Trump guilty of sexual abuse and defamation

[Ag3ma]

You quote me being surprised that a number of posters seemed aghast that anyone thinks women have such fantasies and I don't think they should be.

I think what posters here are probably skeptical of is how women who have fantasies of rough sex can be interpreted.

Fantasies tends to exist within limits. When a woman reads a romance novel or imagines a sexual scenario where the hero throws the woman down and ravishes her, this exists with a load of controlled, safe context. For instance, that the reader knows the hero is ultimately a good guy and will come through for her for a happy ending, and/or the woman in this situation is actually interested (which can be a sort of meta-consent, in that the character may not consent, but the reader is aware that she wants it deep down) or it's generally going to turn out well for her.

But these contextual limits and safety do not exist in a real world situation. There is no certainty of a narrative happy ending and that the woman will not be allowed to truly suffer or feel pain. The man is not going to be known to be a good guy. Stripped of the safety of the fictional fantasy, it will almost certainly just be terrifying and humiliating for the victim.

A woman with such a fantasy could approximate it for fun - for instance roleplay or rough sex with a consenting partner. I guess there could be more risky behaviours such as seeking out and trying to induce much less safe partners into aggressive sex - but if a gets what she wanted, it's sort of consensual. Or, more prosaically, the fantasy of being ravished is just that, and the woman never has any inclination to experiment with it in real life. There potentially are a few women out there who might genuinely be turned on by completely involuntary assault. Does anyone here believe there are more than a handful of such people, and and that they wouldn't likely have significant psychological problems?

This, then, is the problem with thinking women have fantasies about being sexually assaulted. They might well do, and maybe most of them have at least one "rape fantasy" at some point in their lives. But even if so, they almost certainly do not ever want men they meet to be highly aggressive or sexually assault them in real life, because real life isn't a fantasy.

 

[Silvanus]

1&2) Again, which is why I warn men, don't do it. You are unwilling to apply enough of a demand for agency in women to say a simple, one syllable word, "rape" in such a case.

I'm unwilling to consider it a requirement. "Affording women agency" to do something, and "assuming all women can comfortably do it in the situation", are not the same thing. Stop trying to shift the latter onto the former.

As I said before: when I was surrounded by 5 or 6 people threatening me in the carpark, I didn't shout for help. I laughed nervously. Because I was scared and in shock. Are you going to stand there and say that because i failed to have the presence of mind to call for help in that situation, i can therefore be assumed to be fine with assault?

People don't always respond to shocking situations in calm, rational ways. Have some damn compassion.

Question: If a women actually does want rough, aggressive sex from a man, but decides after the fact to call it rape, how would you know she was doing this? How would you know she isn't telling the truth?

If someone actually wants to act out the fantasy of being attacked, I.e. "consensual non-consensual", I'd hope there would be some kind of digital communication between the two of them. I wouldn't get involved in that unless I had a message from them specifically to that effect.

4) I don't think it is "some". I think it is a lot given how common the theme is in fiction directed at women. I concede that no man should assume a woman they are with shares this fantasy.

So how can you act as if its unreasonable for other forumites to assume what your fantasies are, and then write this? Can you not see you're doing exactly the same thing you're shaking your head at others doing to you?

 

[Terminal Blue]

We also reviewed the question: do people fantasize but in reality, do not want those fantasies realized. I would state often, one would love a fantasy to become reality.

Again, the issue here is not whether these fantasies exist or even whether the people having them would like them to be realized, but whether you are accurately understanding what the actual fantasies in this case are and what realizing them would actually mean.

Because you seem to be under the assumption that being forced to do things for someone else's enjoyment, or even being violently pressured into doing things you don't want to do, is the same thing as giving up some situational control to someone who will use that control to do the things you want while you get to lie around being the pillowiest princess on the planet. To anyone who has ever bottomed in sex or even thought much about it, the difference is very obvious.

 

[Absent]

E Jean Carroll considering suing Trump for his remarks during CNN town hall

The disparaging comments came just a day after the ex-president was found liable for sexually abusing the writer

www.theguardian.com

oh this would be funny

 

[Buyetyen]

I regret reading this thread, so I'm going to leave this video without comment beyond make sure the subtitles are on.

