Just came across this TFLN.
"(410):
i refuse to live in a world where loud threesomes in your own apartment are referred to as "rude"
(913):
did you yell 'are you not entertained?'"
How could anyone NOT love this quote? Before I get into it, I'm assuming the threesome was MFF and the reply from the 913 came from a guy. First, I got chills down my back just thinking about Russell Crowe being BA. The only thing that could've made the TFLN better would've been a video along side of it (which yours truly has taken care of thankfully), and maybe all caps to emphasize the BA nature of Russell Crowe. Maybe even an electronic representation of a sword along with the Russell Crowe reference. Nonetheless, I wish I could take credit for that reply from the 913 (wherever that is), but sadly I cannot.
Second, what's more alpha male than a MFF threesome? Being compared to Russell Crowe after a MFF threesome, especially to the tune of his arguably best performance. Dude's mojo must've been off the charts after a MFF threesome AND Russell Crowe comparison. That's a great year for some people. Maybe I'll insert a Russell Crowe reference into my Herman brief, or perhaps just attached Gladiator as an exhibit. Or maybe just these YouTube clips of Russell Crowe in LA Confidential: BA Clip 1 and BA Clip 2 (not as BA as the first, but still good).
Monday, February 1, 2010
Saturday, January 30, 2010
When being unspecific pays
So it's been way too long in between blog posts, so I figured I would post a new one. That and I'm getting bored out of my mind and wildly distracted while writing my brief for the Herman Competition. For anyone that's not in law school that reads this, which I would estimate at around 0, maybe 1, Herman Competition is basically the competition you have to go through to make a Moot Court team. What's Moot Court? It's basically Law and Order minus the jury, the criminal, NBC (but they don't really count for anything anways), the government, Jack McCoy, and any crazy witnesses plus two judges and two "teams" of law students from different schools who basically argue different sides of some important problem taken up by the Supreme Court. To be honest, I'm not even sure I want to be on a Moot Court team, which makes actually competing in the competition and writing a brief all the more painstaking. I'd much rather be doing other things, like getting my GTL on.
But most importantly, my procrastination has led me to my still somewhat favorite (in an ex-GF you still hook up with type of way) website, TFLN. There have been a few law school related text messages I have found rather amusing, and some other general ones that have struck my fancy. But this following one really just stood out to me, probably given the different angles the humor if it flies out at you.
"(781): she asked if i had a condom...i said yes...when we finished it wasnt on...told her it was at home on my dresser."
Where to start with this one. First, I don't condone the practice of unsafe sex. Not only do I feel I need to be some sort of disclaimer up, but I actually don't. Now, technically, my definition of unsafe sex is unprotected sex with someone you wouldn't bring home to mom - not because the girl is slutty or anything like that, but because you don't know her well enough, if at all.
This text screams (between the lines of course) that this girl clearly did not know this guy well enough. Because she did not know this guy well enough, she clearly was having unsafe sex, which leads to the rather obvious question: why would she trust this guy to put on a condom just based on his acknowledgement that he has one (let alone trust any guy at all)? What's even more interesting is the perhaps unobvious observation: what happened between her asking if he had a condom and them finishing having sex?
Usually, when two people have sex, and one asks if the other has a condom, the other person presents said condom and puts it on, usually in plain view of the requesting party, but not necessarily. Sometimes the requesting party assists in the placing on of said condom, but not necessarily. Either way, it's usually pretty obvious the guy has placed said condom on before both parties "get to the business," as Pauly would say on Jersey Shore.
Clearly that wasn't the case here. Based on the fact that usually a girl can see if a guy has put on said condom, I'm presuming they must have been preparing for doggy, where she could not observe the guy with the supposed condom. Which leads to the secondary (and unnecessary and irrelevant, though funny and probably true) assumption that she was rather ugly. This assumption is based on the fact that they were obviously leading out with doggy and not some other, intimate position such as missionary or froggy, or something along those lines. Take the time to google image search froggy style right now if you've never done it or have no idea what I'm talking about. I highly recommend it.
