Wednesday, June 2

Sexual Assault, or not really?

I was surfing the youtube earlier today with my morning covfefe and came across this young woman complaining of a sexual assault.

Her name is Justine Paradise and she's a 24-year-old social media influencer. She is very hot if you ask me! Here's some pics from her insta.

Cute as a button!

Likes to play!

Naked contemplation

Take me to bed, baby!

Schoolgirl vibe!

Rocking the sexy sundress

Peace Out!

Ah to be young again! I'm a total simp for her (am I using that word right?).

Justine's complaint is against another youtuber named Jake Paul. Looks like a total douche to me.

The youtube-chain started with me watching a video from lawyers Viva Frei and Robert Barnes discussing Dershowitz's lawsuit against CNN.

Dershowitz WINS BIGLY Against CNN

For some reason the youtube algo next threw me a video from freelance reporter Alison Morrow. OMG I love Alison's look!

Famous YouTuber Cries Censorship After Demanding It For Others

Alison was discussing a video put out by another youtuber, Philip Defranco, who previously said that social media platforms should censor anybody who posts the opinion that the election was at all rigged, and then later on posted another video where he was complaining that his video that covered Justine being sexually assaulted by Jake got shadow-banned. He claimed that it was obvious that in the first case it was clearly disinformation, but in the second case it was absolute truth. Alison called him out on his contradiction ("who determines what is true and what is false? You want youtube doing that???").

So I went to see the Philip Defranco shadow-banned video, of course.

These DISGUSTING Jake Paul Allegations

Defranco gives a fairy balanced conclusion, withholding final judgment, but does amplify Justine's accusations considerably, without raising the obvious doubts, and without covering Jake's side at all because Jake would not comment, which I can well imagine why, his lawyers probably advising him against it. You can tell by the title where his bias lies.

So I went to see Justine's video accusing Jake Paul to decide for myself.

Jake Paul Sexually Assaulted Me

I absolutely believe her story, she is very earnest and she is very credible. She's a bit dumb. She has low self-esteem despite her good looks. What I'm not so sure of is if it is "sexual assault". You be the judge. I'll rehash what she says in the video and add some of my own comments in red.

She was referring to events that happened in June/July 2019. She did not report on them until recently though the incident was bothering her literally every day.

One June 1 she decided with a mutual friend to "hang out with some cute boys". She went with a girlfriend and a guyfriend to the "Team 10 house" which is a mansion owned in part by Jake Paul. She says she knew of Jake Paul. All visitors were required to sign an NDA on the way in, which she did. [Ok, is that normal?]

She was looking for a bathroom and bumped into Jake Paul and a bunch of other people in the kitchen. Jake said he liked her hair and pointed her to the bathroom. She spent the rest of the party hanging out with her two friends. Jake came up to her midway and asked for her phone number which she gave him. After that he started messaging her from across the room, which she thought was awkward. She produced the conversation.

They texted and saw each other about 6 times between June 1 and July 20. Each time she came by the house there were a bunch of other people there. Jake would acknowledge her but not speak directly to her, instead just txt her when she was in his house, and even when they were in the same room. She says it reminded her of middle school. She assumed he had really bad social skills. She also observed him going up into his bedroom multiple times with all sorts of different girls where she presumed they had sex. [I presume he was deliberately treating her like trash, negging her (?), and she was into it, because she kept coming back for more. Pretty low self-esteem.]

One day Jake approached her and pulled her into a little corner area and started kissing her. She says she was fine with that. She did think he was cute. She did want to kiss him. She thought it was weird, though, because the place where he kissed her was in front of everyone. She thought he was showing off to his friends that he was making out with her, and it was awkward because she had her guyfriend there as well, "but it was fun" she said. [She clearly enjoyed the little bit of attention from him, and being his "property" like that. Also she seemed to be getting off on cucking her guyfriend a bit.]

Later on, similar situation, Jake grabs her hand and starts walking with her to his bedroom. She thought it was cute. [Cute to be owned - I agree!]