 

[Kwak]

The existence of preferences for aggressive sex or consensual non-consent sex in no way is an argument that maybe women actually don't mind sexual assault sometimes.
These scenarios are talked about before hand, with someone they trust, and clear boundaries and signs to communicate immediately stopping the scene if something arises.
If you can't comprehend that and want to use it as evidence against women you're a sad baby man, if not an actual danger to women and potential rapist.

 

[BrawlMan]

Anyone making excuses or victim blaming people that are sexually abused, assaulted, or rape is automatically on my shit list. End of discussion. I'm not surprised by the usual suspects. As for gorfias, I'm really disappointed, but not even shocked. You keep relapsing into defending Trump, or trying to make excuses for him and his cronies. Then victim blame whoever, villainize people for doing the right fucking thing, or pull a dumb "both sides" bullshit! Defend him all you want, he doesn't give a shit about you, nor anyone but himself! If given the option to sacrifice half the US nation to live a 100 years, he would. Don't matter what your race, religion, or political party is. Do not bother responding back; I will hear none of it. Unless it's how much of a human shit bag Trump is, I do not want fucking hear it.

 

[tstorm823]

I wished E Jean Carroll found peace of mind from the verdict, not the jury.

Yes. You did that, because in your heart this thread is "neener neener neener, Trump got in trouble, let's all have a laugh", but you think too much of yourself to actually say what you're thinking, and instead are putting up this facade of concern for the victim.

Are you calling her and other witnesses liars? If so, what is your justification for doing so?

Not exactly, unless you count the lawyers. The trial was only possible because last year they changed the law in New York to allow a case like this outside the statute of limitations, which Carroll's lawyer claims part of the credit for inspiring that law with this specific case. If to get this in front of a jury, they got New York to create a law change for rape accusations to get through, and then didn't make a rape claim, it would look pretty darn stupid. I suspect the lawyers encouraged that accusation, and I think left to her own devises, E Jean would have only pressed the successful charges of assault and defamation.

If someone has experienced a trauma, and then a load of people call them a liar and that the trauma never happened (distressing), and it ends up in a trial about whether they are a liar and the event occurred (again distressing), "clear my name" has a great deal more emotional baggage than you want to pretend. Which you could be expected to know, if you thought for the slightest moment about the small mountain of information available on victims' perceptions of reporting crimes and going to trial.

This is circular logic. "If she was traumatized, then she was traumatized, so obviously she was traumatized" he says of the person who claims to never have viewed herself as a victim.

Because there may not be sufficient evidence to find him criminally liable for rape.

This wasn't a criminal case. Their ruling directly indicates "rape probably didn't happen" in this case. Not that it was unproven, but that it was unlikely.

 

[tstorm823]

Unless it's how much of a human shit bag Trump is, I do not want fucking hear it.

This is honesty right here. Everyone arguing with me can take a lesson from BrawlMan.

 

[Ag3ma]

Yes. You did that, because in your heart this thread is "neener neener neener, Trump got in trouble, let's all have a laugh", but you think too much of yourself to actually say what you're thinking, and instead are putting up this facade of concern for the victim.

I have asked you before not to project your disinterest in sexual assault victims onto me. Forum rules preclude me from saying precisely what I think of you upon reading that.

I have a certain degree of pastoral care over potentially vulnerable young adults. About two a year come to me explaining how they are struggling in the aftermath of a sexual assault, and it is part of my job to listen to and help them, refer them to specialised support services, etc. So with the greatest respect, you can fuck right off when you tell me I don't have compassion for victims, with you sitting in what I presume is a privileged position of a nice, comfortable, safe remove from having to face real human beings who have been assaulted.

 

[Chimpzy]

But wait, there's more

E. Jean Carroll May Sue Trump a Third Time After ‘Vile’ Comments on CNN

In an interview, her lawyer said that the former president’s mocking comments in a town hall broadcast could create fresh legal jeopardy.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Schadrach]

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.

The same kind of blinkered, judgemental attitude that has hampered investigation into sexual assault for decades.

