@Graizur: Because a 16 year old boy chatting with older women (or men) would be thrown in jail for some reason? What exactly is your point (assuming you have one)?

@DahlELama: You've promoted me in the past on gawker, so favor returned.

Great article, Katie. Good thing none of the guys you met online were lacrosse players.

I've seen Paul Rudd twice — once at a casino in Atlantic City, rocking a KC Chiefs jersey that went down below his knees (dude is tiny, and this is coming from a tiny man), and once at the table next to me at a Lower East Side restaurant, sitting with David Schwimmer.

@LefteeJaycee: Its ironic that you call "The Town" overrated in the very same sentence that you laud "The Departed."

Wait, two spaces after a period is incorrect? Everything I've ever known is a lie.

@Charmingbutalarminglydisarming: Because it's a Simpsons quote. I don't know what's in the kid's mind (nor do you), but in my experience people don't usually quote the Simpsons to make a serious point.

@Charmingbutalarminglydisarming: I didn't say it was a funny joke. The point is, others seem to think that he was seriously ranting about stopping women from taking over the world, and that's probably not the case.

@Uncommon_Whore: I should say paraphrasing the Simpsons - the joke was about kids taking over the world, not women — and in the context of the show it was funny. Point is, the kid is a douche, but I don't think he was being serious about "women taking over the world" — he was reacting to the controversy by joking…

From the Simpsons, season 15, episode "The Wandering Juvie":

@Uncommon_Whore: He was quoting the Simpsons. Methinks he wasn't being serious.

@ReggieDunlop: If you like food, "Medium Raw" by Anthony Bourdain. Reading his orgasmic, intentionally food-porny descriptions of some of the greatest dishes he's had across the world made my stomach try to eat itself.

@gulag: In his defense, the original hack recognized that it was not his best work and apologized to Selva for giving him such shoddy work to steal.

@they call me ginger: I think you're overstating the severity of the law, at least in some states. According to the California statute, posted elsewhere in this thread, it is only rape if (i) the woman is so drunk that she is incapable of resisting, and (ii) the man is aware, or reasonably should be aware, of this…

@Ismone: And awareness of lack of consent is not an element. You can't win the hypothetical by changing the law.

@mechanizedmeghan: Well, it really depends on how drunk the muggee was, how many times he had been mugged before, whether he was "asking for it" by walking in a particular area, and what he was wearing. But point taken.

@mechanizedmeghan: Sorry, I focused on your first sentence and missed the remainder. My bad. I don't think the mugging analogy is on point, though — obviously there is no issue of consent in a mugging, and it is equally obvious that a drunk person can be raped by force, etc. You have to acknowledge that the issues…

@mechanizedmeghan: He was talking about voluntary drunkenness on the part of the alleged victim as it relates to consent, you're talking about drunkenness of the accused as it relates to intent to commit the crime. Totally different issues.

@Ismone: I'll take this point by point.

@Ismone: Voluntary intoxication is not a defense ever—in other words, the question isn't what can the alleged perpetrator (of any crime) have perceived intoxicated, it is what mental state would he or she have had undertaking those actions if sober.