Stoya accuses James Deen of rape (page 27)

Author	Post
murdock Member I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV 911 Posts 4/06	Posted - Dec 13 2015 : 11:33AM donzaloog wrote: You have poor reading comprehension. Saying someone "went full retard" means they threw all logic out the window. Click to expand Assuming you were trying to draw some connection between the two, then I would say it is you that has poor reading comprehension as I never suggested anything like that. What I said was that saying people "went full retard" is a good way to not be taken seriously around here. Throwing out insults is frowned upon. It has nothing to do with emotion and everything to do with what is considered acceptable behavior around here. Understand now? It has nothing to do with emotion. Ever heard the story of Emmett Till? He was black boy who was beaten to death because a white woman said he made obscene gestures/remarks towards her. The word of the accuser was enough to seal his fate. How is that not analogous of the situations I described? Click to expand I never said it wasn't analogous. I said it was used specifically to illicit an emotional response. It's supposed to make the reader feel bad about Till. Why even mention the race of the accused or the accuser? It has no logical place in your analogy. Yet there it is, all sensational and evocative. Of course it is there to illicit an emotional response. Where did I say "murder victims should report their murders"? Please point it out to me. As far as I recall I said, "If I knew someone was a murderer and said or did nothing, his future victims' blood will be on my hands too. You built your own strawman then attacked it. A typical emotional response. Click to expand Well while you were going on your soapboxey rant about how the victims had some sort of social responsibility to keep their attackers off the street and laying a big guilt trip on them (oh and isn't guilt an emotion?) and completely ignoring that the victim's social responsibility has no bearing on whether or not the attacker is actually guilty, you tried to draw the parallel to murder. Yes, I could have just said the analogy makes no sense because your whole point was about the victim's responsibility to report the crime, and that the victims in your analogy would be unable to do so. I thought making the joke would still get the point across. My mistake. I won't overestimate you again. It's unfortunate because you do actually make some good points in a couple of your posts especially with regards to rape and sexual assault cases in general. [Link]
JigglyBoobs Senior Member 1614 Posts 3/12	Posted - Dec 13 2015 : 11:59AM ^^ That's exactly what I was alluding to. The safeword as far as I'm concerned is the most sacrosanct part of the relationship between a dom and a sub. If the safeword is used, consent is withdrawn, no questions asked. Ben Mockridge wrote: A guy arrives late at a swingers party , there is no written rule book but it rather runs on an unspecified etherally accepted common standard. In reality its hedonism unchained , communal bathrooms , everyone having sex, fistings , etc etc everything you would expect at a swingers party. So our man sees a girl he likes and wanders up behind her and taps her on her butt-cheek with his penis to kinda get her attention and see if she is interested , to see if she is consenting to go further - in this context is this physical approach sexual assault ? The girl can obviously either accept or reject the advance - but is the advance in itself constituting sexaul assault ? Click to expand I've never expected to engage in fisting a swingers party. In any case, if a woman rejected a man advancing on her in that fashion, I'd imagine a really greasy lawyer could convince a jury that she was sexually assaulted especially since he didn't need to touch her with his penis to gather her attention or to gauge her interest - he could speak to her or at the most tap her on the shoulder with his hand. I can't see any way "an unspecified ethereally accepted common standard" will hold water or take precedence over the law since mankind is so diverse in what is considered acceptable or day I say "normal" sexual behaviour that you should err on the side of caution when something isn't completely clear. Your idea of "hedonism unchained" is something of a contradiction as "our man" was still seeking consent so there are proverbial chains in place. Edited by - JigglyBoobs on 12/13/2015 12:01:54 PM [Link]
Ben Mockridge Deactivated User 382 Posts 9/15	Posted - Dec 13 2015 : 1:57PM @ JigglyBoobs Yes obviously the safe word is sacrosanct , thats a given and is not in dispute. But as far as im aware its not an issue in the situation we're discussing. Ive never been to a swingers party so forgive my shoddy description - my interest is obviously using this as a parallel relative to our Ashley fires incident. Ok if you are saying that you think our swinger guy who taps the girl cheekily on the bum to get her attention is guilty of sexual assault irrespective of the context i respect your opinion. The idea that the determination of all manner of penis contact without express prior permission as being either sexual assault or not sexual assault lies 100% on the discretion of the woman is a stance that cuts the legs off any further arguements i was intending to make :( By that hardline determination a male who taps his penis on the butt of his girlfreind in bed without asking is also guilty of sexual assault if she so decides. Thanks for sharing your views. [Link]
White1970DodgeChallenger Member 406 Posts 1/12	Posted - Dec 13 2015 : 2:13PM donzaloog wrote: ^If this man is a rapist then getting him off the streets should be priority #1. Not waiting until years later when there's nothing but your word to back you up. At this point it doesn't matter how many women come forward and say he did this or that, they have nothing but year old accusations. I'm always amazed at how this crime (rape) is the only one where women can come forth with nothing but accusations and are believed, or at least expected to be believed, with no evidence. And if you don't believe them, you're the bad one. It completely undermines the very foundation of our justice system and reverse the burden of proof from the accuser to the accused. And let's face facts, the stain of a rape accusation never washes off. You can be proven innocent by every court in the land, have evidence as far as the eye can see, you will always be viewed as a rapist from that point on. The Duke Lacrosse guys are still catching shit for their false allegation to this day. And what of social responsibility? If I was raped by someone and I was fully aware that this person is dangerous, but I said nothing and that person went on to do it to other people, isn't that on my hands now? It certainly is. Now imagine that was a murderer, who I knew was killing and I said nothing. What would the police do if they found out I knew and said nothing after they finally caught this person after he/she'd killed 10 more people? I would most likely be charged for negligence. Some might say that the experience is so traumatic that they couldn't confront it and I understand, but ask yourself this: is your emotional state more important than getting a predator off the streets? If you think you feel like shit now, how will you feel knowing that other people were hurt and you could've stopped it or at least tried to before the fact? Edited by - donzaloog on 12/13/2015 1:35:02 AM Edited by - donzaloog on 12/13/2015 2:34:58 AM Click to expand A couple of things about this. First, I