Short of substantial hard physical evidence that the accused was somewhere sufficiently far away that he could not have even hypothetically committed the crime, even given the possibility that the time or location was "misremembered", what would you consider an acceptable defense? What would you consider an "incorrect" way for a victim to act or a sign that an accusation might not be genuine?

Not exactly, unless you count the lawyers. The trial was only possible because last year they changed the law in New York to allow a case like this outside the statute of limitations

Surprised that's legal. Generally the law that applied at the time the conduct occurred is the law that applies. There was even a SCOTUS case where a CA law removing the statute of limitations from child sexual abuse was used to revive a case that would have been outside statute of limitations when it occurred. Basically the guy was accused of sexually abusing his daughters in the 50s-70s, in 93 they changed the statute of limitations and in 98 charged him. Case went all the way to SCOTUS and fell in his favor as an ex post facto law.

Maybe it's only permissible because it's a civil case rather than criminal?

 

[Silvanus]

Short of substantial hard physical evidence that the accused was somewhere sufficiently far away that he could not have even hypothetically committed the crime, even given the possibility that the time or location was "misremembered", what would you consider an acceptable defense?

Corroborated alibis; evidence (either digital communications or testimony) of consent; a lack of positive evidence that the interaction occurred at all.

What would you consider an "incorrect" way for a victim to act

There isn't one.

or a sign that an accusation might not be genuine?

As in, negative evidence, rather than just the absence of positive evidence?

Uhrm, things like a track record of past false accusations, I suppose. But actual negative evidence is extremely rare in cases like these.

 

[tstorm823]

So with the greatest respect, you can fuck right off when you tell me I don't have compassion for victims.

That's not at all what I said. We're not talking about "victims", we're talking about E Jean Carroll, a person whose words I'm listening to, and who you are treating as whatever she needs to be to get at Trump. If you take these things so personally and so seriously, why are you setting the actual person aside?

 

[Silvanus]

That's not at all what I said. We're not talking about "victims", we're talking about E Jean Carroll, a person whose words I'm listening to, and who you are treating as whatever she needs to be to get at Trump. If you take these things so personally and so seriously, why are you setting the actual person aside?

Tstorm, you have a tendency to say things to people on this forum that have extremely negative (not to mention presumptuous) aspersions about their personal character, motives, and thought processes-- and then subsequently to act as though those aspersions don't exist or as though the people are acting irrational for objecting.

It is not strange or misplaced for someone to take a statement personally when that statement is directly making accusations about them personally.

 

[tstorm823]

Tstorm, you have a tendency to say things to people on this forum that have extremely negative (not to mention presumptuous) aspersions about their personal character, motives, and thought processes-- and then subsequently to act as though those aspersions don't exist or as though the people are acting irrational for objecting.

It is not strange or misplaced for someone to take a statement personally when that statement is directly making accusations about them personally.

I was not referring to taking my comments personally, I was talking about taking Carroll's case personally.

 

[BrawlMan]

This is honesty right here. Everyone arguing with me can take a lesson from BrawlMan.

Don't ever put me in the same category as you. Didn't need it; didn't ask for it. You and gorfias are the only ones dishonest here.

I was not referring to taking my comments personally, I was talking about taking Carroll's case personally.

Look at that, another goal post and projection.

 

[meiam]

But wait, there's more

E. Jean Carroll May Sue Trump a Third Time After ‘Vile’ Comments on CNN

In an interview, her lawyer said that the former president’s mocking comments in a town hall broadcast could create fresh legal jeopardy.

www.nytimes.com

I though there was usually some clause in this kinda of lawsuits along the line of "the person found guilty can't just claim they aren't guilty or insult the victim" or some such.

 

[Chimpzy]

I though there was usually some clause in this kinda of lawsuits along the line of "the person found guilty can't just claim they aren't guilty or insult the victim" or some such.

Don't know, but if there were, you'd think Trump would hold to it and shut up?

 

[BrawlMan]

Don't know, but if there were, you'd think Trump would hold to it and shut up?

An egotistical and narcissistic biatch never knows when to shut up. He wants to keep screwing himself over? Trump can go right ahead.