Trump guilty of sexual abuse and defamation

[gorfias]

Numbering for clarify response

1) Do you genuinely fail to recognise the difference between "aggression and force" in a consensual encounter and rape? Or are you just being obtuse?




2) We're not talking about whether it's "beyond the pale". We're talking about whether it's required for something to be credibly considered rape. And it is categorically not. We know this from extensive testimony and research.



3) Uh-huh, except advanced age and a public personage actually make several of those adverse impacts worse, not better.



4) Ah, so you just outright deny that victims will respond with anything except vocal, assertive rejection. Back to the supposed "correct" way for a victim to act.

That's not how it works. We know that's not how it works. People respond with shock or denial sometimes, and they don't deserve prurient, judgemental commentators attempting to shame them for responding to trauma in the "incorrect" way. There is no correct way to act, and this is victim blaming.

1) I don't think passionate encounters always act out like an episode of Goofy Gophers. Sorry.

2) I concede civil and criminal cases have different burdens of proof and I am thinking criminal. I concede your point.
3) But not in her case. Trump becomes POTUS and if anything, she is emboldened. She is not, and was not, afraid of him and consequences. She was a powerful person herself to be reckoned with.
4) Maybe if we put this in stone, it will sink in with women, for the better protection of BOTH of them. Let's say the facts are as she alleges. Do you think Trump would have continued had she uttered the word "rape"? He'd have backed off, maybe fleeing in terror. And she wouldn't have been "raped" and he wouldn't be going through all of this. I think this mandate would empower women. Instead, you have women like this one, if she is to be believed, that was raped. With others in earshot who could have helped. And she didn't, leaving us to have to try to piece all of this out and make judgements that may be (and I think are) very wrong.

 

[Cheetodust]

Okay. A rape apologist. Just what this forum lacked.

I would point out some of his other beliefs on this topic but every time I do I get a warning. Which is weird because I say much worse to tstorm and Phoenixmgs and never get warnings. Gorfy must be particularly liberal with the report button.

 

[Absent]

Syllogism I didn't make up:
All sex is rape (I think a Feminist named McKinnon came up with that one)
women want sex
women want to be raped.
Stating that someone wants to be raped is an oxymoronic (and jerkish) statement. Rape is by definition sex that is not wanted.
But if you think there are no women out there with aggression and force fantasies that would enjoy sex like this in reality, you aren't paying attention.
I don't recommend it: it's dangerous. Woman says, "no" or even acts reluctantly, my advice is to handle her like plutonium. But I don't think we should be convicting men of such serious wrong doing when a complaint seems simply plausible rather than compelling, which I think is what happened in this case.

Besides the fact that you seem to fantasize a lot about other people's fantasies (which, mind you, usually come with a LOT of caveats), maybe mind the fact that your wordlview just allows every rape to be justified through denial and victim blaming. "Oh she secretely likes it, she was secretely happy, of course she'd deny it, it's part of her fantasy, see."

Plus it's eerily close to the other guy's theory about homophobic violence being what motivates homosexuality (risk is kinky, see). You can go a long way with "some people just love being beaten up, so who's to say it wasn't their case". There's a bit of a pattern there.

 

[gorfias]

Besides the fact that you seem to fantasize a lot about other people's fantasies (which, mind you, usually come with a LOT of caveats), maybe mind the fact that your wordlview just allows every rape to be justified through denial and victim blaming. "Oh she secretely likes it, she was secretely happy, of course she'd deny it, it's part of her fantasy, see."

Plus it's eerily close to the other guy's theory about homophobic violence being what motivates homosexuality (risk is kinky, see). You can go a long way with "some people just love being beaten up, so who's to say it wasn't their case". There's a bit of a pattern there.

That is a heck of a lot of polarizing language that isn't responsive at all to anything I'm writing.

There are rapists who enjoy being rapists. The whole point for such a person is to intentionally harm others. They're not telling themselves a woman likes it: they don't want her to like it.

And we are not talking about all sex but a particular one in which a woman claims Donald Trump raped her in a public place where no doubt there were attendants around.

We cannot know another's thoughts and must intuit them for all sorts of things by what we know externally: this woman was in a public place where she could have, but did not, make a peep. @Silvanus posits true and possible things as to why this might have happened and why this woman might have acted as she did but when we're talking about even a civil case, we need a lot more than possible. It has to be probable. The fact pattern in this case doesn't strike me as such.

I think this is a big part of why I do try to stay out of the political forums. Huge time sink in which we get distracted from the topic at hand. *face palm... being told what my fantasies are!*

 

[Silvanus]

Numbering for clarify response

1) I don't think passionate encounters always act out like an episode of Goofy Gophers. Sorry.

Stop trying to blur the line. You very explicitly said women enjoy men "forcibly taking sex". That's not ambiguous, or a description of something consensual but passionate. That's men forcing women.

3) But not in her case. Trump becomes POTUS and if anything, she is emboldened. She is not, and was not, afraid of him and consequences. She was a powerful person herself to be reckoned with.