agree that the twitter/other social media Court of Star Chamber does not have the validity of a real court. I oppose the "#ListenAndBelieve" hashtag because "listening and believing" (instead of opting for trial by jury) led to Will Brown being lynched and burned alive. That will be the natural consequence of replacing the Constitution and trial by jury with "#ListenAndBelieve." That being said, there is a very real logistical reason women have been rebuffed by police when they try to report a rape/sexual assault. Specifically, New York City and other police departments have been using this egg-head managment REMF-created wonder-toy officially named "CompStat," to "measure the level of crime in their city." IRL, street cops call CompStat "FUDGESTAT," because it has been diverted as a means of a ticket-punch to an Inspectorship/Deputy Commissionership by house mouse (police REMF) white shirt careerists who will advance to their next promotion if the mayor sees that "crime is low" in their area of responsibility. In 2010, the *Village Voice* interviewed and NYPD Officer, Adrian Schoolcraft, who told them that the white shirts (Lts, Captains, Inspectors) screamed at ordinary patrolmen who refused to "disappear" reports of certain crimes. Specifically, Two years ago, a police officer in a Brooklyn precinct became gravely concerned about how the public was being served. To document his concerns, he began carrying around a digital sound recorder, secretly recording his colleagues and superiors. Made without the knowledge or approval of the NYPD, the tapes—made between June 1, 2008, and October 31, 2009, in the 81st Precinct in Bedford-Stuyvesant and obtained exclusively by the Voice—provide an unprecedented portrait of what it's like to work as a cop in this city. They reveal that precinct bosses threaten street cops if they don't make their quotas of arrests and stop-and-frisks, but also tell them not to take certain robbery reports in order to manipulate crime statistics. The tapes also refer to command officers calling crime victims directly to intimidate them about their complaints. As a result, the tapes show, the rank-and-file NYPD street cop experiences enormous pressure in a strange catch-22: He or she is expected to maintain high "activity"—including stop-and-frisks—but, paradoxically, to record fewer actual crimes. Click to expand ONE OF THE MOST BASIC THINGS a police officer does is take crime complaints from victims. But that very simple edict evolved into something substantially different in the 81st Precinct. Usually, an officer arrives at a crime scene and begins taking information. Then, either on the scene or at the precinct, the officer fills out a report known as a "61" and presents it to the desk officer, a sergeant, for his signature. After the sergeant classifies the crime, the 61 is then entered into a computer system, making it official, and it's passed on to the detective squad for investigation. Police veterans say their standard was always, "Refer the complaint, not the complainant." In other words, if someone wants to make a report, you take it, and let the squad check it out. It was the squad's job to determine whether the complainant's story was worth checking further. In the 81st Precinct, that traditional discretion of a street cop was being taken away from them, the tapes indicate. There was constant second-guessing and questioning of crime complaints and crime victims before cases were ever entered into the computer. The message to street cops was to exercise extreme skepticism with crime victims—unless you didn't mind getting yelled at. Click to expand One very way to combat the very real crime of rape/sexual assault is as follows: 1) write and keep writing your mayor/city councilman/county executive/elected sheriff/state representative/Governor/whoever controls the Parks Police and any other federal police that engage in patrol 2) tell them all to issue direct orders, in writing to every and all police chief/commissioner/deputy commissioner/assistant deputy commissioner/superintendent/inspector/captain/lieutenant/sergeant in their jurisdiction to fully investigate each and every single rape accusation made REGARDLESS of ANY impact fully investigating each and every single rape accusation made may have on the CompStat numbers/the City or County or State's image, or tourism. [Link]

Canadian_Cindy Deactivated User 1102 Posts 2/15	Posted - Dec 13 2015 : 3:21PM Ben Mockridge wrote: So our man sees a girl he likes and wanders up behind her and taps her on her butt-cheek with his penis to kinda get her attention and see if she is interested , to see if she is consenting to go further - in this context is this physical approach sexual assault ? Click to expand Most swingers events would frown heavily on that approach. Most would eject him if the woman were to make an issue of it. You can not touch people in a sexual manner unless they say so, that is a very firm stance that most would take. You can't find out if someone consents by touching them with a sexual organ. You have to ask them and talk to them. Is it sexual assault? if the woman got a lawyer and made a complaint, likely. Although she would be heavily attacked in any proceeding as it was a swingers party and all that. It may not stick in the closed minds of a judge or a jury. Something like this would be very unlikely to get reported anyways. If a man does something inappropriate at a swingers party, the people in charge would eject him and he would not be welcome back. It would be highly unusual for someone to want to take the steps to make it a legal case. while swingers clubs are the super sexually open, and very crazy in what can happen; they take consent and permission to obsessive levels so nothing ever becomes an issue that goes beyond the confines of the club. A guy who took the alleged James Deen approach to women would be banned pretty quickly from any club I have ever seen. Edited by - Canadian_Cindy on 12/13/2015 3:24:29 PM Edited by - Canadian_Cindy on 12/13/2015 3:25:30 PM [Link]
Canadian_Cindy Deactivated User 1102 Posts 2/15	Posted - Dec 13 2015 : 3:38PM Ben Mockridge wrote: By that hardline determination a male who taps his penis on the butt of his girlfreind in bed without asking is also guilty of sexual assault if she so decides. Click to expand Well, if a relationship is in a state that this girlfriend would accuse the man of sexual assault for rolling over in bed with an erection, I would suggest this man should not be getting into bed with her, period. We should all be smart enough to be aware of someone we are involved with is sensitive on matters such as this or if there is some toxicity in the relationship. And technically, if she " so decides" , then yes she could make an issue. Although the odds of it going anywhere are almost zip due to the context. This is a very complex issue; especially when people know one another (which is most rape and assault cases). There is no "one size fits all" unfortunately. [Link]
