women that orgasm during rape

i just read that possibly anywhere from 10 - 50% of women climax during that experience..would you think this is possible or no?

Only in your dreams.

Though I'm sure there are "freak occurances"... but 10 - 50% , highly unlikely!

Posted by DAMEN VI
i just read that possibly anywhere from 10 - 50% of women climax during that experience..would you think this is possible or no?

It wouldnt be considered as a rape then, 🙂

I dont think they do either.

^^^ good answer!

Posted by PiscVirgAquaFish
The body responds to stimuli whether or not its wanted. It has nothing to do with whether the person is enjoying the experience,...

Getting wet is "the body responding to stimuli" which is common during rape... but actually getting "aroused" is something else!

Posted by ianthepisces
good way to get the victim put in jail...

best to shoot to kill..

This.

Always shoot to kill.

You maim someone, they could get right back up.

Don't let anyone sell you on a Derringer, either-- which has been labeled a "woman's" gun.

It's only got two shots.

Go get yourself nice revolver while you're learning (.357/.38)-- at least, that's my recommendation.

😉

Posted by ninjutsu
Lmao the range of 10-50. Quite a jump there.

But yes it is possible to receive 'positive' physiological stimulation when being compelled to do something that you don't mentally/emotionally want to be doing. This is a common reason for guilt amongst sexual trauma victims, including children. Natural physical reactions can't be helped, it doesn't mean that it ceases to be abuse.

yea i would think so too, which is probably why they can only assume 10 - 50% actually had a orgasm..most people probably wouldnt even mention something like that

Posted by Jahlia
http://www.thenation.com/blog/169474/how-body-reacts-sexual-assault#<div class="bqfade">click to expand

Approximately 1 in 20 women who come to the clinic for treatment because of sexual abuse report that they have had an orgasm from previous unsolicited sexual arousal. It is not detailed in the [professional] literature because the victims usually do not want to tell/talk about it because they feel guilty, as people will think that if it happened they must have enjoyed it.

-----

thats crazy..thats also probably why a lot of women have rape fantasies, or like to act it out with their bf's/husbands..

Posted by PiscVirgAquaFish
This is a strange question but I suppose its possible. The body responds to stimuli whether or not its wanted. It has nothing to do with whether the person is enjoying the experience, the body responds
involuntarily to physical arousal. This can be very confusing and cause guilt in victims. If you've ever worked with sexual assault victims, especially children, they often express confusion and shame because their body became aroused even though the attack was unwarranted. 😢 I'm assuming this post was a tongue in cheek question but really...why?

because sometimes i like talking about things that aren't usually talked about i guess

Posted by enfant_terrible

Posted by PiscVirgAquaFish
The body responds to stimuli whether or not its wanted. It has nothing to do with whether the person is enjoying the experience,...

Getting wet is "the body responding to stimuli" which is common during rape... but actually getting "aroused" is something else!

click to expand

exactly

Posted by cowpuncher


I can only imagine this topic would leave a woman with even more emotional scarring from the experience than she would otherwise have. Honestly it's a pretty awful topic, and every rapist alive deserves no better than a quality 185 grain to 200 grain .45 caliber hollow point to the head, chest, or groin... and probably all three. I prefer the old Winchester Black Talons myself when you can get them, but the Federal Premium stuff that costs like $ 40-50 for a box of 20 works just as effectively.

i agree that a rapist is the scum of the earth too, but i don't see how me talking about it is so awful...racism is awful also, but nobody seems to mind talking/making threads about it..

To all you gun freaks out there... keeping a firearm at home you are more likely to harm yourself, a family member or dying from a homicide at home, than actually getting to use the gun the way you intended to when you bought it. NRA may not agree, but then again, arguing with them is like arguing with the Catholic church about creationism.

The stupidity of some of the entries in this thread are overwhelming. Are you really that simple-minded? "Hey there may be a risk of me getting into a 'rape incident' AT SOME POINT in my life. The best solution in case that happens is owning a gun!" By that logic everyone should walk around armed.

Also, many of you seem to have a somewhat fetischized image of rape. A rapist is not some faceless weirdo waiting to jump at you from behind the bushes, it is usually a family member, a friend or an acquaintance. It's people you most likely will not aim a gun at even if you had the chance.