She then says people have brought her to their room before and they literally just wanted to show her their room, or sometimes they try to do something sexual but if she doesn't want to she just says no and they respect that.

In his cool bedroom with a big fishtank they were talking and he was clearly seducing her. They were then dancing in his room, and kissing, and then he took it to his bed which she was happy with. [Is she, like, 12, what did she think that was leading up to? Especially given the train of girls she had observed going to his bedroom and having sex with him. Maybe she is just really dumb-naive? I honestly think she is.]

She says she thought it was fine if she went into his room, thought it would be fine if she wanted to kiss him, because she thought he would stop if she didn't want to do something.

She says that every time he put his hands on her, or guided her hands to him, she "would just kind of move it away and say, like, no, and then like, just back to kissing." [Mixed messages all day long. I get it, she just wanted to kiss, but rather than just stating that clearly, as in, "no Jake, I'm not comfortable going further than just kissing today" she seemingly plays "hard to get".]

At some point he becomes frustrated and says "if nothing is going to happen, then what's the point?" [Finally, some honest douchebag communications - he was making it clear he did not want to continue with just kissing. This was her chance to put a stop to it.]

According to her, at that point he stood up, undid his pants, "grabbed my face, and started fucking my face". [Colour me skeptical. Is that a thing? At no point did she say she feared a physical assault from him. She was not terrified. She was not at knifepoint. She literally opened her mouth and let him stick it in. Maybe she was just in the process of opening wide to say "Noooo" when it just sort of slipped in? And once in, she must have carefully kept her lips over her teeth. With guys I've known, slip up and let even a little bit of teeth out and he is pulling out fast! Don't need to bite it off, just let him try to get off scraping against your front teeth.]

She then goes on to say that she has only given oral sex to 2 or 3 people before then because it was so special, even more so than penis-vagina sex to her. She says because "when it's going in your mouth that's touch, that's taste, that's smell, that's, like, it's all in your face." She illustrates it with her hands in the video.

"it's like, all in your face and everything!"

[Very sexy description. At this point I'm getting suspicious. Is this a little fame play for her? Tell a titillating story in a sexy way, get a lot of attention? Maybe even get a nice payout from Jake?]

What was she supposed to do, she asks. She was still laying on the bed, he was on top of her, he was holding her head, like, into him, like she couldn't even tell him not to. He didn't ask for consent or anything. He knew she didn't want to do anything with him because he had said "if nothing is going to happen, then what's the point?", and then he just shoved himself into her. That's not ok, she says.

[So much wrong here! But the visual of her getting her cutey-pie 22-year-old face stuffed with cock while she struggles to both keep her lips in a big "O" for him and tell him "noooo" at the same time is kinda sexy I am very embarrassed to admit. So insensitive, I know. Where do I hand in my "girl card"?]

[She takes his statement as evidence that he knows she doesn't want it? No, that's evidence he told her what he expected and then she gave it to him like a good little girl. I'm sorry, I am just going from bad to worse here. How about letting his cock scrape against your teeth and then saying NO like you mean it?]

She goes on to say, "It didn't last that long, though, because he... finished... he came... in my mouth... and, honestly, it was less than 30 seconds, so it didn't last that long, there was maybe 20 seconds, if that. 

[Ooooh! Impugning the douche's manhood. Love it!]

I couldn't go anywhere because he was literally grabbing my head and shoving himself into me, At that point i was really confused... so I just kind of rolled over on his bed, and then he like cuddled me for 0.2 seconds, he literally put his arm around me and got back up, and then walked back to his door and said 'let's go back to the stu'" ('stu' is the music studio in the house where everyone was hanging out).

[I guess she swallowed? That was really above and beyond.]

"And I was just like, ok let me just fix my hair and makeup first because it was all messed up and i went to his bathroom that was connected to his room, and I was trying to, and he was NO, LET'S GO!

And he was, No, Let's Go!

"I mean why would you sexually assault me and then not even let me fix my hair and makeup?"

[Ok, is this a parody at this point? Am I being trolled??]

