as a marital aid"?
Well... if this guy sues the Royal Army it might set a legal precedent for that.
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,470
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
06 Dec 2021, 1:51 am
naturalplastic wrote:
Double Retired wrote:
Isn't the usual expectation that after something like this the lawyers insist on the addition of "Not for internal use." labels? That could be a problem with several of the items on Fnord's list—some of them are meant for internal use.
So..you're proposing that the Defense Department should now have all of it's ordinance stenciled with the words "not for use as a sex toy"?
Or "for use a marshal aid, not as a marital aid"?
Well... if this guy sues the Royal Army it might set a legal precedent for that.
'not for rectal use' is what I think should be stenciled. Seriously though why don't people just use the proper items. Butt stuff is a lot more fun if you don't have to go to the emergency room....just sayin.
02 Jan 2022, 10:37 pm
03 Jan 2022, 1:51 am
04 Jan 2022, 10:55 pm