Look, all I'm saying is that the societies where people don't think of fire-arms as an option when it comes to self-protection are also the societies where gun-violence is practically non-existent.

I wonder how often it happens that a person actually gets to use their firearm in self-defence? Violence is not suspenseful like in movies.... it doesn't creep up on you.... it's happens quickly and it's over quickly.

Posted by cowpuncher
So which societies are those Enfant? Back up what you're saying.. make your case.

European societies to begin with. If there are no guns circulating in the society you're obviousely not gonna have one pointed at you during a rape or burglary.

I live in Sweden where most people know what a gun is, but very few have actually seen one. The only armed people here are hunters (I've never even seen a hunter in my life!) and motocrycle gangs who mostly keep the violence between themselves.

Also, you could watch Michael Moore's Bowling For Columbine. It shows the difference between America and the rest of the world, in terms of gun violence. Though I can already tell you are probably one of those conspiracy people who thinks he pulled all his statistics out of his ass just so that he could make his case.

But ok, the question was not whether or not criminals carry guns. We were discussing whether or not a gun is a good self-defence choice. I for one think most of you reason like little children. I think it's funny how many people consider themselves able to shoot a person in self defense as if it's the easiest thing in the world. Using common sense is the only self-defense I rely on.

It's like saying that the death penalty has a deterrent effect, which has been proven wrong (studies by Amnesty International) because the societies where people are killed in the name of the law are also the most violent ones.

Loooool!

The US had 466 violent crimes per 100,000 residents.
Sweden had 1,123 per 100,000 residents.

Omg, are you sure you don't mean in this case, Chicago has 466 violent crimes per 100,000 residents, while Sweden has 1,123. The fact that I am in a higher risk zone to be victim of a "violent crime" (whatever that is, exactly) living in Sweden than if I had lived in USA tells me there's something seriousely fishy about your statistics! I for one wouldn't even dare to send my kids to school if I lived in the States.

But yes, violence has increased in Sweden and Europe as it has all over the world. Immigration and cultural/social clashes are some of the factors. Prior to 1990's Sweden was like an episode of 7th Heaven. But these are simply the times we live in, and there are definitely more fire-arms in circulation than once upon a time... but we don't have what you would call a gun-culture. No "civilian" would ever seriousely consider a gun for self-defense. It's ridicilous. It's just not the way the people over here think.

As for Bowling for Columbine, it has been "discredited" by right-wing, internet trolls who cannot even build a decent homepage for their progpaganda and the NRA, of course.

And a fire-arm is most certainly NOT the most effective way for a woman to stop a larger male assailant. How many women do actually carry a gun in their purse, and how many of them would have a chance to use it if they were jumped? How many would actually dare pull the trigger, given that a rapist is more often a acquaintance or family member than a facelss stranger. I don't get your logic: Rapist jumps at me, I shoot him. What a simplistic view.

Posted by juke
'The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo' (2004) and its two sequels begin with some blank statistics that raised an eyebrow:

1. Eighteen percent of the women in Sweden have at one time been threatened by a man.
2. Forty six percent of the women in Sweden have been subjected to violence by a man.
3. Thirteen percent of the women in Sweden have been subjected to aggravated sexual assault outside a sexual relationship.
4. Ninety two percent of women in Sweden who have been subjected to sexual assault have not reported the incident to the police.

http://www.shmoop.com/girl-with-dragon-tattoo/epigraph.html</a>

Omg, you poor soul... you're too cute... I don't even know where to start. Are you trying to tell me that the numbers are higher than in the States or something? It wouldn't surprise me at all because Swedes can be quite melodramatic about how they label "threatened by man" and "subjected to violence by man". Anyone with a critical mind will object to these so-called statistics...and they have too. Basically, feminists in Sweden have pushed their case as far as they can regarding these issues, which has made the whole debate into a travesty.

As it is now, all I have to do is raise my voice in order for a Swedish woman to feel 'physically thretened' by me. And suddenly I'm part of the statistics. They should only know what real abuse looks like.

Posted by tiziani
You're saying a lot of things without actually saying anything at all. What is the most effective way you see for a woman to stop a larger male assailant?

But that's beyond my point. It doesn't interest me just like it doesn't interest me how I will defend myself if some wack-job breaks into my home with an axe. When and if that happens, and it is highly unlikely it will ever happen, I will have to deal with it the best way I can. What I do know is that owning a gun will probably not make me feel safer in the scenario described above.