JigglyBoobs Senior Member 1614 Posts 3/12	Posted - Dec 13 2015 : 3:47PM Ben Mockridge wrote: Ok if you are saying that you think our swinger guy who taps the girl cheekily on the bum to get her attention is guilty of sexual assault irrespective of the context i respect your opinion. The idea that the determination of all manner of penis contact without express prior permission as being either sexual assault or not sexual assault lies 100% on the discretion of the woman is a stance that cuts the legs off any further arguements i was intending to make :( By that hardline determination a male who taps his penis on the butt of his girlfreind in bed without asking is also guilty of sexual assault if she so decides. Thanks for sharing your views. Click to expand Respect my opinion, my ass! You twisted what I said into something you could comprehend. Is putting 2 + 2 together and coming up with 5 the only way you can possibly cope with those who have a different viewpoint? At the risk of repeating myself to those who seem slower than even me to understand, I said that if no form of implicit or explicit consent is given then it can be deemed sexual assault. In the case of strangers at a swingers party, I'm sure even you can appreciate erring on the side of caution if clear ground rules had not been set. Please feel free to tell me if I think too highly of you to think you'd cover your ass (metaphorically speaking in that context). There could be a situation that you and your girlfriend are really comfortable so there has come an ongoing implied or explicit consent beforehand and if you slapped your cock against her ass, it's not assault unless she says not to do it again but you ignore her and carry on. Likewise, you and your girlfriend have a tiff and she says you should keep your hands and body parts to yourself but you still touch her genitals or her body with your genitals, then it can be argued that is a form of sexual assault. I make no apologies for bursting your bubble here - you are not particularly perceptive if you think I view everything in black and white. If you have a question, ask for specific details instead of making clumsy deductions based on your failure to gather those details. [Link]
murdock Member I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV 911 Posts 4/06	Posted - Dec 13 2015 : 3:52PM White1970DodgeChallenger wrote: First, I agree that the twitter/other social media Court of Star Chamber does not have the validity of a real court. I oppose the "#ListenAndBelieve" hashtag because "listening and believing" (instead of opting for trial by jury) led to Will Brown being lynched and burned alive. That will be the natural consequence of replacing the Constitution and trial by jury with "#ListenAndBelieve." Click to expand Can we please stop trying to equate racial lynchings with people saying mean things on Twitter? Because the two things aren't even remotely close. These lynchings weren't examples of vigilante justice and trial by mob as they were a bunch of racist people looking for any excuse to do awful things to black people. That's hardly equivalent to what's happening here. Till and Brown both had targets on their backs before they were ever accused of any wrongdoings, and both had significant social disadvantages to overcome. I completely agree that one should always weigh what evidence is presented and ideally wait for the outcome of a trial, but in the absence of a trial common sense can still prevail and people can still have opinions. The broader issue I see with twitter isn't that the conclusion pushed for in the #ListenAndBelieve campaign is one thing or another, but that people think it's okay to try and substitute complicated, nuanced discussion with a hashtag. [Link]
Canadian_Cindy Deactivated User 1102 Posts 2/15	Posted - Dec 13 2015 : 4:13PM murdock wrote: The broader issue I see with twitter isn't that the conclusion pushed for in the #ListenAndBelieve campaign is one thing or another, but that people think it's okay to try and substitute complicated, nuanced discussion with a hashtag. Click to expand I think one of the most bizarre parts of our social structure in 2015 is how people use Twitter hashtags when they are not making a post on Twitter. #strangethings #cindyrules :) Edited by - Canadian_Cindy on 12/13/2015 4:13:15 PM [Link]
leatherface Senior Member 1258 Posts 7/07	Posted - Dec 13 2015 : 4:31PM murdock wrote: White1970DodgeChallenger wrote: First, I agree that the twitter/other social media Court of Star Chamber does not have the validity of a real court. I oppose the "#ListenAndBelieve" hashtag because "listening and believing" (instead of opting for trial by jury) led to Will Brown being lynched and burned alive. That will be the natural consequence of replacing the Constitution and trial by jury with "#ListenAndBelieve." Click to expand Can we please stop trying to equate racial lynchings with people saying mean things on Twitter? Because the two things aren't even remotely close. These lynchings weren't examples of vigilante justice and trial by mob as they were a bunch of racist people looking for any excuse to do awful things to black people. That's hardly equivalent to what's happening here. Till and Brown both had targets on their backs before they were ever accused of any wrongdoings, and both had significant social disadvantages to overcome. Click to expand in a sense it's true also about pornstars: many persons think that rough sex is something for monsters so it doesn't really matter to differentiate between a rape and consensual sex. More, James Deen is an asshole so who cares. I'm not talking about you, but I've seen persons reasoning like this. [Link]
murdock Member I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV 911 Posts 4/06	Posted - Dec 13 2015 : 5:04PM leatherface wrote: in a sense it's true also about pornstars: many persons think that rough sex is something for monsters so it doesn't really matter to differentiate between a rape and consensual sex. [Citation Needed] More, James Deen is an asshole so who cares. I'm not talking about you, but I've seen persons reasoning like this. Click to expand Care to give some examples of people not differentiating between rape and consensual sex because Deen participates in rough sex? Because I haven't really witnessed that phenomenon. Even if you want to claim that Deen is at some sort of disadvantage because of his career in porn, the big difference between him and the people that were victims of racial lynch mobs (you know, other than not being burnt, hanged, beaten or otherwise physically harmed) is that he chose a career in porn. Till and Brown didn't choose to be black. [Link]
Dutchgangbangboys Member 927 Posts 8/12	Posted - Dec 13 2015 : 5:11PM For those struggling with the concept of consensuality in relationships let me ask you this. Say you were to have consensual sex with a girl, perhaps your girlfriend or your wife or maybe someone you met on a date it basically works in any situation, and you decide it is time for anal. You don't talk about it, you don't ask, you just go for it. She says "no". You continue. She says "stop". You continue. That right there? What would you call it? We are not talking a pat on the butt cheeks here and it is extremely disengenuous to make such statements. [Link]
Canadian_Cindy Deactivated User 1102 Posts 2/15	Posted - Dec 13 2015 : 5:13PM murdock wrote: Till and Brown didn't choose to be black. Click to expand As recent as 100 years ago, mainstream ministers across America would still preach to the masses that black skin was "The Curse of Cain (or Ham depending on who was saying it)". It is still around today but only on the fringes.... back then it was thousands of churches preaching it. So, the attitudes of lynch mobs back then and before that was certainly feeling that they did (or their ancestors did) chose to be black. We see a similar thing today with rape when people blame the victim for getting raped because of his/her choices or lifestyle or past history or personal character. People rationalize such behavior by telling themselves the person deserved it. Edited by - Canadian_Cindy on 12/13/2015 5:17:28 PM [Link]
