Home
Creators
Search Recent Missing Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register Favorites Keys Review DMs Logout
Community
Telegram ThePornDude
Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

Tommy Teepell Gets Publicly Owned, and the Worst Cornell 7 Take Yet (Patreon)

Published:
2026-10-21 08:48:37
Imported:
2026-10

Downloads

Content

VR48 - Today on Vapid Response Wednesday: the extremely believable backstory of some guy named Tommy who got publicly owned by Michigan Democratic Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed, and the single worst take on the Cornell 7 case from within the Ivy League.

Finally, we take our minds far, far away from Cornell to enjoy a galactically bad 1983 take on the most beloved film series in world history from one of America's crankiest critics.

Cases and sources discussed:

Michigan Democratic Senate candidate Abdul Al-Syed answers a question posed by Tommy Teeple at a town hall in Caro, Michigan (Oct. 17, 2026)

“The Cornell 7 Is Really About Liberalism,” The Sundial (Oct 13, 2026)

Condemnation of The Sundial’s publication of “The Cornell 7 Is Really About Liberalism” from the editorial board of the Columbia Political Review,

“Now It’s Really About Liberalism,” The Sundial, Shoshana Aufzien (10/18/2026)

“Star Wars Nightline Discussion,” ABC News (1983)

Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!

Files

Comments

beebah in boston

Oh, boy! I hope it's the Poe Museum in Richmond VA. They have a great black cat in reaidence

Gmork

No. But Matt recommending which party drugs to do? *That's* legal advice.

Gmork

Reminds me of Rush Limbaugh's horrific diatribe about being expected to get consent for *every* sexual encounter: "If there is consent on both or all three or all four, however many are involved in the sex act, it's perfectly fine. Whatever it is. But if the left ever senses and smells that there's no consent in part of the equation, then here come the rape police. But consent is the magic key to the left."

Matt Cameron

this is the first rush Limbaugh quote I have ever 100 percent agreed with

Matt Cameron

Literally yes, proceeding with the consent of others is the key to pretty much every part of living an ethical life

Weyoun 13

Matt "Dr Gonzo" Cameron. ("As your attorney, I advise you to rent a very fast car with no top. And you'll need the cocaine...")

Weyoun 13

There’s plenty wrong with the Sundial article but I do see some infantilization of women in the discourse about the Cornell case. I do see social media posts in which people claim that inebriated young women are categorically incapable of consenting to sex whereas equally inebriated young men can consent, which I find insulting as a woman. I think most adults, regardless of gender, can probably consent after one or two drinks but not after everything Jane Doe had. I don’t know at what specific point that line is crossed or at what point(s), if any, a couple of the Cornell men may also have been past that threshold. That doesn't mean Jane Doe wasn't the victim. I just wish discussions of the case were more nuanced. So I appreciate Thomas's point about the importance of addressing some of the nuances. Disparagement of age gap relationships often feels like an example of infantilization too. Not sure how I resisted getting on this soapbox last week, but here I go: I had a long and loving relationship with a man who is 23 years older than me, which is the same gap that David Brooks and Anne Snyder have. I don’t think there’s anything inherently unethical about an age difference of that size (as long as both people are adults, obviously). The fact that she was his research assistant does raise a question - which is, did she feel pressured to date him in order to keep that job? - but the fact that they’re still together a decade later suggests she wasn't just putting up with him in order to stay employed. Anyway, I promise I don’t care about David Brooks, but I do care about men I know in real life who are impugned for dating younger women, and I do think the discourse around that topic is shaped by an oversimplistic view of power dynamics and an underappreciation of the agency of the women involved.

Gmork

If you really want to be grossed out, listen to the audio. He says it with such dripping disdain, as if it's some perverse strawman he's hanging around liberal necks. But take out the sarcasm, and it's 100% what I'd teach my nephews. Be safe, but aside from that, consent is the binary decider of whether your sexual activity is moral.

Matt Cameron

Too weird to live, too rare to die

Matt Cameron

Thank you for sharing this, I should have made more room for nuance on both of these points. I hope it was clear that I wasn't trying to draw any categorical lines here--although it sounds like we may never fully agree about the Brooks/Snyder thing-- but only that both hard drugs and that middle aged men drating teenagers are special factors which should invite much more care and caution from parties who are (respectively) sober and older. I guess to take it to a third example, I would never say that the exchange of sexual services for money is a consent issue unto itself but if the paying party is the chief of police and the sex worker is living out of her car it certainly does put the thumb on the scale as to how comfortable she will be denying or revoking consent. All three cases present a powerful exogenuous factor, but more than anything I think I just wanted to be sure that everyone understood that ketamine and alcohol are a really bad idea together and that for me the most disturbing thing of the whole story beyond the Snapchat screenshots was that these people were so intent on having her snort several lines of it. From my read of the complaint the first was voluntary and they got much more coercive after that, and I think people who haven't tried it should be aware of what it does to perception, memory, and sensation. (I meant to mention that it also dulls pain/, which would also diminish the body's natural ability to tell you that someone is being too roough or otherwise crossing the line into actual abuse.) a

Gmork

I respect your point, but I come from it from the opposite position as a gay man. I know guys who've been sexually assaulted after having a few drinks or drugs. Are there situations in which both parties are inebriated and one or both (or more) later regret it? Sure, even if no one thinks they're taking advantage. But I'm not "infanilizing" those men to say that the moral position is to err on the side of backing off if you think the other person (regardless of gender) lacks the capacity to consent.

Gmork

I am literally angry with rage that I didn't make that connection. Cheers. Well done.

Weyoun 13

That's fair, I'm saying it's infantilizing towards women specifically when a different standard is applied based on gender, which is not what you're doing. Agreed that erring on the side of caution is best.

Kate Jay

Yes exactly. The worst that could happen if you wait a few hours is you lose the moment. That person still exists, there can be another moment. It's not infantilizing to say "Another time maybe, I'd prefer we were less inebriated". If you are the person with more control over the situation, whether that's because you're less drunk or more privileged, you get to consent too! You can have ethical standards or even just personal preferences for when to have sex. I know we're often talking about the young and the horny in these situations, but if they are reasonable adults they can understand why someone would prefer all participants to not be completely shitfaced while having sex. And if they're not reasonable adults, you probably shouldn't have sex with them at all.

Kate Jay

Guilty as charged. As a leftist, consent is literally the deciding factor between doing something immoral and depraved, and a wholesome fun time.

Kate Jay

A different standard can and should be applied in some situations, right?Supervisor/supervisee is one example; it's not infantilizing to expect a supervisee who super duper wants to bang their supervisor to understand why they can't do that. Gender could well be part of someone's ethical consideration, as could stuff like age, housing or immigration status, etc. It's possible to go overboard trying to think that through (I recall some extraordinarily stupid arguments floating around in the early 2000s, e.g. that all sex between men and women under patriarchy is men raping women). But for an individual just trying to do the right thing in a messed up world, erring on the side of caution in their own conduct isn't the same thing as stripping another individual of agency. If only college aged men did apply absurd, over-analytical standards about whether or not women are meaningfully consenting. Better to overcorrect than like "oh yeah women love when random douchebags wander in and fuck them"