But for the sake of the argument, what would be the most effective way to stop a larger male assailant? How about something less drastic? I mean you're not gonna have a duel in the sundown with your rapist. They have all kinds of defense spray alternatives available these days, one more powerful than the other. It's smaller, it doesn't involve explosions, it's easier to use, you don't even have to think, you're in no risk of shooting yourslef or even having your weapon turned against you... I mean come on, you maniacs. Get real.

Posted by cowpuncher
Numbers, from a reliable source. Cite them. Do your homework.

I hate to break it to you but "do your homework" is not a reliable source.

Posted by cowpuncher
Also, do you believe women shouldn't have the right to choose to defend themselves with deadly force if attacked? Does it go for men too? Curious.

click to expand

I think firearms have no other purpose than to do harm, so naturally they shouldn't be kept in circulation among the civilian population. There are more counstructive ways to defend yourself. You can't all seriousely mean that having a gun will take care of everything "in case of emergency"?

Posted by Jahlia
I was going to remain silent but when he used that argument it irked me a bit. How does everybody forget about Switzerland? The fact that guns are available IS NOT what makes a large mass of people shoot/attack/kill each other.

Switzerland is a little "island" in the midst of Europe that was pretty much spared from all the troubles of the 20th century, which hardly makes a strong pro-firearms case here. Obviousely guns don't kill people, people kill people. But if you are living in a society with a fairly high violence rate, keeping guns in circulation will only help the violence, not prevent it.

And frankly, Switzerland hardly strikes me as a society with a tradition of violence like the US. So there's the difference.

Posted by tiziani

I don't like guns, but that doesn't deter the truth that a trained woman with a gun will be more effective at stopping any assailant than anything else. Realistically I don't see any more effective solution than that.

Frankly, i don't think that's a very realistic scenario. More of a fantasy. That's my point. It just doesn't play out that way IRL.

why do the people that complain about gun rights & issues so much in general remind me of these guys

So basically all of you guys are soooo concerned about the well-being of women that you think all women should carry a gun with them wherever they go just in case they during their lifetime happen to cross paths with your stereotypical 'jump out of the bushes' rapist?

And btw, why not a tazer? It is as effective as a gun in terms of disarming your assailant and it doesn't post any real threats to the society.

@Jahlia: I disagree. If guns are kept in minimum circulation within a society most common criminals will not bother trying to get hold of one when they live in a society where firearms are not a norm. It simply ceases to be an option. Of course, proffessional criminals such as bank robbers is another story... but I just wouldn't be comfortable having every street punk in my neighbourhood carrying a piece because it's easily obtained. That's what I'm getting at...

the majority of people thats worrying & complaining about crime isn't even in any consistent danger..the odds of most of you on here eventually needing to use a gun to protect yourself is by far lower then say, getting into a car crash with a drunk driver..

i grew up in the 90's when shit was 10x worse then what it is today, so its hard for me to take people serious when they complain about crime so much nowadays..in the US, we will always have crime,period..this countries whole foundation is built on it, so you gotta be a fool to think that a GUN will actually prevent/stop it..if you're a gun nut then be a gun nut, thats your right, but dont try to justify it with a bunch of bs propaganda based on unfounded paranoia

Posted by ianthepisces
this girl i used to date was shot in the head over a disagreement at a dinner table..

people are crazy, and they are armed...

id rather not bring a stick to a gun fight..

So you're telling me that if she was armed, she could have shot the other person first, thus standing a chance of walking away unhurt. And you don't see anything wrong with that argument?

Surely it tells you there's something fundamentally wrong if you have to carry a gun around in case your opponent packs one himself? You're basically biting your own tail.

And I've rarely heard about anyone actually getting to use their gun in self-defense, apart from cops... as I said, that is not the way violence works IRL. Self-defense is not like a duel at sundown. It strikes you before you have a chance to react. What we have here are a bunch of gun-enthusiasts with a overly active imagination who are praying they will one day get to use their gun for more than shooting tin cans.

I never had to worry myself about bringing a stick to a gun-fight because where I live, people don't have gun-fights over an argument unless we're talking about motorcycle gangs and such. That's another of my points, if you have a gun in your house for self-defense, it is more likely you will shoot a family member or acquaintance "over a disagreement at the dinner table" or by accident, than actually getting to shoot at a burglar.