"I don't want to leave your room looking like this. I didn't want to be looking like that at all. Like, that's embarrassing, to have, like, my makekup all like going down and my hair all messed up because it's obvious sexual things happened. So I'm like no, I'm going to fix this, so I like fixed my hair and makeup as fast as I could."

[I don't think her makeup was the only thing that went down? Yes - sorry - just shoot me now.] 

[Power move from douchebag Jake, making her go downstairs with her hair and makeup all messed up having just swallowed a mouthful of cum and her, like, breath smelling of Jake Paul's cum? She's such a perfect little sub.]

"He grabs my phone..."

[And at this point she goes off on a 5 minute tangent about her phone]

"I used to have a pretty old phone so when people are putting their numbers in my phone and stuff and and they're like - oh it's so tiny -  I was really judged on not updating my phone. Basically everyone there would make fun of my phone."

This was the size of phones then,
but this one was my phone,
and as you can see it's pretty tiny.

 [I am laughing in tears by now. I know I shouldn't be...]

"He picks up my phone. He was 'come on, let's leave, get your dinosaur phone and let's go' and I was just like wait a second, because up until this point he had been nice to me, he had been sweet to me... So this complete 180, being... sexually assaulting me... being just like straight up rude, like who cares? Who cares if someone updates their phone?"

[What she's defining as 'sexual assault' seems, in her mind, kind of on par with hair and makeup and being teased about her old phone??? Wat-da-heck?]

After this she explains that she kept trying to get back in touch with him but that he ghosted her, and that's basically the whole story.


Here's my take. She had sex with him. He was pushy. She sent mixed messages and did not say no clearly. He was a power-tripping douchebag. She has low self-esteem and is attracted to power-tripping douchebags. She regretted the sex afterwards. That's her definition of "sexual assault". She's kind of dumb. She likely needs a legal guardian.

It does kind of cheapen the concept for women who were violently sexually assaulted and genuinely feared for their lives.

Well, whatever, it was entertaining anyways.


  1. Even your serious posts get me hard, time to go buy a new pair of panties!

  2. I don't give a shit if she had her legs spread and put a condom on him with her mouth, if she says no, he needs to stop.

    1. Yeah but she did not say no. The only time she even claims she said no was on the groping during kissing, then she went back to kissing, over and over again this repeated. She did not say no by word or action for the oral, and she had the opportunity. Trust me, as a girl who's had a penis between her teeth, it's very possible to emphatically say no.

  3. This is what happens when you grow up as a digital native. Socially awkward communaholics.

  4. Eh... I think, probably, by the letter of the law if Jake never testified and it just went on Justine's testimony it'd probably be taken as sexual assault. In todays day and age, you really cant do anything without confirmed consent or you risk this type of thing happening. That said, the chances of this going to the authorities and anything actually happening on that front? Basically zero. It's just content creator drama, so they can rake in views and comments.

    I mean, it worked for you, didn't it Julie? You saw her video, then checked out all her socials.

    Away from letter of the law territory and into whether this should or should not be seen as sexual assault... it's really, really 50:50, isn't it? She did a lot of dumb things, he was very dumb cunt male acting too. What I will say, on Justine's side which... maybe she doesn't deserve but it needs to be recognised is that Jake Paul is a trained MMA fighter. His presence alone would be quite intimidating.

    I guess tl;dr Jake is a dick, Justine acted like she was 12, they're both out trying to whore views and it probably worked.


    1. Oh, indeed, I enjoyed the social media engagement. Greatly entertained by her tale. And Justine has a new fan in me! She's cute.

    2. Oh and also, as an aside... I get being shocked at suddenly having a cock in your mouth and freezing up a little... but to take a face fucking until the guy cums, even if he is really, really premature without pushing away, or biting down or doing anything is... astounding to me. Like, I'm no stranger to surprise cock in my life, not my favourite surprise, but I have been there and the initial shock does dissipate fairly bloody quickly.