Whatever minor power she had, it was nothing in comparison with an exceptionally rich and influential businessman who has a track record of intimidating and abusing those close to him. She felt able to come forward years later, when he had more power still.... but also when there was increased scrutiny of his actions, and after others had also come forward, so there was more chance of the accusation being taken seriously.

Do you think Trump would have continued had she uttered the word "rape"?

Yes. I believe that Trump is so monumentally self-absorbed and arrogant that even if she used the word "rape", and he heard her, he would still have convinced himself that what he was doing was fine, and that she was overreacting, and that therefore he can continue. Such is the degree to which he believes his own opinion on every matter is inarguable and more important than anyone else's.

*face palm... being told what my fantasies are!*

OK, but bud, you cannot really complain about that when it's exactly what you're doing to women in general.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

This is why I don't understand why literally any of you even bother talking to TStorm.

It's like playing one-on-one soccer with the local six-year-old brat. It's an easy score and super-funny when the ball hits him in the face.

 

[Absent]

There are rapists who enjoy being rapists. The whole point for such a person is to intentionally harm others. They're not telling themselves a woman likes it: they don't want her to like it.

So what ? There's many more rapists who imagine that the woman is secretly willing, or that she's change her mind during the rape. A fantasy largely nourished by your discourse. Are you implying that these are not rapists and this is not rape ?

Also the body is complicated, and, while most often a rape is simply physically devastating and painful, sometimes pleasure gets mixed in it, which usually makes the event all the more traumatic, damaging and hard to overcome. If you get forcefully sodomized by a stranger and happen to orgasm, you won't call it a rape ?

Also don't whine about being attributed fantasies, it's the whole basis of your discourse.

 

[tstorm823]

That's exactly what you're doing here, in the form of supplying damage limitation and attacking anything and everything else.

The truth is not inflammatory enough to satiate you're hatred, that's that's happening here.

What this tells me is that you think there's a 'correct' way for a victim to act, and an incorrect way. And that if someone doesn't exhibit the approved behaviours their allegations can be ignored.

If that's what it tells you, open your ears better. You know, I'm sure, that the intentions of the alleged victim are the determining factor in something being rape. The word is consent. If consent isn't a point that matters, there is no more justice for rape. All that's left is prosecuting whoever you want to be punished and letting the people you like do whatever they want.

So yes, if the words of the accuser indicate she actively agreed to be watched stripping down, that says something meaningful about whether a rape occurred. The jury who ruled there wasn't a rape probably agree with that assessment.

 

[tstorm823]

At least engaging has him use his time here instead on the Zany places that worsen his zaniness.

I am a true original, my friend. I ain't borrowing any zaniness from anywhere else.

Except maybe SVU. I did not need the internet to tell me about the SVU connection here, I just really like that show and recognized the story immediately when she came forward.

I would point out some of his other beliefs on this topic but every time I do I get a warning. Which is weird because I say much worse to tstorm and Phoenixmgs and never get warnings. Gorfy must be particularly liberal with the report button.

I report spam and nothing else, and I only get warnings when I actively tell someone I'm trying to insult them, so I feel like the overwhelming majority here are pretty conservative with the report button.

It's like playing one-on-one soccer with the local six-year-old brat. It's an easy score and super-funny when the ball hits him in the face.

You like to assault children?

 

[Absent]

I am a true original, my friend.

You're kidding ? You're a textbook narcissist with self-aggrandizing fantasies. The least original dysfunctional syndrome that can be found on internet forums. With a standard, carbon copy, bible belt worldview. There's absolutely nothing original about you. You're just a minority, both ideologically and in terms of personality disorder, but it doesn't make you "special" one bit. You're just one more standard trumpian "stable genius".

The original ones are those who waste their time "debating" with you.

 

[Trunkage]

I've done training in Child Protection, i.e. helping 4 year olds themsleves being targets of rape. One of the best things you can do is make sure they know the words vagina and penis. If the child says something like, 'You're hurting my vagina' is one of the greatest ways to stop a rape

Because, generally, a rape is centered around the person loving their victim. They make up flowery language to show their love (think of your average love poem or even porn poem.) Using the words like vagina and penis stop this flowery dreamlike fantasy and help attackers reverse course

This is for premeditated attacks, not spontaneous ones. The latter can be more like what gorfias is talking about. And those are rare and the rates of female and male victims are far closer to each other (like 60/40 compared to a premeditated attacks with are more like 90/10)

 

[tstorm823]

With a standard, carbon copy, bible belt worldview.

This is the deficiency in all of your responses to me: you take as a prior assumption that everything I'm saying fits the specific arguments that you want to argue against. You see me as a cookie cutter Christian conservative before you even read the first word of my responses, and then regurgitate whatever canned response you have ready for that cookie cutter conservative. I believe I've got you twice on record in other threads responding to somebody else to say "well, there actually is something to what tstorm is saying, if it wasn't him saying it." If ever you stopped yourself from trying to box me in, you might have the dignity to agree with me where you agree, and maybe stand to actually properly clarify your disagreement, rather than me having to repeat "that's not what I said, you're not actually disagreeing with me" ad nauseum.

