Re: Source: Brett Favre review on fast track
 

[quote=EARTHQUAKE2689;747322]70% of married men cheat??? Now that's a load of BS.[/quote]

I thought it was higher.

Re: Source: Brett Favre review on fast track
 

[quote=EARTHQUAKE2689;747178]Did you hurt yourself??[/quote]

I just sprained my Ego in two places. Recovery time two days.

Re: Source: Brett Favre review on fast track
 

[quote=Chico23231;747095][url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cCAct6lJkk]YouTube - Jenn Sterger - Maxim photo shoot: Jenn Sterger[/url]

Good lord[/quote]Meh, she's got ok boobs but exposed ribs beneath them; she could stand to eat a sandwich or two. So-so legs, no arse, and she isn't THAT pretty.

I'd hit it, but she isn't worth tarnishing an already languishing NFL career over. I wouldn't be surprised at all if Brett did this and I'm not a hater. He should be ashamed of himself and suspended for the rest of the season, effectively ending his career. If he worked in an office somewhere and was Mr. Joe Blow, he would already be out on his arse.

Re: Source: Brett Favre review on fast track
 

[quote=44 70 chip;747276]You know whats PC? people getting outraged over a dude goofing around with a chick who was obviously into it over private comunications...

When Tiger was screwing around on his wife (a far more serious but also personal matter made public), the moral outrage was such a PC driven disingenuous load of BS... How many of the men who were feigning moral outrage at Tiger were part of the 70% of married men you cheat on their wives at least once in their marriage?

This thing with Favre goofing off sending crude texts or voice mails is just media and NFL PC witch hunt driven bull shizzle.

Wow you mean to tell me dumb jocks who never had to grow up are doing the equivalent of running out into the hall and waggling their peckers at the cheerleaders? Except now it's all texts and voice? *GASP* I am just sickened and saddened to learn that jocks can be crude, over testosteroned goofs!?

God I feel sorry for young people today having to grow up in such a uptight, oversensitive culture that is so quick to hang a victim label on the slightest silly BS, and then is so quick to don fake moral outrage.

I find this shocking* I am morally outraged* There is no excuse for this*

*nudge nudge, wink wink[/quote]How do you know she was in to it? Are you friends with her? How do you know she wasn't ashamed and didn't want to bring attention to herself, as is the case with a lot of sexual harrasment victims?

Who, in their place of employment, should have to put up with this type of "goofing off"? In what other job outside of the adult entertainment industry would this type of "goofing off" be tolerated? Would your boss just say to you "Ah, shucks, boys will be boys!" if you did this to some "chick" at work or would you be out on your ass?

Where are you pulling this "70%" statistic from?

Why is your post so laughably absurd?

Re: Source: Brett Favre review on fast track
 

[url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17951664/]Cheating hearts: Who's doing it and why - Health - Sexual health - msnbc.com[/url]

Re: Source: Brett Favre review on fast track
 

Threads like these always serve as a good reminder of how mature, or immature, a lot of people here are

Re: Source: Brett Favre review on fast track
 

[quote=SmootSmack;747434]Threads like these always serve as a good reminder of how mature, or immature, a lot of people here are[/quote]

Or crazy, ignorant, dumb, stupid, smart, intelligent, funny, not funny... the list goes on and on.

Re: Source: Brett Favre review on fast track
 

[quote=warpaint;747393]I just sprained my Ego in two places. Recovery time two days.[/quote]

So one day per place basically.

Re: Source: Brett Favre review on fast track
 

[quote=Mattyk;747438]Or crazy, ignorant, dumb, stupid, smart, intelligent, funny, not funny... the list goes on and on.[/quote]

That's what makes this place great. You always log off feeling better about yourself.

Re: Source: Brett Favre review on fast track
 

I found a copy of the text message on Google:

[quote=Brett Favre to Jenn Sterger]
8====D
[/quote]

Re: Source: Brett Favre review on fast track
 

[quote=SmootSmack;747434]Threads like these always serve as a good reminder of how mature, or immature, a lot of people here are [/quote]
[quote=GhettoDogAllStars;747447]I found a copy of the text message on Google:[/quote]
don't know what you are talkin bout SS

Re: Source: Brett Favre review on fast track
 

[quote=ashvirtually;747408]How do you know she was in to it? Are you friends with her? How do you know she wasn't ashamed and didn't want to bring attention to herself, as is the case with a lot of sexual harassment victims?[/quote]

I think it's pretty obvious inference considering the material that was released, that's she seems to be a football groupy, and poses for mens T&A and soft core porn mags. (so obviously she has tight morals and doesn't want mens attention LOL)

But hey maybe I'm wrong, it's totally possible that she never flirted with the guy, played around, or said anything to lead him on. She's just a sideline reporter <que picture of her posing on sidelines with cut down jets half T-shirt and hip high jeans>

I'm sure it's totally normal for guys to send pics of their junk to women who ignore them and are completely disinterested... Us cave men males... we're always out raping and pillaging and texting pics of our dongs to innocent women.

So yeah whatever I'm sure the pics of male genatalia set her back 10 years on her path to nun-hood.

We're not talking about her boss or any criminal or legal claim of Sexual harassment.... We're talking about a jock goofing with a women who's major qualification for her job appears to be football groupy status, her body and appearances in playboy and maxim magazine as her resume.

What we're REALLY talking about is humorless tut tuting, Neo-prude PC say-the-politically-correct-thing-at-all-costs. Even at the cost of self respect, common sense, the truth or honesty.