    3. I agree. Two or three thrusts max!

  5. Low self esteem girl + douchebag guy = bad unfulfilling sex.

    How many questionable incidents would be avoided if girls would stop being so wishy-washy? This whole ordeal wouldn't be so vague if she was simply clear about what she wanted. Instead she looks like an idiot and he looks like a creep who may or may not be a sexual predator. However, on the flip side, guys who behave like this with girls they don't know have far more questionable and serious behavior usually waiting to be exposed. A case of where there's smoke, there's fire.

    And why, oh why do so many of these stories have something along the lines of "I willingly went to his bedroom but I had no inkling he could POSSIBLY want sex?" Like honestly, girls, come on. Protect yourselves, NEVER enter the bedroom of a strange man unless you actually want to fuck him. Predators will NOT have any scruples exploiting your stupidity. The real world is cruel, not the ideal world so many seem to live in where actions that shouldn't happen don't because everyone follows the same rules of morality.

    It would be lovely if all guys were so trustworthy that such women could make such trips safely and fully remain within their boundaries, but there are far too many wicked people in the world for decisions like going back to a stranger's bedroom to be anything but foolish.

    Yes, moral and legal blame lies solely with perpetrators, but simple decisions to safeguard one's own safety would spare so much pain and heartache. And yes, actual proven sexual predators are grossly underpunished in most legal systems.

    In closing, this girl can be an idiot, this guy can be a creep and a predator, and this specific incident can be gross and uncomfortable but legal all at once.

    1. Ned From Nebraska3 June 2021 at 09:17

      I agree. Anonymous 2 June at 19:57 really nails it. Many years ago, I had two women who wanted to (and did) sleep with me and NOT have sex, just make out. And in each case it was a really narrow bed! I respected their wishes but found it extremely weird. I'm guessing there are some women who have a want it/not want it attitude toward sex, don't actively protest, have sex, later break up with the guy and then all of a sudden allege it was nonconsensual and bring charges. The colleges end up expelling the guy after denying him basic rights like cross-examination and the right to confront witnesses.

    2. I know someone close where it sort of happened like that. "Friends" 6 months after a breakup convincing the girl that she needs to report her ex-boyfriend to the police for "sexual assault". I was able read her written complaint and it was all consensual stuff, some of which she regretted later. Cops threw it out, quite correctly, but what if not...

  6. In most Western countries the test for sexual assault and rape at law is no longer “reasonable consent” but is now “affirmative consent”. This is a relatively recent shift away from “no means no” to “yes means yes”.

    That means that an individual seeking sex must obtain clear, express consent before engaging in a sexual act. This could be as simple as asking “do you want to have sex?”

    Affirmative consent shifts the evidentiary burden away from the actions of the accuser to the actions of the accused. How the accuser dressed, behaved and whether the accuser put up enough “resistance” to the sexual advance is no longer relevant. The issue is whether the accused obtained affirmative consent or not beforehand.

    1. Fortunately, it's in fact NOT the law in many places, outside of US Title IX colleges. It's a ridiculous standard because a woman can claim to have changed her mind midway through an encounter after having given affirmative consent and then claim rape afterwards without uttering a single objection at the time. Stick with no means no and don't infantilize women.

    2. That’s not correct. It’s the legal position in about half of Europe, UK, NZ, Australia, California and others. Certainly far more widespread than some colleges in United States. That would not be correct.

    3. The standard under the legislation in countries with such laws is that if a person withdraws previously given affirmative consent - the sexual conduct must cease. If the sexual conduct then continues it would be assault/rape. An accuser could not retrospectively withdraw consent freely given earlier. That, as you say, would be ridiculous.

    4. From my research it is not written into the law in most places, not even in crazy California outside of colleges. (Eg, Some judges have tried but been overturned when appealed.

      The college regulations are vague in that they say you need affirmative consent at "every stage" yet don't define a stage. Also extremely problematic for the innocent until proven guilty principle. It was properly the fodder for SNL skits where it belongs.

      Makes a joke of ACTUAL sexual assault.