Canadian_Cindy Deactivated User 1102 Posts 2/15	Posted - Dec 13 2015 : 5:16PM Dutchgangbangboys wrote: For those struggling with the concept of consensuality in relationships let me ask you this. Say you were to have consensual sex with a girl, perhaps your girlfriend or your wife or maybe someone you met on a date it basically works in any situation, and you decide it is time for anal. You don't talk about it, you don't ask, you just go for it. She says "no". You continue. She says "stop". You continue. That right there? What would you call it? Click to expand That is rape and he could be charged if the woman pursued it. Your point? [Link]

leatherface Senior Member 1258 Posts 7/07	Posted - Dec 13 2015 : 5:27PM murdock wrote: leatherface wrote: in a sense it's true also about pornstars: many persons think that rough sex is something for monsters so it doesn't really matter to differentiate between a rape and consensual sex. [Citation Needed] More, James Deen is an asshole so who cares. I'm not talking about you, but I've seen persons reasoning like this. Click to expand Care to give some examples of people not differentiating between rape and consensual sex because Deen participates in rough sex? Because I haven't really witnessed that phenomenon. Even if you want to claim that Deen is at some sort of disadvantage because of his career in porn, the big difference between him and the people that were victims of racial lynch mobs (you know, other than not being burnt, hanged, beaten or otherwise physically harmed) is that he chose a career in porn. Till and Brown didn't choose to be black. Click to expand This difference doesn't really matter because the point is prejudice, in this case for persons who practice rough sex who are seen as evil, so this case is a good occasion to say that the problem is in the first place the fact that there are companies shooting that kind of content. I don't want to give here examples (if you really need proof like we're already in a trial I could with PM, I have a reason for this), but is it really that strange to you? After that... sure, Deen will not be hanged, but still at this point his career seems over, guilt or not. Edited by - leatherface on 12/13/2015 5:30:04 PM [Link]
murdock Member I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV 911 Posts 4/06	Posted - Dec 13 2015 : 5:31PM ^^ I think that was directed at Ben who seems increasingly desperate to try and come up with examples that blur the line between consensual and not. (no matter how far disconnected from reality and the accusations levied against Deen, those examples may be) ^^^ Even a hundred years ago people knew that black people had black babies, anglos had anglo babies, etc. The fact that some religious people spewed some nonsensical rantings doesn't really change that. Even if that was the predominant belief (which I don't think is accurate) I'm not looking at it through a purely historical context. It doesn't matter what people believed then, my point was regarding what people know now. We know that race isn't a choice. That's a big distinguishing factor from a career choice. That's one of the many reasons why trying to draw a parallel between Deem and racial lynch mob victims is so off base. [Link]
Canadian_Cindy Deactivated User 1102 Posts 2/15	Posted - Dec 13 2015 : 5:41PM murdock wrote: The fact that some religious people spewed some nonsensical rantings doesn't really change that. Even if that was the predominant belief (which I don't think is accurate) I Click to expand The Southern Baptists for one, preached it. They had close to 20 million Americans going to church on Sundays or at the very least calling themselves Baptists. Their teachings of black being a biblical curse were one of the driving forces behind the huge "second" KKK movement that started after 1915 and the movie "Birth of a Nation". I don't want to derail this thread into that, I just am responding saying it wasn't nonsense in the eyes of a huge part of American culture back then. That biblical teaching had been around for centuries in areas where Christan populations wanted to oppress or enslave black people. It was a big part of American beliefs for a period of time. It is not anymore, and is reserved for the fringes, it is prudent to not brush it off as historical fiction like you seem to do there. Edited by - Canadian_Cindy on 12/13/2015 5:45:44 PM [Link]
murdock Member I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV 911 Posts 4/06	Posted - Dec 13 2015 : 5:51PM ^ The Catholic church (and several other Christian denominations) denounce the concept of gay-marriage today. Is that a valid excuse today to go literally gay-bashing? Of course not, it's nonsense. The proliferation of nonsense, makes it no less nonsensical. People knew that skin color was not a choice a hundred years ago, just because they chose to believe otherwise to reinforce their own prejudices doesn't change that fact. And again the historical context has no bearing on the point I was making anyway. We can also talk about how people thought the earth was flat a few hundred years ago, but if my point is that we know it is round now, that isn't really relevant. Attempting to draw a parallel between Deen an victims of racial lynch mobs is simply a poor choice. [Link]
murdock Member I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV 911 Posts 4/06	Posted - Dec 13 2015 : 6:02PM leatherface wrote: This difference doesn't really matter because the point is prejudice, in this case for persons who practice rough sex who are seen as evil, so this case is a good occasion to say that the problem is in the first place the fact that there are companies shooting that kind of content. I don't want to give here examples (if you really need proof like we're already in a trial I could with PM, I have a reason for this), but is it really that strange to you? After that... sure, Deen will not be hanged, but still at this point his career seems over, guilt or not. Edited by - leatherface on 12/13/2015 5:30:04 PM Click to expand I disagree. We live in a society that affords us a variety of freedoms but no where on earth can you find a place that offers freedom from consequences. In the US we have the right to free speech, but there are still consequences when we exercise that right. Deen has the freedom to pick any career he wanted and he choose to be a pornstar. That decision has it's own set of consequences, including some people thinking that he is evil. He could have chosen to be a coal miner and been at risk for black lung, he could have chosen to be a police officer and been at risk of being shot. All of our choices have risk and consequences attached. Deen is no exception and Neither is Stoya. She chose a career in porn and has to live with a similar set of consequences as Deen. It may not be fair, but there is no guarantee in life that everything will be fair. [Link]
Harri Patel Senior Member #SDNY he's all yours. -- Michael Steele 5110 Posts 3/03	Posted - Dec 13 2015 : 9:34PM Goldstein wrote: For the love of God, lock this thread already (If anything of actual interest or significance happens down-the-road, you can always re-open it then.) Click to expand Given that the site administrator's instruction to the people bickering back and forth to take it to PMs has been completely ignored by those individuals, and participation in the thread by anyone other than the bickering individuals has dwindled to next to nothing, I would tend to agree with the lock suggestion. [Link]
Mass Facialties Deactivated User "Facialized Vol. 7" 2021 AVN Awards Winner: Best Oral Movie 9308 Posts 9/13	Posted - Dec 13 2015 : 10:20PM ^ Hey, if you don't care for it, just ignore it (what I've essentially done). Edited by - Mass Facialties on 12/14/2015 12:07:44 AM [Link]