Where I live people kill eachother too, but since we don't have guns circulating in the society like you do in the States, we also have a bigger chance of walking away from an argument alive! Frankly I'd rather face a guy carrying a knife than a handgun.

Anyway, I'm getting out since no one cares to elaborate on some of my points, everyone just thinks that women should basically carry guns with them at all times just in case they happen to get jumped on at some point in their lives. What a silly fantasy.

Posted by Piscescorp

I swear, I am a nice woman but when it comes to this, I will turn into the biggest shark of the sea with no feelings.


1) Trust no one
2) Trust your gut feelings, usually when there is danger your Aura picks up on it, don't ignore it.

Animals don't ignore it, if you ever notice, cats and dogs pick up on it and don't want to get near a certain area or simply do not want to go out of the house.

I used to walk at this park near my place every night, and suddenly I had this strange feeling, and never went back there again. I rather drive to a near by place where lots of people go for long walks at the time I like to go myself. This reminds me to get pepper spray again.

Good stuff-- good reminder, too.

Your first instinct is usually correct.

Too often, I have ignored my instinct in what could be called "lesser matters" (not life and death), because it just seemed too crazy/weird/unlikely.

But I'll be damned, it was right every time.

I think a lot of women do this, and for the worst reason: it's "not nice".

F*ck nice-- better to stay alive and unharmed.

"... when there is danger your Aura picks up on it, don't ignore it"

+1

Posted by Jahlia

Posted by enfant_terrible
Look, all I'm saying is that the societies where people don't think of fire-arms as an option when it comes to self-protection are also the societies where gun-violence is practically non-existent.

I wonder how often it happens that a person actually gets to use their firearm in self-defence? Violence is not suspenseful like in movies.... it doesn't creep up on you.... it's happens quickly and it's over quickly.

One word: Switzerland.

click to expand

WIN. 😄

I doubt that the Swiss walk around packed because they feel threatened. That's the difference between the US and Switzerland... and it's a difference between life and death 🙂

And I believe I used the wrong definitions back there. America is a killing-culture... not the same as a gun-culture. My bad.

@PiscVirgAquaFish: So basically you are living in a society that is less violent than Sweden (according to cowpuncher's wacko statistics) yet you have some weird need to carry a piece with you everywhere you go just in case someone someday has a go at you? Why are all Americans obsessed by this idea that they are thretened? Doesn't that tell you something? So really, how do you live? Do you actually carry a gun with you everywhere you go? Or do you just keep it at home?

@FishyPisces: Cowpuncher's full of it! This is a favourite of mine in re-run:

The US had 466 violent crimes per 100,000 residents.
Sweden had 1,123 per 100,000 residents.

Let's break that down. First of all, he bothered to look it up yet he didn't bother to post the source because we should "do our own homework". The beauty of internet is that if I wanted to, I could find "sources" that both support and oppose my argument, which is also why I don't bother.

Second, what is a "violent crime"? Is the Boston bombing a violent crime in the same way that some guy getting beaten up in the subway in Malmoe, Sweden? Or do we put these in seperate cateogries. As I said, I don't give much credibility to any sort of statistics these days.... not even those that support my side! You just need to look at the news to see what's really going on!

We had our first suicide-bomber in Sweden the other year, he basically only managed to kill himself and no one else. I just thought to myself, how typical it is that even terrorists suck at violence once the are on Swedish ground. I have a morbid sense of humor so it cracked me up at the time.

Don't bring a stick to a gun-fight? I mean what's next, don't bring a gun to a bomb-fight?! Doesn't anyone see the flawed logic here? :-/

Posted by enfant_terrible
I doubt that the Swiss walk around packed because they feel threatened. That's the difference between the US and Switzerland... and it's a difference between life and death 🙂

Every head of household in Switzerland is required to own a gun, ammo, and have the ability to use it.

They have virtually no crime, so yeah—I doubt they feel threatened.

lol

Posted by enfant_terrible
What we have here are a bunch of gun-enthusiasts with a overly active imagination who are praying they will one day get to use their gun for more than shooting tin cans.