    5. The Justice system inevitably biases one side over the other in these sorts of situations.

      Innocent until proven guilty? Plaintiff is assumed lying until proven otherwise.

      Affirmative consent? Plaintiff is assumed truthful until proven otherwise.

      The rule of law is not perfect and will disenfranchise people. Male, female, or other. What we need to do, collectively, is to try to find the least offensive method to continue with... and tbh, I'm not sure what that is yet.


    6. The human race has been experimenting with the question for 10,000 years. Thinking as a potential falsely accused (we should all approach it that way) innocent until proven guilty has been the best to date.

      Benjamin Franklyn - "it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer"

      Wise man.

      Criminals commit multiple crimes and they will be caught at some point and stopped.

    7. Your research is not correct. Here are 3 examples. There are many others. Since 1 January 2019 Section 261.1 of the California Penal Code defines “consent” as “positive cooperation pursuant to an exercise of free will”. This definition requires “freely given consent”.
      The Australia Law Reform Commission’s Report - November 2020 has been adopted by government. The key reforms are stipulations that a person does not consent to sexual activity unless they “said or did something to communicate consent”.
      The 2003 UK Sexual Offences Act defines consent as “A person consents if he/she agrees by choice and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice”.
      What these definitions show is that consent cannot be assumed or inferred. It must be affirmed and positively given. This goes to the heart of the legal principle known as “affirmative consent” and in the last decade or so criminal jurisdictions around the world are moving in that direction. You can debate the merits of that of course - but it is the legal position in many jurisdictions. This is not merely some US college nonsense. It is a serious debate at law and should be treated as such.

    8. The wording in each of those examples is VERY unclear, and not nearly as prescriptive as Title IX. I agree that rogue SJW judges are starting to interpret it the way you say, but there is a very active fight against that and hopefully it will not stand because it is fundamentally unjust to men.

    9. No they are not unclear. They all require an affirmation of consent such as “I’d like to have sex” or another form of affirmation. Gone are the days when through cross examination the argument could be made that a person “reasonably consented” (the previous test) to sex because of how they dressed, their lipstick colour or whether they carried a condom in their bag. Is it really unjust to men to men that they affirm consent before sex? Personally I think not but my view is irrelevant - these are the statutes in a growing number of criminal law jurisdictions around the world over the last decade and juries and judges are bound by them. It would only be, as you say, “rogue” not to apply them.

    10. Find a statue like that and link me to it here. I couldn't find any clearly worded as you imply, but if you show me I'll learn something.


      The stratutes don’t use the words “affirmative consent”. That’s the name of the legal principle like say “procedural fairness”. Rather those drafting the statute attempt to expand and explain what the principle means in the context of their own criminal code. Here’s the latest example.

    12. That's not an existing statute. That's an article that talks about some potential nut job changes in New South Wales laws, without even linking to the proposed wording. All laws are online nowadays. Point me to an existing law that unambiguously requires affirmative consent as you claim is the "legal position for half the world".

    13. So, as an Australian myself, I decided for shits and giggles to have a little looksie into this.

      In New South Wales legislation was presented on 25th May 2021, I don't believe it has yet been voted on, but, due to how politics is handled in Australia, the party that presented the legislation needs only a simple majority, and they have that.

      Here is the media release:

      So, I believe the part that we're looking into is surrounding the Crimes Act 1900. However, this is where we have a bit of a hiccup because the Crimes Act 1900 hasn't been updated since March:

      Meaning no specific language under 61HE has been edited yet. It's still using the old language to define consent.


    14. Oh for fucks sake I gave you 3 above. The free advice ends now. Stay in your bubble - you’re obviously happy there.

    15. Thanks Kasey, that was my understanding as well.

      Anonymous, your inability to link to any concrete existing laws that unambiguously require affirmative consent is noted.

      Yes, it is a troubling trend that activist judges attempt to interpret existing language in that way, and that there are attempts to change the laws in the direction you indicate.

