BiBottomBoy

I liked it better when Howard the Duck was the standard bearer for the "All Night Party." But that may just show how old I am.

Or, they just want to be me!

According to Manhunt. http://business.avn.com/articles/36299.html Obviously lots of the guys are lying, but it's still interesting. District of Columbia, 7.59 New York, 7.50 California, 7.45 Florida, 7.44 Kentucky, 7.42 Georgia, 7.41 North Carolina, 7.39 Pennsylvania, 7.39 Rhode Island, 7.38 Minnesota, 7.34 West Virginia, 7.32 Illinois, 7.31 Arizona, 7.31 South Dakota, 7.31 Texas, 7.30 Ohio, 7.30 Missouri, 7.30 Nevada, 7.29 Kansas, 7.29 Mississippi, 7.28 Oregon, 7.27 Tennessee, 7.27 Massachusetts, 7.27 Maryland, 7.27 Hawaii, 7.24 South Carolina, 7.24 Colorado, 7.23 Louisiana, 7.22 North Dakota, 7.22 Michigan, 7.20 Connecticut, 7.20 Wisconsin, 7.19 Idaho, 7.19 Vermont, 7.16 Nebraska, 7.15 Washington, 7.15 Utah, 7.14 Virginia, 7.12 Montana, 7.10 New Jersey, 7.10 New Hampshire, 7.08 Indiana, 7.08 New Mexico, 7.06 Alabama, 7.05 Maine, 6.98 Iowa, 6.96 Oklahoma, 6.96 Arkansas, 6.96 Delaware, 6.94 Wyoming, 6.92 Alaska, 6.34

I'm generally very libertarian, but I got tired of the Libertarian Party when they went for Ron Paul.

Straight women are insane and generally have no clue what they want in a man and generalize about men way, way too much.

I didn't think they were stupid or immoral. I was just honestly confused about how you would test the vaccine.

So, what's your high risk group in this case? Do they have to advertise for men who who are interested in unprotected gay sex? And, what if, a bunch of those guys have a string of luck where the guy dudes they are into insist on condoms?

I always worry that stuff like this will make dudes less sexually safe. Also, how, exactly do you test this vacine? Did they actually pay people to take it and then have a lot of unprotected sex? Because, really, that's the only way I can think of.

I'm not convinced it's possible for a cute guy to be "too dominating."

Exactly. And the cost to the California tax payer on this is going to be huge. It's six to nine months minimum of extradition hearings in Switzerland alone all on the public nickle.

Dude, pretending to be a performance artist announces he's going to build a giant "rape tunnel." "I've constructed a 22 ft tunnel out of plywood that leads into the project room. There is no way in or out of the project room except for this tunnel. As you travel through the tunnel, it gets smaller and smaller, making it so that you have to crawl and put yourself in a submissive position in order to reach the tunnel's destination. At the end of the tunnel the subject will find me waiting in the project room and I'll try to the best of my ability to overpower and rape the person who crawls through. I want to make it clear that I plan to make the experience as unpleasant as I possibly can to anyone who dares to crawl through the tunnel. I will try to the best of my ability to make them regret their decision." Several newspapers and online publications thought he was serious! Bad hoax! No biscuit! http://gawker.com/5369615/enter-the-rape-tunnel-for-art

How to fix the california economy: 1. Legalize gay marriage, but put a hefty tax on all marriage licenses. 2. Completely legalize pot and cocaine, with a hefty tax on both. 3. Ditto for high end escorts.

Yeah. It's a weird thing. The french newspapers had bunches of articles about this yesterday. The "cultural elite" which is well represented in the government wanted him released and made efforts in that direction but the working class French people flipped the fuck out at this and started to write letters to parliment, their newspapers, etc... Sarkozy got worried this could trigger a new election, so he backed down.

I think that so much time has passed justice can not be served. It has nothing to do with him being famous.

Way too soon. And it's going to distract the state from disucssions on how to fix their financial woes.

I think if you balance a 76 year old man who probably can't functionally rape anyone anymore against the good will of several countries whose help we need with Iran, Israel and a variety of other global issues, you need to come down on the side of realpolitic.

Yes. If we can require everyone to have auto insurance, we can require everyone to have body insurance.

Yeah, because it's a great idea to blow all the good will Obama has generated in Europe when we need the EU to help us deal with Iran.

To be honest, Conwoy, I couldn't read the story. When I click on it I get a message that tells me that in my "region" only paid subscribers can read the article. This happens sometimes when I try to access American media from France. Somewhere along the line my IP Address blocks me from certain things.