I never had to worry myself about bringing a stick to a gun-fight because where I live, people don't have gun-fights over an argument unless we're talking about motorcycle gangs and such. That's another of my points, if you have a gun in your house for self-defense, it is more likely you will shoot a family member or acquaintance "over a disagreement at the dinner table" or by accident, than actually getting to shoot at a burglar. ...

Anyway, I'm getting out since no one cares to elaborate on some of my points, everyone just thinks that women should basically carry guns with them at all times just in case they happen to get jumped on at some point in their lives. What a silly fantasy.

click to expand

I'm not sure I should take this seriously-- what points, exactly, have you made?

I read the thread, and here's what you've got:


1. Legally owning a gun and keeping it in your home automatically predisposes that person to shoot someone "at the dinner table."

2. All attacks on women are so sudden that they would not have time to retrieve a gun from their purse or holster (didn't think about that, didya?), however, they would have AMPLE opportunity to access a little bottle of "defense spray" from the depths of their handbag, thereby thwarting the attacker, out-running him and making a call to police (not simply enraging him, or blinding themselves, making a getaway quite difficult... because this would never happen).


3. Taking guns off the market will keep them out of the hands of criminals because it would require too much effort and they are too lazy to bother. (This method worked GREAT with drugs, didn't it?)

- cont.

-cont.

4. Michael Moore (Really? You do realize that Michael Moore had armed bodyguards, right? lololol)


Guns were banned in Chicago and crime sky-rocketed; that's a fact.

Guns were made http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1818862/posts>mandatory</a> for heads of household in Kennesaw, Ga, and it plummeted—that's also a fact.

There hasn't been a fatal shooting in 25 years.


The majority of crimes involving a firearm are committed by those who own guns, illegally.

Legal gun owners aren't the culprit, here.

Also, in order to carry a gun on your person, you MUST have a —Concealed Carry?? permit, which requires certification.


What's your solution?

—?_ it doesn't interest me how I will defend myself if some wack-job breaks into my home with an axe. When and if that happens, and it is highly unlikely it will ever happen, I will have to deal with it the best way I can.??

You don't have a solution; you just think guns are bad.

You're banking on the unlikelihood of crime reaching your doorstep as a means of self-defense.

THAT is a fantasy. 😛

And God-forbid it did, you have no idea what you would do to the potential axe-wielding maniac.

Your perception of the U.S., courtesy of selective media that report only the most sensational events, is not based on reality.

Posted by cowpuncher

Everywhere enact Stand your Ground laws and CCW laws in the USA, violent crime decreases. Everywhere guns are banned or further restricted, in the USA... violent crime increases, every time, without fail, and I defy you to find one exception to that.

Ever find the exception? 😉

Crime Statistics based on a whole country isn't reliable, period..you have to break it down neighborhood by neighborhood basically to get a real idea about crime and where it takes place..like my city for instance.people see Chicago getting all this bad publicity because of crime and think it's a war zone,but what most don't realize is that the vast majority of crime is confined to 12-13 neighborhoods at most, out of a total of 77..

The news isn't always a reliable source for information either..they tend to sensationalize crime for political reasons imo

Posted by Piscescorp
Honestly I don't like this thread, specially how it was named.

I wished you would have made it *How to prevent being attacked/rape* something like that.

But the topic was just weird, Damen are you alright in your mind man?

I just think it brings really bad memories to the victims, and keeping this thread up just keeps bad memories alive.


I wish it was removed.

You don't have to post in the thread, and if anybody else is offended they can choose to do the same...I'm pretty sure you didn't ask for the movie "the last house on the left" to get removed from theaters,so why complain about this thread?

I probably shouldn't have posted this in the Pisces thread if anything,seeing how most of y'all get all bent out of shape and catch feelings so easy...and this is coming from a Pisces..

You can't go around in life deleting things just be cuz it brings bad memories..sounds kinda selfish if you ask me

Are you sensitive to people that go thru pleasure too? Like does your crotch area automatically get moist whenever you watch porn or listen to your neighbors having sex?

hahahaha - fair question... deserves a truthful answer...

Posted by Piscescorp

Posted by DAMEN VI
Are you sensitive to people that go thru pleasure too? Like does your crotch area automatically get moist whenever you watch porn or listen to your neighbors having sex?

You are for sure an idiot of a man, and this is not the only thread where I have read you act like one. You do have a very small brain. How sad.

click to expand

LMAOO

I guess that's why i love getting brain so much..could you spare any? I got a big head too, I think you'd enjoy giving some to me 🙂

Posted by Piscescorp
And Damen VI,

I am going to answer your question and explain why I find this thread offensive in some form.