    16. Anon, I actually am kind of on your side here. My personal belief is that for rapes and sexual assaults, the burden of proof shouldn't be on the victim to prove it happened, it should be on the abuser to prove they didn't do it. I think being raped or sexually assaulted is traumatic enough, let alone having to prove you're not lying. It's not a hill I'm going to die on, but it's a personal belief of mine.

      That said, I can, unlike you, put that aside and actually do some objective research into this. You initially claimed something potentially passing in NSW (and being looked into in QLD too) is Australia-wide, then you provided a link to the ABC in order to prove it.

      Don't be like that. If you have views, and these views are evidence based, back them up with the evidence. You've made a lot of claims and the only evidence you provided has been ONE link and that link was to a news publication, not even a government issued media statement like I provided. Do better.


    17. I acknowledge the difficulty of proving rape and the horrible process victims must go through to see justice.

      On the other hand, I also acknowledge that false rape claims are on the rise, especially as regretted sex is by now routinely cast as some sort of sexual assault, as appears to be the case in this instance.

      As for Ben Franklyn, I would rather have several guilty persons go free than an innocent person be convicted. I am not willing to sacrifice an innocent person's life like that.

      Women must understand that we are vulnerable and if assaulted in certain situations may not be able to prove it (same as anybody with a physical assault of any kind). So we must protect ourselves accordingly by not naively putting ourselves into potentially dangerous situations.

    18. Eh, like I said, this isn't a hill I'm willing to die on. False accusations are a thing, but each time one is proven it gets deified, whereas every victim who cant put themselves through the legal process who was raped/assaulted is ignored. So it's sort of a... which turd is less shitty situation in my books. Do I want innocent people convicted? Of course not. Do I want people actively discouraged from pressing charges because the process is almost as bad as the crime itself? Also no.

      So yeah, my position isn't one where I will actively participate in activism in order to change the status quo, it's more of a "Yeah, this whole thing is bad, but I think under it all I'd prefer the other flavour of shit compared to the flavour we currently have."

      Maybe it's just grass is greener on the other side, who knows.


    19. I see your point, but I think it really strikes hard at the defining principle of "innocent until proven guilty" which is a cornerstone of western democratic civilization which, while not a perfect system, is a damned sight better than anything else humans have tried.

    20. Oh, please don't misunderstand. I completely and wholeheartedly understand where you're coming from. I do. It's just... rape and sexual assault cases are treated differently in the eyes of the law than say, physical assault and murder.

      I think we can all agree rape is right up there with homicide. Maybe not Murder One, but you get my point. It's serious business.

      And yet, in murder the entire state is behind the victim which leads to trials where defendants try to prove they couldn't have done it. Rape and sexual assault is the opposite, the defense gets the upper hand and shifts the narrative to the victim, and the victim is therefore on the line to immense scrutiny.

      Don't get me wrong, both sides have merit, both sides have shit. I've just landed on the side of believing the victim here and I don't blame or judge anyone for thinking the opposite, it too is entirely logical and reasonable.


    21. I think the same applies to murder. It is still up to the prosecution to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

      I don't see rape to be as serious as murder.

      Historically with rape the woman's past behaviour and mode of dress and flirtations was admissible as evidence, but thankfully that is no longer the case in most places. It is now generally inadmissible. It still leaves the prosecution needing to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt though.

      I think "I believe her" is nonsense. We should believe/disbelieve rape allegations exactly the same way we do the complainants of any other type of crime.

    22. P.s. I enjoy debating with you Kasey, as you are not an airheaded looney. Almost as much as I would enjoy fucking you... ;-)

    23. To be honest, in my head it's not even a battle of the sexes type of deal as men get raped and assaulted too. As do children, though I admit for children the defense attorneys are a LOT more forgiving. The difference, in my mind, is that (and I'm just using murder as an example) the victim is obvious, the crime is obvious, you just need to prove who did it. So I think a more apt comparison would be prosecutors trying to get a conviction for a murder without a body which is a LOT more difficult as not only do they need to prove a crime, they also need to prove who did it. This is what it's like in rape and sexual assault cases, except the victim is right there in front of defense attorneys and in proving a crime was not committed they can (and will) put the victim through hell.