[quote]
"Last winter, close to the Super Bowl, Ms. Sterger and I were discussing a possible collaboration on the proposed "Deadspin Swimsuit Project," which turned into a conversation about the whole "athlete dong photo" phenomenon. She claimed that she's been on the receiving end of several of those types of cell phone interactions by drunk men, some of whom were professional athletes. We later had a phone conversation about who some of the more well-known dong-shot senders were."[/quote]

So apparently in her universe "dong shots" were a commonplace occurrence... Seems a little far fetched to surmise that she had nothing at all to do with any of that. How many women do you know that receive multiple "dong shots" from different men, out of sheer coincidence? But we'll only ever know her side of the story.

[quote=ashvirtually;747408]
Where are you pulling this "70%" statistic from?[/quote]

That I admit was a hazy recollection of some big study decades ago, and it might have been more about "men who have seriously contemplated cheating" than actual cheating.

I know there are polls that suggest less than half, but then you can find guys who think a BJ isn't cheating so I'm not sure how much stock to put in a poll that asks men if they have cheated before. Which also assume they are answering truthfully

[quote=ashvirtually;747408]
Why is your post so laughably absurd?[/quote]

Why do you need to stoop to insults? Don't have much else to bring to the discussion? Do you normally get that defensive when someone holds an opinion that you don't agree with? Why does my honesty threaten your sense of propriety so much?

Re: Source: Brett Favre review on fast track
 

How come I'm having trouble viewing all the posts or the last post made in the thread? Anyone?

Re: Source: Brett Favre review on fast track
 

[quote=44 70 chip;747460]I think it's pretty obvious inference considering the material that was released, that's she seems to be a football groupy, and poses for mens T&A and soft core porn mags. (so obviously she has tight morals and doesn't want mens attention LOL)

But hey maybe I'm wrong, it's totally possible that she never flirted with the guy, played around, or said anything to lead him on. She's just a sideline reporter <que picture of her posing on sidelines with cut down jets half T-shirt and hip high jeans>

I'm sure it's totally normal for guys to send pics of their junk to women who ignore them and are completely disinterested... Us cave men males... we're always out raping and pillaging and texting pics of our dongs to innocent women.

So yeah whatever I'm sure the pics of male genatalia set her back 10 years on her path to nun-hood.

We're not talking about her boss or any criminal or legal claim of Sexual harassment.... We're talking about a jock goofing with a women who's major qualification for her job appears to be football groupy status, her body and appearances in playboy and maxim magazine as her resume.

What we're REALLY talking about is humorless tut tuting, Neo-prude PC say-the-politically-correct-thing-at-all-costs. Even at the cost of self respect, common sense, the truth or honesty.[/quote]Jesus Christ.

This isn't "a jock goofing off". This is a professional, paid athlete sending cock pictures and dirty messages to professional, independent contractors, a situation known in any work-related, professional setting as SEXUAL HARASSMENT for which YOU or I could fired.

Period. End of story.

NOBODY should have to put up with this type of "goofing off" on the job. How she dresses [U]at work[/U] is immaterial! What she sees in the locker room [U]at work[/U] is immaterial!

Neither is an invitation for you or Brett to send her pictures of your cocks or unwanted sexually-laced messages. This is basic professionalism-on-the-job stuff here. It's called How to Refrain from a Hostile Work Environment 101, stuff that any "cave man male" or otherwise intellectually-challenged twit would avoid if they want to keep their job and not be sued.

And bottom line, since you don't know this woman, you can't speak for her.

Try using "politically correct" in its proper context or don't use it all; it has no place here since you are obviously twisting its meaning out of all sense of definition or proportion.

[quote=44 70 chip;747460]So apparently in her universe "dong shots" were a commonplace occurrence... Seems a little far fetched to surmise that she had nothing at all to do with any of that. How many women do you know that receive multiple "dong shots" from different men, out of sheer coincidence? But we'll only ever know her side of the story.[/quote]The pictures and texts speak for themselves. She doesn't have to offer justification to you or anyone else about the evidence at hand. They are [I]prima facie[/I] inappropriate, unprofessional, and conducive to a hostile work environment that NO ONE should be forced to work in. Any Joe Blow on this board doing this stuff at work tomorrow would be fired on the spot, and any Joe Blow on this board defending it ("He was just goofing off, boss, gee whiz, don't be so PC!") the other Joe Blow doing it would be laughed and shamed out of the office.

Again, that's How to Refrain from a Hostile Work Environment 101 stuff that any dolt should know.

[quote=44 70 chip;747460]That I admit was a hazy recollection of some big study decades ago, and it might have been more about "men who have seriously contemplated cheating" than actual cheating.

I know there are polls that suggest less than half, but then you can find guys who think a BJ isn't cheating so I'm not sure how much stock to put in a poll that asks men if they have cheated before. Which also assume they are answering truthfully.[/quote]Ah, I see, it was a nonsense number you pulled out of thin air and mixed it with vague anecdotal and personal vapidity and such.

Cool.

[quote=44 70 chip;747460]Why do you need to stoop to insults? Don't have much else to bring to the discussion? Do you normally get that defensive when someone holds an opinion that you don't agree with? Why does my honesty threaten your sense of propriety so much?[/quote]I didn't insult you, I insulted your post, which was and is absurd. You not agreeing with me is the least of that post's problems, and I don't get defensive with people who are merely loudly wrong.

But you outdid yourself with the one to which I am responding now. So, carry on...

Re: Source: Brett Favre review on fast track
 

Someone being flirty isn't justification to text a pic of your junk to them