heatherdeep Deactivated User 30 Posts 10/15	Posted - Dec 14 2015 : 12:12AM Not going to argue with you all here but I must say that all attention whores lie lie lie lie lie about straight guys like James Deen and James is innocent. Anyone who believes anything any of these attention whores say needs there heads checked. [Link]
Canadian_Cindy Deactivated User 1102 Posts 2/15	Posted - Dec 14 2015 : 12:35AM heatherdeep wrote: Not going to argue with you all here but I must say that all attention whores lie lie lie lie lie about straight guys like James Deen and James is innocent. Anyone who believes anything any of these attention whores say needs there heads checked. Click to expand such insight. Does everything have to be an issue of sexual orientation with you? :) Edited by - Canadian_Cindy on 12/14/2015 12:36:15 AM [Link]
Ben Mockridge Deactivated User 382 Posts 9/15	Posted - Dec 14 2015 : 2:58AM Canadian_Cindy wrote: Most swingers events would frown heavily on that approach. Most would eject him if the woman were to make an issue of it. You can not touch people in a sexual manner unless they say so, that is a very firm stance that most would take. You can't find out if someone consents by touching them with a sexual organ. You have to ask them and talk to them. Click to expand Ok sounds like using swingers event was a bad example , as my purport was citing a context where there were no rules and things were loose and easy going and there was some implied/implicit consent for a guy to cheekily tap his penis on the butt of a female - a context where the prevailing standard would view this behaviour as acceptable. My point is that the judgement of this behaviour differs with context / location. Agree/disagree. If our guy did this at his local supermarket then it would be clearly wrong/sexual assault (i guess unless the guy got super lucky and the randon chick he chose responded favourably but the probability of that occuring is unlikely so best discounted) If our guy did it in a context where that behaviour was accepted (create your own scenario) and the girl objected and he quickly backed off then this is a more nuanced situation. From a baseline normal perspective a guy tapping his penis on a girls butt without prior consent is wrong/sexual assault. However deviations from norm are possible in non-normal contexts as established by the case of boyfriend tapping penis on butt of girlfriend , girlfiend objects and the guy backs the fuck off - in this context this a forgiveable mistake (implied/implicit consent). So If we have another non-normal situation where this behaviour is accepted and we get an instance of guy tapping butt with penis and being told to back the fuck off and he does back the fuck of - from one perspective (the girls) it is sexual assault , but from a contexted perspective it is a forgiveable mistake. Reasonable/unreasonable ? (this relates to the Ashley Fires allegation btw) [Link]

JB_X Deactivated User addled 1500 Posts 10/12	Posted - Dec 14 2015 : 3:48AM Ben Mockridge wrote: So If we have another non-normal situation where this behaviour is accepted and we get an instance of guy tapping butt with penis and being told to back the fuck off and he does back the fuck of - from one perspective (the girls) it is sexual assault , but from a contexted perspective it is a forgiveable mistake. Reasonable/unreasonable ? (this relates to the Ashley Fires allegation btw) Click to expand I've done it several times already, but I'm going to point out, yet again, that you are misrepresenting her claims. Ashley Fires' allegation against him is way more serious than "he tapped my butt with his penis on set" and then backed off. Believe it, or don't believe it. Don't downplay the extent of her claims for the sake of your argument, though. That's disingenuous. [Link]
Ben Mockridge Deactivated User 382 Posts 9/15	Posted - Dec 14 2015 : 3:54AM JB_X wrote: Ben Mockridge wrote: So If we have another non-normal situation where this behaviour is accepted and we get an instance of guy tapping butt with penis and being told to back the fuck off and he does back the fuck of - from one perspective (the girls) it is sexual assault , but from a contexted perspective it is a forgiveable mistake. Reasonable/unreasonable ? (this relates to the Ashley Fires allegation btw) Click to expand I've done it several times already, but I'm going to point out, yet again, that you are misrepresenting her claims. Ashley Fires' allegation against him is way more serious than "he tapped my butt with his penis on set" and then backed off. Believe it, or don't believe it. Don't downplay the extent of her claims for the sake of your argument, though. That's disingenuous. Click to expand Toatally fair observation . I was simply attempting to establish the principle before directly applying it to the Ashley Fires case. At present i am still trying to establish the theoretical principle involved. When i do directly apply it to the Ashley fires case then you may query my application depending on specifically how i apply it. [Link]
JB_X Deactivated User addled 1500 Posts 10/12	Posted - Dec 14 2015 : 4:06AM I look forward to it. I'm sure it will be not only coherent, but also not coated with thinly veiled agenda. [Link]
Dutchgangbangboys Member 927 Posts 8/12	Posted - Dec 14 2015 : 4:43AM Canadian_Cindy wrote: Dutchgangbangboys wrote: For those struggling with the concept of consensuality in relationships let me ask you this. Say you were to have consensual sex with a girl, perhaps your girlfriend or your wife or maybe someone you met on a date it basically works in any situation, and you decide it is time for anal. You don't talk about it, you don't ask, you just go for it. She says "no". You continue. She says "stop". You continue. That right there? What would you call it? Click to expand That is rape and he could be charged if the woman pursued it. Your point? Click to expand I clearly said "for those struggling with the concept of consensuality in relationships" you weren't my target group... :) [Link]
sparrow55 Deactivated User 82 Posts 11/15	Posted - Dec 14 2015 : 4:58AM misspornUSA wrote: Additionally, even if Stoya tweeted about the alleged rape when she did out of vindictiveness, that does not automatically mean that she was lying. Click to expand That goes both ways.. Even if he actually raped 9 other women, that does not mean he raped Stoya. But most generally we assume that past behavior is a predictor of future behavior. [Link]