      I'll show you what I mean: In 2010 the UK Center for Research on Violence Against Women published a report in which they showed that only 37% of rape cases are reported to police and of that 37% only 17% resulted in conviction. Now, I understand that false accusations are absolutely a thing, but you cant tell me that in 100 cases of rape 94 of them were false accusations (which those numbers imply, 17% of 37% is ~6% of the original 100).

      They quote their sources at the bottom.

      So, yeah, I think it's a shitty system. I think the alternative (putting the emphasis on the defendant) would also be shitty, but it's ever so slightly better than letting 94 rapists walk free because one of them might have been a false accusation imo.

      And aye, I tend to stay away from social/political debates, not because I think they're bad debates to have, but because people always tend to take it personally. For every person who liked Trump, there is a person who will condemn and loathe them for it. For every person who is a pro-choice Bernie Sanders supporter, you'll get a person who will loathe and condemn them for it... and I just don't have the time for such hatred in my life. But this seemed like a neat little debate to dip my toes into! And you've been nothing but a pleasure to have this discussion with, so I really really respect and admire you for that!

      Also, who said you'd be the one fucking me? I think I'd prefer you ass up like your sister had you :P


    24. Your quoting sources is hot!

      But it's similar to any other kind of assault.

      And with the stats, I'm always a bit suspicious in the #metoo era of what exactly a girl considers to be a rape. Justine in this blog post is a case in point.

      And, nah, the injustice of a false accusation, with no recourse, and a ruined life, possibly in jail for years, I don't take that lightly at all.

      I never hate when I debate, and I don't understand those who do. Truly confuses me, which is why I step into it all the time.

      Oooooh, well, gee, ok, my switch is pretty easy to flip!

    25. I mean, 2010 does predate the #MeToo era, but you're entirely right statistics can be manipulated one way or the other and in the end this pretty shitty no matter if we stick with pre-existing laws, or move more towards as Anon put it "Affirmative Consent". Which is why this isn't a hill I'd particularly wanna die on, lmao.

      I think that pretty much sums up the world quite nicely at the moment, and it also further explains my hesitancy in ever actively debating. When the world is so polarised, and both sides have major flaws and downsides, what's the point in getting into heated debate about it? Especially if it just causes hate and anger, you know?

      And you're gonna get your way with me in your book, I have to get mine over you somehow!! May as well be with my big bertha ;)


    26. It's very civilized to agree to disagree, and if it were politics then work out some kind of compromise. Politics ought to be the art of compromise. But compromise starts with two people making the best argument they can for their side. The problem is not debate, it's irrational emotional people who get caught up in hate, as you say.

      And debate is way more fun when it includes a side of who's going to fuck who at the end of it all ;-)

    27. Oh, I completely agree Julie. In normal circumstances debate is the key to compromise and progress, alas it feels like the world has become to polarised and so partisan that any debate that does occur seemingly doesn't matter to the powers at be.

      And is that your way of saying our asses are literally on the line here? ;)


  7. The way she describes the experience, it probably was sexual assault. But he might tell the story differently and it seems like a conviction would be unlikely. Who knows what really happened.

    She is cute, but both seem to be sad people.


    1. I see it differently, but don't feel that strongly about it either way. What I don't like is the cheapening of sexual assault to this crap.

  8. We have in France an adorable equivalent of Justine. Her name is Nabilla and she has become famous (probably much more than Miss Paradise) because of this phrase :
    «Non mais allô! Quoi? T'es une fille, t'as pas de shampoing? C'est comme si j'te dis: t'es une fille, t'as pas d'cheveux!» and also because of her XXL breast.

  9. The little piggy influencer has the perfect facial morphology to wear a nose hook and it's so true that you can't help but imagine her swallowing – after a little « yes sir »

  10. I'm more surprised that you bothered to watch this stuff than I am by the content. I have to say that unless you have a gun to your head or knife on your throat, giving a blow job is not assault. As any man knows, a mouth isn't a good place to stick your dick if it isn't welcome there.

