I read this as an adult and thought it was fantastic. It has some very adult political themes.

So, I only watched part One. But this is wholly fair. And I understand what he is saying, and he makes some solid points. But, I think he is missing something.

Classy.

The whole series.

Is that the cover on the hardback copy?

That is just saying you want a new definition, because you want to include a wider variety of behaviors that you find socially unacceptable.

I had literally every book in this series. I was such a reader.

I liked stories about little girls with gumption! And I still do.

Man, I was into dragons before dragons were even cool. ;)

intentions are irrelevant. If you run someone over with your car and they die, but it was an accident, you've still murdered someone.

Did I say it was a totally cool thing to do? No, I did not. Because it is not. See: history. And one should probably be aware that it is going to piss some people [judgey strangers] off.

You know that when everyone gets their panties all in a twist and starts throwing out the word 'racism' over people doing something that isn't 'culturally sensitive,' but involves zero malice or ill-will, you take all the power out of the word, right?

Perhaps Ms. Beck and Gawker's Mr. Zimmerman, Mr. Reddit re-post himself, blew their deadline by getting drunk and this seemed apropos?

— a location made famous nationwide for being showcased on MTV's Jersey Shore —

First, that was edited in after my comment.

I think that is very prudent advice. But it is a strong person that turns down an awake, conscious, yet drunk person. Especially when they are intoxicated themselves.

You're missing my point. Let me make it more clearly. People who are "legally drunk," as Dr. Phil has defined that term, DO have the capacity to give consent. He is 100% incorrect. Moreover, being drunk, unless it was involuntary, is not a defense to civil or criminal claims in court.

I just went and watched all the video's on Dr. Phil's website, and here is my main takeaway: I see a huge flaw in some of his logic, and I see some others around here making nearly the same argument, so I'll address it.

And right here, my friends, is a Democratic voter. Take note.

Well, in this case, if these boys are to be believed, the girl in question: (1) said yes, multiple times; (2) was awake; and (3) had sex that was not the result of force or fear with the boys in question.