#1) this thread -subject is to be handled only by experts who have the brains and are capable of giving support to victims and any information collected is always confidential.

2) This is not a simple thread / subject like a simple question >> you like chocolate or cookie better.
come on man, you can do better than that.

And 3)

I was not sexually abused luckly- but I will tell you something that this thread reminded me of.

1) and i got this thread idea from a seual assault therapist actually

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/193e3x/iama_sexual_assault_therapist_discussing_when/<BR>
and even still, i just asked did anybody think it was possible for tht many people to orgasm from rape..i didn't ask if any of you experienced it

2)it is a simple question..did you notice the two air signs answered it and moved on on the 1st page? they didn't catch feelings

3)sorry you had to go thru that but it wasn't my intent to make re live those moments..like i said just don't read the thread if its too much for you..but apparently thats not the case for you, so i guess this was kinda therapeudic for you to get that story off your chest, huh? you should be thanking me for this thread

Posted by Piscescorp
informative? you really find this informative?

you guys wanting to know if a raped victim orgasms? WTF / ONLY a sick frick asks that question.


I am disappointed.

wrong! i wanted to know if YOU thought it was possible for that many woman to orgasm from the incident..it's a difference

Posted by PiscVirgAquaFish

I don't know, this topic was doomed the minute Damen hit post. If I thought this was an attempt to gain a better understanding of issues faced by sexual assault victims, I would be the first one to embrace this topic, and would go out of my way to post literature concerning issues that cause guilt and emotional trauma for sexual assault victims, as well as ways to cope and absolve guilt. But my intuition tells me that the real reason for posting this topic is the OP saw an opportunity to make a point. And that point is that some women actually enjoy rape, which is why they had orgasms. I'm not convinced of this theory, and neither are most of the women posting. In fact I adamantly disagree with the theory. So at this point all I can do is kind of side eye the OP, because he knew this topic would cause drama, and he is getting exactly what he wanted.

well your intuition was horribly off & wrong

i just wondered how you can feel something that good (orgasm) during something thats so bad (rape)..but it does make me think that an orgasm is definetly more of a mental thing then physical for a woman.

Posted by EusiveSoulll

Speaking for myself.... the above is indeed very true!

Which raises question of a possibility/probability of achieving an orgasm via solely mental stimulation.. but I'm digressing

i'd like to think that "your spot" would still need some form of stimulation to achieve an orgasm still, but who knows..i'd like to see that thou

Posted by Piscescorp


No it was of no help for me sharing that story, but it may be of help to parents to watch their little ones closely and to not trust so easy in other people around their children. so many abused children out there - it's not funny.

click to expand

dont know why the children is being brought into the convo, but i agree with what your saying

Posted by PiscVirgAquaFish

Well you left it wide open for speculation. But since you stated your intent here is my answer:

I think the orgasm is physical, not mental. The mind may be mentally checked out, but the body still responds to what it considers to be pleasurable. Think of pain and pleasure being on opposite ends of the same wavelength. You don't have to think about pain, to experience pain. Pain is pain no matter how its caused. Likewise, maybe an orgasm is a similar response to pleasure for the body. Anyways I'm just theorizing. I don't think it really matters why. It doesn't make a difference in the outcome. **Kanye shrug**

so you think a woman thats passed out drunk, or if she was given a roofie could still have an orgasm?

another reason why i ask is because there are a lot of women who claim to have never had an orgasm, so i'm thinking is it that their not focusing good enough, or are they truly enjoying their sexual partner

Posted by SatoriFierce
and omg about what enfant said about gun nuts fantasizing about having to use their gun on someone... lol so scarily true. ugh

Right-- why bother with facts when you have frothy, emotional appeal?

Posted by SatoriFierce

Posted by Montgomery

Posted by SatoriFierce
and omg about what enfant said about gun nuts fantasizing about having to use their gun on someone... lol so scarily true. ugh

Right-- why bother with facts when you have frothy, emotional appeal?

wtf enfant and i are the only ones recognizing the facts. u stupid.

click to expand

I stupid?

lololol


When monosyllabic diction begins to pass for intellectual discourse-- I'm out. 😉