Some blame can and should be placed on the guy for being a total douche, but technically this girl assumed the risk of what followed. But in any event, what point does this TFLN drive home? Depending on the situation, it can actually pay to not be specific. Clearly the guy, by not being specific, came out (no pun intended) on the beneficial side of the studied love equation. However, on the other side, the girl, by also not being specific, came out on the detrimental side. But this assumes she wasn't out to get impregnated (in which case she'd be the winner in this situation) and that the guy actually didn't impregnate her (which would, especially based on the unscientific observation that she was ugly, make him a loser above and beyond his current status as a douche).
As an added bonus, outside of the bedroom, some legal pointers can actually be derived from this TFLN as well. Whether you're in the classroom or courtroom, it can actually pay to be unspecific. For example, next time you're in class, get cold-called and don't know the answer, just say "It depends." Or suppose you're in the courtroom and want to object to the introduction of evidence and forget the relevant rule, just say "Objection. 403." Although if you want to object to relevancy of this evidence, you may want to be specific and say "Your Honor, clearly that isn't drugs."
But most importantly, my procrastination has led me to my still somewhat favorite (in an ex-GF you still hook up with type of way) website, TFLN. There have been a few law school related text messages I have found rather amusing, and some other general ones that have struck my fancy. But this following one really just stood out to me, probably given the different angles the humor if it flies out at you.
"(781): she asked if i had a condom...i said yes...when we finished it wasnt on...told her it was at home on my dresser."
Where to start with this one. First, I don't condone the practice of unsafe sex. Not only do I feel I need to be some sort of disclaimer up, but I actually don't. Now, technically, my definition of unsafe sex is unprotected sex with someone you wouldn't bring home to mom - not because the girl is slutty or anything like that, but because you don't know her well enough, if at all.
This text screams (between the lines of course) that this girl clearly did not know this guy well enough. Because she did not know this guy well enough, she clearly was having unsafe sex, which leads to the rather obvious question: why would she trust this guy to put on a condom just based on his acknowledgement that he has one (let alone trust any guy at all)? What's even more interesting is the perhaps unobvious observation: what happened between her asking if he had a condom and them finishing having sex?
Usually, when two people have sex, and one asks if the other has a condom, the other person presents said condom and puts it on, usually in plain view of the requesting party, but not necessarily. Sometimes the requesting party assists in the placing on of said condom, but not necessarily. Either way, it's usually pretty obvious the guy has placed said condom on before both parties "get to the business," as Pauly would say on Jersey Shore.
Clearly that wasn't the case here. Based on the fact that usually a girl can see if a guy has put on said condom, I'm presuming they must have been preparing for doggy, where she could not observe the guy with the supposed condom. Which leads to the secondary (and unnecessary and irrelevant, though funny and probably true) assumption that she was rather ugly. This assumption is based on the fact that they were obviously leading out with doggy and not some other, intimate position such as missionary or froggy, or something along those lines. Take the time to google image search froggy style right now if you've never done it or have no idea what I'm talking about. I highly recommend it.
Some blame can and should be placed on the guy for being a total douche, but technically this girl assumed the risk of what followed. But in any event, what point does this TFLN drive home? Depending on the situation, it can actually pay to not be specific. Clearly the guy, by not being specific, came out (no pun intended) on the beneficial side of the studied love equation. However, on the other side, the girl, by also not being specific, came out on the detrimental side. But this assumes she wasn't out to get impregnated (in which case she'd be the winner in this situation) and that the guy actually didn't impregnate her (which would, especially based on the unscientific observation that she was ugly, make him a loser above and beyond his current status as a douche).
As an added bonus, outside of the bedroom, some legal pointers can actually be derived from this TFLN as well. Whether you're in the classroom or courtroom, it can actually pay to be unspecific. For example, next time you're in class, get cold-called and don't know the answer, just say "It depends." Or suppose you're in the courtroom and want to object to the introduction of evidence and forget the relevant rule, just say "Objection. 403." Although if you want to object to relevancy of this evidence, you may want to be specific and say "Your Honor, clearly that isn't drugs."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)