sparrow55 Deactivated User 82 Posts 11/15	Posted - Dec 14 2015 : 5:22AM Ben Mockridge wrote: @ JigglyBoobs Yes we were talking about physical sexual approach without explicit consent - you then switched from talking about an advance that could be accepted or rejected in due course by the female to talking about mounting so you had kindof leapt from an approach situation to a full blown mounting situation , something quite different. So i thought i had better ramp it down to what couldnt be misinterpreted - a guy approaching just with his penis exposed. But you are right we should go back to physical contact - but so we are both clear what we are talking about and npbody will leap forward to mounting, here is out situation ; A guy arrives late at a swingers party , there is no written rule book but it rather runs on an unspecified etherally accepted common standard. In reality its hedonism unchained , communal bathrooms , everyone having sex, fistings , etc etc everything you would expect at a swingers party. So our man sees a girl he likes and wanders up behind her and taps her on her butt-cheek with his penis to kinda get her attention and see if she is interested , to see if she is consenting to go further - in this context is this physical approach sexual assault ? The girl can obviously either accept or reject the advance - but is the advance in itself constituting sexaul assault ? Edit - Fyi Jiggly - this specifically relates to the Ashley Fires case and specifically the arguement for mitigation that i made on the previous page , dont know if you read it but thats the origin of the example , that might otherwise apear an odd example to come up with. Edited by - ben mockridge on 12/13/2015 9:51:53 AM Click to expand There was a news item some years back when a white guy was severely beaten up by a crowd in conservative 3rd world country and put in jail because he dared approach a woman for a date..He did not solicit sex nor did he make any lewd gestures. He just approached her with an intention of a date. I would imagine something worse would happen if you looked at a face behind a burqa in Saudi Arabia. [Link]
sparrow55 Deactivated User 82 Posts 11/15	Posted - Dec 14 2015 : 5:33AM murdock wrote: leatherface wrote: he's another person mentioning the fact that Deen has in his phone messages of her threatining him with false accusations of rape. Click to expand No, the anonymous industry vet didn't mention anything about Deen's phone or any messages on it threatening rape. He spoke of a specific incident (2nd hand at least) where Stoya threatened to accuse Deen. I'm not sure about Stoya's co-worker, but she's not really in a position to declare the threat false or not. Yeah she may have witnessed Stoya threaten Deen, but unless she said something to the effect of "I'm going to make up a fake rape accusation" it would be ambiguous at best. Anything else you're going to extrapolate from the threats will likely be the result of circular logic. Click to expand Read this again but unless she said something to the effect of "I'm going to make up a fake rape accusation" it would be ambiguous at best. Click to expand You mean , if James hadn't come on record saying something to the effect of "I rape women", you should consider those accusations ambiguous ? Before you link to another wikipedia article on Fallacies, don't bother. [Link]
sparrow55 Deactivated User 82 Posts 11/15	Posted - Dec 14 2015 : 5:41AM JB_X wrote: Ben Mockridge wrote: So If we have another non-normal situation where this behaviour is accepted and we get an instance of guy tapping butt with penis and being told to back the fuck off and he does back the fuck of - from one perspective (the girls) it is sexual assault , but from a contexted perspective it is a forgiveable mistake. Reasonable/unreasonable ? (this relates to the Ashley Fires allegation btw) Click to expand I've done it several times already, but I'm going to point out, yet again, that you are misrepresenting her claims. Ashley Fires' allegation against him is way more serious than "he tapped my butt with his penis on set" and then backed off. Believe it, or don't believe it. Don't downplay the extent of her claims for the sake of your argument, though. That's disingenuous. Click to expand I think the boundaries are more blurred in the case of sex work. The nature of pron makes this even more weird. What do you think is an equivalent activity in a normal job ? When you make the act of sex impersonal and something you do for money, I am not sure if it would be as clear as it would be in any other scenario. After all, may actress tell you that they necessarily do not have to like the guy to deliver an good scene. [Link]
murdock Member I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV 911 Posts 4/06	Posted - Dec 14 2015 : 6:36AM sparrow55 wrote: You mean , if James hadn't come on record saying something to the effect of "I rape women", you should consider those accusations ambiguous ? Click to expand No, I mean it is important to know who said the threats were false. If Stoya said, she was going to threaten Deen with false accusations, then that is pretty damning evidence against Stoya. If Deen's assistant is just assuming the threats were false, then that doesn't amount to much. It's just a way of rephrasing Deen's assistant's opinion that he is not guilty. [Link]
Dan Senior Member 2056 Posts 6/07	Posted - Dec 14 2015 : 6:45AM Canadian_Cindy wrote: Well, if a relationship is in a state that this girlfriend would accuse the man of sexual assault for rolling over in bed with an erection, I would suggest this man should not be getting into bed with her, period. We should all be smart enough to be aware of someone we are involved with is sensitive on matters such as this or if there is some toxicity in the relationship. And technically, if she " so decides" , then yes she could make an issue. Although the odds of it going anywhere are almost zip due to the context. This is a very complex issue; especially when people know one another (which is most rape and assault cases). There is no "one size fits all" unfortunately. Click to expand The problem with judging the state of a relationship is that you need to know its future too and not just the past and the present. I know of one case where the woman and the guy were on good terms with each other and had sex during this time. But later in the day they had a bad disagreement about something else. And that's when the woman accused him of sexual assault earlier in the day as a way of resolving this disagreement in her favor. When accusations come from the future for future reasons, then the only way to guard against such accusations is to predict the future. Which isn't always easy to do. There is no way to get around the fact that people take a risk every time they have a relationship with each other. And this risk is worse, when people don't need much proof to believe an accusation. When people easily believe accusations, then it might be best to stay away from most relationships within this group of people and find another group of people where it's safer to have relationships. Edited by - Dan on 12/14/2015 6:48:31 AM [Link]

White1970DodgeChallenger Member 406 Posts 1/12	Posted - Dec 14 2015 : 9:47AM murdock wrote: White1970DodgeChallenger wrote: First, I agree that the twitter/other social media Court of Star Chamber does not have the validity of a real court. I oppose the "#ListenAndBelieve" hashtag because "listening and believing" (instead of opting for trial by jury) led to Will Brown being lynched and burned alive. That will be the natural consequence of replacing the Constitution and trial by jury with "#ListenAndBelieve." Click to expand Can we please stop trying to equate racial lynchings with people saying mean things on Twitter? Because the two things aren't even remotely close. These lynchings weren't examples of vigilante justice and trial by mob as they were a bunch of racist people looking for any excuse to do awful things to black people. That's hardly equivalent to what's happening here. Till and Brown both had targets on their backs before they were ever accused of any wrongdoings, and both had significant social disadvantages to overcome. I completely agree that one should always weigh what evidence is presented and ideally wait for the outcome of a trial, but in the absence of a trial common sense can still prevail and people can still have opinions. The broader issue I see with twitter isn't that the conclusion pushed for in the #ListenAndBelieve campaign is one thing or another, but that people think it's