Yes. I'm dubious of anything the Wall Street Journal writes.

I also wonder why the Swiss decided to coooperate now.

Sorry! As an american who lives in Europe I have to be aware of this all the time and I forget sometimes that people outside of here don't have to worry about it. Though that does say something about Polanski - I've never been charged or convicted of a crime, but for visa reasons I still keep track of which countries are Shengen and which are not.

Yeah the deal is there are Shengen countries that have one extradition agreement with the US and non-Shengen countries which have a different on. In Western Europe the big non Shengen countries are the UK and Switzerland. He fucked up by going to a non-Shengen.

Nope. Even the victim admits it would have been 50 years. "The Los Angeles Times" Sunday, February 23, 2003 Judge the Movie, Not the Man Roman Polanski's 25-year-old crimes should not damage his chances for an Oscar, his victim says By Samantha Geimer I met Roman Polanski in 1977, when I was 13 years old. I was in ninth grade that year, when he told my mother that he wanted to shoot pictures of me for a French magazine. That's what he said, but instead, after shooting pictures of me at Jack Nicholson's house on Mulholland Drive, he did something quite different. He gave me champagne and a piece of a Quaalude. And then he took advantage of me. It was not consensual sex by any means. I said no, repeatedly, but he wouldn't take no for an answer. I was alone and I didn't know what to do. It was scary and, looking back, very creepy. Those may sound like kindergarten words, but that's the way it feels to me. It was a very long time ago, and it is hard to remember exactly the way everything happened. But I've had to repeat the story so many times, I know it by heart. We pressed charges, and he pleaded guilty. A plea bargain was agreed to by his lawyer, my lawyer and the district attorney, and it was approved by the judge. But to our amazement, at the last minute the judge went back on his word and refused to honor the deal. Worried that he was going to have to spend 50 years in prison -- rather than just time already served -- Mr. Polanski fled the country. He's never been back, and I haven't seen him or spoken to him since. Looking back, there can be no question that he did something awful. It was a terrible thing to do to a young girl. But it was also 25 years ago -- 26 years next month. And, honestly, the publicity surrounding it was so traumatic that what he did to me seemed to pale in comparison. Now that he's been nominated for an Academy Award, it's all being reopened. I'm being asked: Should he be given the award? Should he be rewarded for his behavior? Should he be allowed back into the United States after fleeing 25 years ago? Here's the way I feel about it: I don't really have any hard feelings toward him, or any sympathy, either. He is a stranger to me. But I believe that Mr. Polanski and his film should be honored according to the quality of the work. What he does for a living and how good he is at it have nothing to do with me or what he did to me. I don't think it would be fair to take past events into consideration. I think that the academy members should vote for the movies they feel deserve it. Not for people they feel are popular. And should he come back? I have to imagine he would rather not be a fugitive and be able to travel freely. Personally, I would like to see that happen. He never should have been put in the position that led him to flee. He should have received a sentence of time served 25 years ago, just as we all agreed. At that time, my lawyer, Lawrence Silver, wrote to the judge that the plea agreement should be accepted and that that guilty plea would be sufficient contrition to satisfy us. I have not changed my mind. I know there is a price to pay for running. But who wouldn't think about running when facing a 50-year sentence from a judge who was clearly more interested in his own reputation than a fair judgment or even the well-being of the victim? If he could resolve his problems, I'd be happy. I hope that would mean I'd never have to talk about this again. Sometimes I feel like we both got a life sentence. My attitude surprises many people. That's because they didn't go through it all; they don't know everything that I know. People don't understand that the judge went back on his word. They don't know how unfairly we were all treated by the press. Talk about feeling violated! The media made that year a living hell, and I've been trying to put it behind me ever since. Today, I am very happy with my life. I have three sons and a husband. I live in a beautiful place and I enjoy my work. What more could I ask for? No one needs to worry about me. The one thing that bothers me is that what happened to me in 1977 continues to happen to girls every day, yet people are interested in me because Mr. Polanski is a celebrity. That just never seems right to me. It makes me feel guilty that this attention is directed at me, when there are certainly others out there who could really use it. *Editor's note: The Times' usual practice is not to name victims of sexual crimes. Samantha Geimer's name is used here with her consent. Copyright 2003 Los Angeles Times

I find that if I use my bookmarks I can jump right to the forums and bypass the entire homepage login process.