    Yes, I know that social pressure can be as compelling as a gun, but in this case there doesn't seem to be any of that. This is a stupid, Internet twit who spends too much time in front of her computer.

    It's obvious that she swallowed if all she had to do was fix makeup and hair. Oh well, very odd stuff.

    1. I started with some serious stuff and then the interwebs just pulled me in!!!!

  11. The douche wanted to just have his way with her, and she was clearly wanting to let him, while wanting to also be treated like a queen, which he was ofc not going to.

    Sounds like a "I made a mistake" moment to me, not actual sexual assault.

    It almost seems like young women these days, NEED to have a sexual assault story so they can say #metoo, and so they call everything sexual assault. I even read a comment on youtube where a woman said she was raped because the guy she was fucking didn't ask her before flipping her to doggie and taking her from behind. Missionary not rape. Doggie rape. lmfao.

  12. A Dad, A Grandad.
    Cheapening sexual assault. Disgusting, not you Julie, thank you for bringing this to light. I don't know if I have even one girl/women in my life who hasn't been a victim.
    Sorry, Old School Violence has a place but only when it's real. A lie like that can break a man... or a punk.

  13. She looks like a skanky trollop/street hooker. Get a REAL hair color.

  14. It seems like she was seduced by the fame and being at this internet-famous "content house" with a young, famous multi-millionaire boxer, and then regretted it when she realised he had absolutely zero interest in her as a real life human being. If she was born a few decades earlier she'd have sucked off Guns 'n' Roses in their tour bus but been surprised when Axl Rose didn't call her from the next town asking if she wanted to be his girlfriend once the tour ends.

    It is worth noting another young woman claims he repeatedly referred to her as "jailbait" and says he groped her. His brother is the infamous suicide forest YouTuber. I wouldn't let any woman I cared about who was that naive near either of them without letting them know what they're likely in for. Don't accept an open drink, keep your drink covered and don't go into a room alone with one of these dudes unless you want to have sex.

    So no, not assault, but probably deception or maybe just failing to live up to her expectations. Selfish, but not illegal.

    Maybe there should be a legal definition of sleazy, the kind of guy that'll read The Game or pretend he has a better job than he does or whatever. Shitty behaviour punishable by a fine that's paid directly to a woman's shelter.

    1. Agreed! Some form of less serious crime called douchery or something, the punishment being to walk around downtown without pants on and a sandwich board saying "I am a douchebag"

    2. Absolutely! I feel the same way about people complaining that a tasteless joke or a dumb marketing campaign or whatever offended them - the word they're generally looking for is "annoyed." But that doesn't carry the same weight in the court of public opinion. Now the word carries so little weight. "Assault" was weakened when it was expanded to cover any contact, any thrown object, even spitting. We can't allow "rape" to be watered down in the same way. Language needs meaning.

      Incidentally, I just googled the result of the Logan Paul/Floyd Merriweather fight, hoping against hope that Merriweather would have caved that odious little prick's face in, but alas, just a publicity stunt. The Guardian had a fantastic opening line I thought you might enjoy: "The fight between one of the greatest boxers in history and one of the best YouTube personalities in his family ended in predictable fashion..." To be honest that's holding the twat in too high a regard. I've put myself in a bad mood just thinking about him!

  15. Not sexual assault. I think you’ve pegged this one, the guy is a douche for sure but she was so powerless she couldn’t resist at all? It’s hard to believe he came in her mouth (esp so quickly) by just “fucking her mouth”, she must have been providing some assistance. She says she’s lying on the bed and his dick is in her mouth and he’s holding her head ... that seems like a really awkward position, I could see that if she were on her knees.

    And then she kept trying to get back in touch with him? For what, to give him another 20 second blow job?

    He’s an asshole, she wished she hadn’t given an asshole a blowjob. Hopefully I can teach my daughter to recognize and avoid assholes like this.