okay to try and substitute complicated, nuanced discussion with a hashtag. Click to expand I understand what you are saying. However, despite the fact that Will Brown may have "had a target on his back" well before he was butchered in a gruesomely extrajudicial manner, it was exactly the #ListenAndBelieve mentality, although it was not referred to as such at the time, that was the proximate cause for the horrible way he was murdered. Rape/sexual assault are horrible things. They do happen. In jurisdictions that use CompStat/FUDGESTAT, rape/sexual assault survivors are systematically and structurally discouraged from making a report. That being said, hashtags these days have a way of being powerful enough to suspend and supersede investigations into allegations of wrongdoing, as evinced by the fact that the President of Mizzou was chased from office when all indications are that he was, in fact, investigating the fecal swastika incident. Periodically reminding people of what happened to Will Brown is a necessary check and balance against the hashtag Court of Star Chamber and the entertainment media which propagates it. Last night's *CSI Cyber* was a clever and clear exploitation of CNN's documentary *Hunting Ground* about college rapes/sexual assaults--even using the line "Hunting Ground" at one point--when one of the "rape cases" profiled on *Hunting Ground* involving an African-American student who was alleged to be the rapist was found by a jury to be without merit and when another of *Hunting Ground*'s alleged "rapists," another African-American male like Will Brown, was allowed by a judge to sue his accuser for defamation. [Link]
White1970DodgeChallenger Member 406 Posts 1/12	Posted - Dec 14 2015 : 9:48AM leatherface wrote: murdock wrote: White1970DodgeChallenger wrote: First, I agree that the twitter/other social media Court of Star Chamber does not have the validity of a real court. I oppose the "#ListenAndBelieve" hashtag because "listening and believing" (instead of opting for trial by jury) led to Will Brown being lynched and burned alive. That will be the natural consequence of replacing the Constitution and trial by jury with "#ListenAndBelieve." Click to expand Can we please stop trying to equate racial lynchings with people saying mean things on Twitter? Because the two things aren't even remotely close. These lynchings weren't examples of vigilante justice and trial by mob as they were a bunch of racist people looking for any excuse to do awful things to black people. That's hardly equivalent to what's happening here. Till and Brown both had targets on their backs before they were ever accused of any wrongdoings, and both had significant social disadvantages to overcome. Click to expand in a sense it's true also about pornstars: many persons think that rough sex is something for monsters so it doesn't really matter to differentiate between a rape and consensual sex. More, James Deen is an asshole so who cares. I'm not talking about you, but I've seen persons reasoning like this. Click to expand This (part in bold.) [Link]
White1970DodgeChallenger Member 406 Posts 1/12	Posted - Dec 14 2015 : 9:50AM Harri Patel wrote: Goldstein wrote: For the love of God, lock this thread already (If anything of actual interest or significance happens down-the-road, you can always re-open it then.) Click to expand Given that the site administrator's instruction to the people bickering back and forth to take it to PMs has been completely ignored by those individuals, and participation in the thread by anyone other than the bickering individuals has dwindled to next to nothing, I would tend to agree with the lock suggestion. Click to expand Shutting the thread down would give Gail Dines--who clearly monitors ADT as she indicates in her book--another excuse to say "See? Whenever something bad happens in the adult industry, they suppress all discussion of it. [Link]
White1970DodgeChallenger Member 406 Posts 1/12	Posted - Dec 14 2015 : 9:52AM murdock wrote: sparrow55 wrote: You mean , if James hadn't come on record saying something to the effect of "I rape women", you should consider those accusations ambiguous ? Click to expand No, I mean it is important to know who said the threats were false. If Stoya said, she was going to threaten Deen with false accusations, then that is pretty damning evidence against Stoya. If Deen's assistant is just assuming the threats were false, then that doesn't amount to much. It's just a way of rephrasing Deen's assistant's opinion that he is not guilty. Click to expand Not sure what to make of this part. Bret Easton Ellis made the same claims in his interview with *The Hollywood Reporter*. The problem with Ellis is that he is to James Deen what Kayden Kross is to Stoya, a close friend and associate and not an objective bystander witness. [Link]
murdock Member I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV 911 Posts 4/06	Posted - Dec 14 2015 : 10:35AM White1970DodgeChallenger wrote: Not sure what to make of this part. Bret Easton Ellis made the same claims in his interview with The Hollywood Reporter. The problem with Ellis is that he is to James Deen what Kayden Kross is to Stoya, a close friend and associate and not an objective bystander witness. Click to expand No. That is incorrect. As I've stated before, specifically addressing Ellis, he said she made threats. He did not evaluate if she was threatening to make true or false accusations. Evidence that James has in terms of texts. Threats. This has been going on with Stoya for a while. I’ve known James before Stoya, I’ve known him during Stoya. I traveled to Europe with them. I have seen firsthand what was going on in that relationship — and this is a very unstable person. And the threats in texts and emails that James has is part of the reason why he’s remaining kind of cool about this. Because this is all going to come out — that she has threatened rape claims against him at other times in the relationship. Click to expand I'm not questioning whether Stoya threatened to go to accuse Deen of rape. Based what I've seen I'm accepting that as true. What I do not accept is the assertion that Stoya claimed to falsely accuse Deen of rape. Posters on here continue to twist the words of others. The only thing that even remotely implies that the threats were false accusations was a since-deleted post from Deen's assistant where she implied the threats were false. (and even then, that assertion appears to just be the assistant's opinion, as she gave no indication that Stoya said the threats were false) [Link]
murdock Member I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV 911 Posts 4/06	Posted - Dec 14 2015 : 10:49AM White1970DodgeChallenger wrote: I understand what you are saying. However, despite the fact that Will Brown may have "had a target on his back" well before he was butchered in a gruesomely extrajudicial manner, it was exactly the #ListenAndBelieve mentality, although it was not referred to as such at the time, that was the proximate cause for the horrible way he was murdered. Click to expand With all due respect, no. Brown's race was the primary reason he was murdered. Even if you believe that presumed guilt was the primary factor it is still horribly insensitive to equate what Deen is facing as a result of his trial-by-twitter to the lynching that Brown and Till endured. Despite actually taking place in courts the Salem Witch Trials are a closer analog to this situation as the accused were presumed guilty. Even in court it was still a mob mentality that lead to those "convictions." And if Deen is indeed innocent then the motivation is likely similar in that it is probably some sort of personal grudge. Even that example is lacking as the consequences that Deen is facing are trivial compared to those of the people in Salem. I'm not sure what the rest of your comments have to do with anything I've brought up. [Link]
