Some sort of veiled sarcasm, or a complete grammatical breakdown leading to them changing their opinion midway thru the first part.

I'm a lil stoned, to be honest. So I reread it a few times. I just keep coming back to how it's ok for someone in an authoritative position should be allowed to get off easier because no man would turn down sex, regardless of age. I prolly should have just ignored it and moved on. But it bugs me.

"no man would turn down sex, regardless of age"- is patently false from the get go. I'll never sleep with a drunk woman, for a whole host of reasons, and have turned a few down because I could smell the alcohol.

Usually because i dont like the baggage that comes along with it from some particular women.
Also on a couple of occasions i've turned down the opportunity for sex with teenage girls who developed a crush on me and made it apparent/obvious that they had no problems if i made sexual advances.. Sorry,give me a call when you turn 18.
Funny thing is they have now turned 18 and they aint calling

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5489953

It's okay to have sex with underage boys because disapproval screws up the lives of good women.

This, and the jury that gave it the official DU seal of approval, are the reasons why we can't have nice things.

I wonder how many of the jurors think that they believe in equality?

Sexism at its finest.

The first line is....

Then....



It's all over the place.

to carry punishment for a woman any further.

I didn't take the jury decision as an endorsement, except to allow the discussion to proceed. Personally, I believe in equal treatment in similar circumstances.