Michael Irvin being investigated for sexual assault

[tyke1doe]

So has Irvin's innocence or guilt been determined yet?

Not yet. But his stupidity has.

 

[tyke1doe]

If two women get drunk and have sex, who raped who?

I don't know who raped who, but I know who raped whom.

 

[Ranching]

Probably some bloodsucker looking to make a buck on his fame.

What if he was passed out and she "milked" him for some DNA?

 

[haleyrules]

What if he was passed out and she "milked" him for some DNA?

Yep...and she could take date rape drugs also....its a fixed unfair fiight

 

[revospeed]

I don't know who raped who, but I know who raped whom.

You're cool.

 

[tyke1doe]

You're cool.

I'm a grammar **** too.

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

Do you REALLY want to go down this road?

You're the one who first mentioned the good book and "judge not that you be not judged". If you consulted that book to condemn us about "judging," maybe you need to consult that book to understand the definition of "adultery" and why it's still considered a sin.

the reasons for it to be "bad" in the ancient times was to protect against your wife carrying another man's kid to protect lineage.

hardly a big deal anymore

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

If she was drunk, she can still consent. Regardless of what certain female advocacy groups try to tell the world, if you're drunk and you consent....you still have consented.

Now, if she was passed out drunk...she cannot consent.



YR

depends on level of intoxication but yeah you are right. Women's groups and university campus male haters have made out that unless the woman is stone cold sober, and you ask for specific permission for anything you do, then it is rape.

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

If two women get drunk and have sex, who raped who?

a question a child might ask but not a childish question

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

That's actually the dumbest claim he could make if he raped her. Of course there would be physical evidence if he slept with her. It would be much smarter to say they had consensual sex from the beginning. Not say that they didn't, and then say oh it was consensual if the lab finds evidence.

which probably means there was no intercourse because while he might not be the sharpest, his lawyer likely is and would never let him say he didn't tap her if he did

 

[tyke1doe]

the reasons for it to be "bad" in the ancient times was to protect against your wife carrying another man's kid to protect lineage.

hardly a big deal anymore

But that's not what the good book says. The good book and the person you quoted gave the reason why adultery is sin. Go back and read two chapters ahead of where you pulled the "judge not" verse.

Again, you're the one who raised the issue of the good book. And just as you did with your justification of adultery, you misinterpreted the understanding of what the "judge not" verse means.

And I'm not even going to get into a lengthy discussion about your explanation. As a husband, I don't want my wife carrying another man's child either. And I don't know of too many loyal husbands who love their wives would want so either. So it seems that prohibition still applies.

Nice try, though.

 

[revospeed]

I'm a grammar **** too.

I was skeptical, but I looked it up and you are correct.

My fault for doubting you.

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

But that's not what the good book says. The good book and the person you quoted gave the reason why adultery is sin. Go back and read two chapters ahead of where you pulled the "judge not" verse.

Again, you're the one who raised the issue of the good book. And just as you did with your justification of adultery, you misinterpreted the understanding of what the "judge not" verse means.

And I'm not even going to get into a lengthy discussion about your explanation. As a husband, I don't want my wife carrying another man's child either. And I don't know of too many loyal husbands who love their wives would want so either. So it seems that prohibition still applies.

Nice try, though.

if you could pull chicks in like Michael, you know it.

As old Chris Rock says, a man is only as faithful as his options

 

[tyke1doe]

if you could pull chicks in like Michael, you know it.

As old Chris Rock says, a man is only as faithful as his options

Actually, I've turned down many gorgeous, well-proportioned, well-endowed women.

My faith helps me resist a lot of pull. And I try not to put myself in the same situations. Be that as it may, whether I did it or Irvin did it, the good book says it's sin. It doesn't change just because I'm not faithful and don't comport to the standards of the book. I have my temptations; Irvin has his. I'm not judging him, but I'm not going to say him being in a room with a woman who is not his wife is the right call. (Heck, I don't think I even really commented on that outside our present discussion. My issue is that the situation doesn't look good for Irvin based on what I'm reading of this case.)

And on that note, I think we need to be done with this conversation.

 

[tyke1doe]

I was skeptical, but I looked it up and you are correct.

My fault for doubting you.

You'll see it more often written they way you wrote it. It's really not a big deal unless you're writing a term paper or something.

The way I remember it is who is an objective pronoun like he; whom is a subjective pronoun like him. So you can substitute the words he and him to determine the right usage.

Ex: I can't determine who/whom I'm going to give this award.
Rephrase, I'm going to give this award to he/him.
In this case, him would be the correct pronoun; therefore, whom would be the correct word.

Who is going to be the next back to rush for 2,000 yards.
He/Him is going to be the next back ... .
It would be he, so Who is correct.

Of course, we know the answer to the question is ... Ezekiel Elliott.

 

[dallasfan4lizife]

Like Rothlisburger always said.

If she passed out, it's fair game homie.

 

[mattjames2010]

No. That'd be stupid because if she was drunk, she cannot consent. Welcome to the 21st century.

It's not about being "drunk" - it's about HOW drunk you are to the point you can't consent. The "I was drunk!" does not work here, you must prove you lost your cognitive abilities.

This is the exact reason the "I was drunk" often doesn't work in such cases as this or really any case. Also what makes this difficult is the amount of alcohol that gets people THAT drunk differs between person to person.

She better be capable of showing she was incapable of giving consent or this is a big waste of time.

 

[tyke1doe]

So who thinks Michael Irvin loses his NFL Network job just based on the accusation?

 

[mattjames2010]

So who thinks Michael Irvin loses his NFL Network job just based on the accusation?

They won't even wait for this to develop, with how much heat a company gets now over this stuff they'll cut him loose. To be honest, I don't think they are losing much of a talent, but I still feel it's wrong to let someone go before an investigation is concluded even knowing they just want to avoid the controversy.

 

[PA Cowboy Fan]

Have you learned nothing from the past Mike?