White1970DodgeChallenger Member 406 Posts 1/12	Posted - Dec 14 2015 : 11:14AM murdock wrote: White1970DodgeChallenger wrote: Not sure what to make of this part. Bret Easton Ellis made the same claims in his interview with The Hollywood Reporter. The problem with Ellis is that he is to James Deen what Kayden Kross is to Stoya, a close friend and associate and not an objective bystander witness. Click to expand No. That is incorrect. As I've stated before, specifically addressing Ellis, he said she made threats. He did not evaluate if she was threatening to make true or false accusations. Click to expand My point is that Ellis is a friend and associate of Deen just like Kayden Kross is a friend and associate of Stoya. In other words, neither Ellis nor Kayden are disinterested third parties in this affair. [Link]
White1970DodgeChallenger Member 406 Posts 1/12	Posted - Dec 14 2015 : 11:27AM murdock wrote: White1970DodgeChallenger wrote: I understand what you are saying. However, despite the fact that Will Brown may have "had a target on his back" well before he was butchered in a gruesomely extrajudicial manner, it was exactly the #ListenAndBelieve mentality, although it was not referred to as such at the time, that was the proximate cause for the horrible way he was murdered. Click to expand With all due respect, no. Brown's race was the primary reason he was murdered. Click to expand The catalyst that led to the horrible murder of Brown was a rape allegation. Were it not for that #ListenAndBelieve episode, there is no indication that Brown would have been butchered the way he was. Brown was in his forties, i.e., he had lived as a black man in a racist society for four decades. Were it not for the #ListenAndBelieve moment, there is no indication that he would not have continued to live on in that society. Even if you believe that presumed guilt was the primary factor it is still horribly insensitive to equate what Deen is facing as a result of his trial-by-twitter to the lynching that Brown and Till endured. Click to expand What Deen is undergoing now is not the exact same thing as happened to Brown, that is true. However, if twitter hashtags continue to supersede established investigative protocols, the fate of Will Brown is where they could very well lead to. #BlackLivesMatter burned down a convenience store before Eric Holder's investigation cleared Darren Wilson I'm not sure what the rest of your comments have to do with anything I've brought up. Click to expand They illustrate the climate in which this situation is taking place, something that is not immaterial. CNN and *CSI Cyber* and *Law & Order SVU* are pushing the idea that, if a rape allegation is made in public, then it must automatically be true and the rules of evidence do not apply. [Link]
DVDstuff All-Star Member 2966 Posts 9/14	Posted - Dec 14 2015 : 3:23PM Gore Gore Girl wrote: I never liked the guy - he struck me as creepy, smug, and at times manic. Then, a performer told me stories about him for an hour that left me confident that my feelings toward him were justified. And now this. A lot will come out of the woodwork, I think. Click to expand I can't tell you how many women I know who watch porn think this asshole is some sort of sex god. Never liked him and his whole "I wanted to be a porn star in 2nd grade" life story. Sent this to a woman I know. I hope she reads this and changes her mind on wanting him to be the only guy capable or worthy of fucking her. [Link]
misspornUSA Senior Member I ♥ the male gaze (and Palestine). 8737 Posts 11/13	Posted - Dec 14 2015 : 3:39PM ^You don't enjoy his work, so your friend shouldn't either? [Link]
Canadian_Cindy Deactivated User 1102 Posts 2/15	Posted - Dec 14 2015 : 5:13PM DVDstuff wrote: I can't tell you how many women I know who watch porn think this asshole is some sort of sex god. Never liked him and his whole "I wanted to be a porn star in 2nd grade" life story. Click to expand They only think he is a sex god because they have not experienced him first hand. A cute guy with rough sex looks good on film. They don't realize what he is like to socialize with, how he treats women outside of sex, and what it's like to have sex with a man who is more concerned with hurting you than actually enjoying legitimate rough sex. I am sure we all have stars we love that may be horrible human beings in reality. [Link]
misspornUSA Senior Member I ♥ the male gaze (and Palestine). 8737 Posts 11/13	Posted - Dec 14 2015 : 5:40PM ^Yet there are people who have had sex with him and enjoyed it. It's as if you're implying that if any of his fans actually met up with him and had sex they would be disappointed. I wouldn't recommend having sex with Deen or entering into a relationship with him to anyone, but I don't imagine that he's always or even almost always a bad guy in the bedroom and outside of it. Edited by - misspornUSA on 12/14/2015 5:50:21 PM [Link]
bossanova Member 96 Posts 6/10	Posted - Dec 14 2015 : 6:17PM Can we stop comparing JD to lynching victims and acting as if #listenandbelieve has any connection to those horrors? White Dodge, I get what you're saying about the need for proof and process rather than mob justice, but I don't see how you can argue that treating an alleged rape victim's accusations as potentially true and worthy of investigation is the same as the racists who were looking for any reason to string up and butcher black men, regardless of whether they thought that victims should be believed. Based on social history, if one of those same white women had shown up saying that her white husband had raped her, chances are that no #listeningandbelieving inspired lynchings would have been suggested. It was racism. That's it. [Link]
misspornUSA Senior Member I ♥ the male gaze (and Palestine). 8737 Posts 11/13	Posted - Dec 14 2015 : 6:46PM ^I think Dodge is only criticizing people who assume that any man accused of a sex crime is guilty. Edited by - misspornUSA on 12/14/2015 6:46:34 PM [Link]
murdock Member I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV 911 Posts 4/06	Posted - Dec 14 2015 : 6:47PM DVDstuff wrote: I can't tell you how many women I know who watch porn think this asshole is some sort of sex god. Never liked him and his whole "I wanted to be a porn star in 2nd grade" life story. Sent this to a woman I know. I hope she reads this and changes her mind on wanting him to be the only guy capable or worthy of fucking her. Click to expand I think I've followed this thread fairly well, and I don't think anyone has brought this up yet (but I'm not reading through 30 pages to verify) I think his popularity among women probably has a lot to do with the wild popularity of a certain book featuring a certain Christian Grey who was pretty much celebrated because of all of his awful qualities (no in spite of his awful qualities) Apologies if I plagiarized someone else's theory. [Link]
bossanova Member 96 Posts 6/10	Posted - Dec 14 2015 : 6:53PM "I think Dodge is only criticizing people who assume that any man accused of a sex crime is guilty." And I appreciate that White Dodge is arguing against the assumed guilt of accused rapists, but there are ways to do so that are more historically accurate and intellectually honest. Edited by - bossanova on 12/14/2015 6:55:01 PM Edited by - bossanova on 12/14/2015 6:56:33 PM [Link]