 

[Silvanus]

If that's what it tells you, open your ears better. You know, I'm sure, that the intentions of the alleged victim are the determining factor in something being rape. The word is consent. If consent isn't a point that matters, there is no more justice for rape. All that's left is prosecuting whoever you want to be punished and letting the people you like do whatever they want.

Obviously consent is what is definitive. But you don't want to determine consent by what the victim literally tells you they wanted or didn't want. You want to infer it from a bunch of unrelated behaviours you have weird judgemental attitudes towards.

So yes, if the words of the accuser indicate she actively agreed to be watched stripping down, that says something meaningful about whether a rape occurred.

If I agreed someone can come over to pick up a spare chair I'm freecycling, and the guy forcibly took my television instead, I'm sure there would be a few dense people insisting that I have no grounds to complain 'cos I said he could have the chair. But no.

The jury who ruled there wasn't a rape probably agree with that assessment.

The jury who ruled there was sexual assault, y'mean? I'm quite sure they'd agree that she didn't want him to do what he did.

 

[tstorm823]

If I agreed someone can come over to pick up a spare chair I'm freecycling, and the guy forcibly took my television instead, I'm sure there would be a few dense people insisting that I have no grounds to complain 'cos I said he could have the chair. But no.

The jury who ruled there was sexual assault, y'mean? I'm quite sure they'd agree that she didn't want him to do what he did.

Yes, correct.

 

[Terminal Blue]

You know, I'm sure, that the intentions of the alleged victim are the determining factor in something being rape.

This is not actually true.

Rape is not determined by the mere presence or absence of consent. If the victim says that they didn't consent that can be assumed to be true. Rape is determined by whether the attacker possessed a reasonable belief in the presence of consent. It is the attacker's state of mind, not the victim's, that is relevant to determining their guilt.

This does not require them to be consciously aware that what they did was non-consensual, but it does require that they made some kind of unreasonable error in judgement.

So yes, if the words of the accuser indicate she actively agreed to be watched stripping down, that says something meaningful about whether a rape occurred.

No, it doesn't. Consent is act-specific.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

So yes, if the words of the accuser indicate she actively agreed to be watched stripping down, that says something meaningful about whether a rape occurred.

So it's open season on strippers then. I mean, since they strip down, they must want men to sexually assault them.

You know what? I apologize for calling you a clown. That was a dire insult to actual clowns. You're just sick.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

That is a heck of a lot of polarizing language that isn't responsive at all to anything I'm writing.

There are rapists who enjoy being rapists. The whole point for such a person is to intentionally harm others. They're not telling themselves a woman likes it: they don't want her to like it.

And we are not talking about all sex but a particular one in which a woman claims Donald Trump raped her in a public place where no doubt there were attendants around.

We cannot know another's thoughts and must intuit them for all sorts of things by what we know externally: this woman was in a public place where she could have, but did not, make a peep. @Silvanus posits true and possible things as to why this might have happened and why this woman might have acted as she did but when we're talking about even a civil case, we need a lot more than possible. It has to be probable. The fact pattern in this case doesn't strike me as such.

I think this is a big part of why I do try to stay out of the political forums. Huge time sink in which we get distracted from the topic at hand. *face palm... being told what my fantasies are!*

You watch way too much anime to seriously use "what you're attracted to in fantasy is what you're attracted to in real life" as an argument

 

[Gordon_4]

Well, the discourse on this turned predictably rancid and useless pretty quickly.

 

[tstorm823]

So it's open season on strippers then. I mean, since they strip down, they must want men to sexually assault them.

Do you have any explanation as to why a jury would not find him equally liable for rape?

 

[Cicada 5]

@ 8:30 or so, she tells Anderson Cooper that her response to the "assault" was to laugh and make no objections. She is 6'1".


Giving her the benefit of the doubt and believe this happened, I don't think she even knows to this day how she feels about it. Which means you may have a case of regret after the fact.

You all expressed surprise @tstorm823 's positing that she may have wanted to be "ravished".

Does anyone on this forum actually doubt that a large majority of women, particularly those who enjoy bodice ripping romance novels, fantasize about rough sex from sexually aggressive men?

Do you doubt this 6'1" woman couldn't have kicked the living shit out of Donald, dragged him into the middle of the store and screamed, "this lout assaulted me"? Could she have, IDK, said something? Instead, this woman in her 50s had, she alleges, sex with a real estate tycoon in a public space that no doubt had plenty of attendants within ear shot. And now she has been awarded $5 million over the incident.

I think, if DT did this, he was very foolish to do so as he opened himself up to this type of expoitation. Smarter men like Henry Caville are simply staying away from women. He, and increasingly others, sees that we are outlawing nookie. Which, as an old man, I guess I shouldn't care. And the A.I. sexbots are coming.

Because all women who are 6'1" are secretly Amazon warriors who can fight off anyone who wants to rape them.

Cavill has been dating Natalie Viscuso since 2021.