WTF is wrong with people, pissing in someone's mouth........ Disturbing.

WTF is wrong with people, pissing in someone's mouth........ Disturbing.

Okay, OP, before you judge, have you ever tasted urine?

I am totally joking right now.

Okay, OP, before you judge, have you ever tasted urine?

I am totally joking right now.

Ummmmm hell no. There is a reason getting pissed on is a slam on someone and never referenced as a good thing.

Be Hold!!!!!~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"humans are unlogical~~~~~~" --------Stephen William Hawking

While I agree, I also understand that people like what they will.
There are people that like being tied up, people that like being belittled, people that like feet, people that like sex missionary style and a whole range of different combinations of anything you might imagine.

Rape is wrong. There are people that get turned on by rape. If rape were not against the law, I think there would be more rape than there is. I'm happy it is against the law. Yet there is porn that depicts rape and people of both genders enjoy it.

There's also porn that shows beastiality and just about any perversion you can imagine.
Some people are turned on by some really weird stuff.
Just because I'm not turned on by something doesn't mean I should dictate my beliefs on others.
I think all porn is stupid.

I can't imagine poor old Steven like being wee'd on, for a start it would have made his wheelchair rusty

As tom say it's a free world (apparently) so as long as it's consentual then have fun

Well it smells to me like beer, and people drink that stuff by the BUCKET ...lol

yea, they drink it from a bottle or can not from someone's junk.

The real tricky part of cases like this, isn't in the sordid details of the exact acts.

It's in the difficulty we as a society have, determining where the line is between consensual and non-consensual activities.

The source of the trouble for us, is the sloppiness of human nature. The sloppiness of MOST people's approach to right and wrong, and the sloppiness of how they go about supporting their own claimed beliefs and principles.

The question for the courts for this particular case, was whether or not the women involved gave their willing consent for what happened, or not. Mainly, whether their consent or lack of consent, was clear enough TO US AS A SOCIETY, to decide against the man for his actions.

The courts did NOT decide that everything that happened was wonderful, they decided that they could not reasonably prove that what happened was not consensual at the time.

The sloppiness I referred to, is what I see quite often between people, where someone eager to have whatever "favors" they hope for from someone, will volunteer to subjugate themselves to activities that they may not really actively or directly want themselves. And then later, after all is said and done, when they DON'T get the rewards they fantasized they would get from what they did, they want to go back and declare that they were "duped" or used, or in this case, sexually assaulted.

Ironically, many instances where we think that someone got away with horrendous acts because they are rich, were actually coincidentally so.

That is, the only reason why the events took place at all, WAS because the guy was rich, and the other person hoped to get his money. When we hear that the rich guy did disgusting things, even potentially illegal things, we might LIKE to punish him for it, but we have to let him go, because the law requires that we prove there was no consent, regardless of the money, and it's a lot harder to be certain of that when there IS money, than when there is not.