Again, you are assuming they actually do their job, that just isn't the case, especially when someone powerful is involved, and they definitely don't give a shit about marginalised communities other than for the purpose of heading there when they need to meet infraction quotas, or when they feel like bullying people which they do all the time, it's even happened to me.
It's just what the government pretends happens even though the evidence itself points towards the opposite, hell if they did their jobs how can you explain this, which BTW contrary to what the Wikipedia page states it's actually up for debate as to when it stopped with different sources claiming different years some 2005 some say 2012, and there are articles saying that there's been 8 this year, most of my sources are in Spanish but I'll post them anyway, in any case like I said the current system simply doesn't work, it doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt because it's been operating since 1911 and if in over a century they are still this bad they simply aren't doing their job.
Some sources are also recent while others are decades old.
Cientos de mujeres han sido violadas y asesinadas en esta ciudad de México desde hace más de veinte años, pero aún no se sabe quiénes son los culpables.
www.muyinteresante.es
There have been 6 different documentaries about it too, but none of them seem to have been translated to English even in subtitled form, they're also really old with the newest being from 2008, since it has been so heavily reported that people don't really care anymore, and if they don't put in the effort to solve something this high profile I'm sure you can imagine how everything else is handled.
In any case, I don't live in the USA so I can't in earnest judge how it's like there, but I know it's a neoliberal capitalist regime not all that ideologically different from us, so if you wish to discard my opinion on it because of that, that's fair but I assure the system here in México just doesn't work, that's a fact.
Yes, it was something along those lines, while sure it may be stupid, assuming that things happened in the way she says they did he would've still gone against her wishes and forced her to commit a sexual act that she didn't want to, which is pretty bad and as such I'll abstain from making a judgement either way, given the facts we have available I don't think we can ever achieve objective truth in this case, as I find it hard to think of evidence that could come up that proves the testimony of either of them.
In any case I don't think the intelligence of the alleged victim is relevant to the discussion.
I don't think we'll get objective truth here but it's a weird situation and I felt like pointing out the weirdness in her claims because she was not on contraceptives but she was fine having unprotected sex as long as he pulled out......... it just seems weird to me that somehow she thought only him blowing his load in her was a risk not the fact sperm would be getting released even before he fired his load fully.
"He said he didn't have any [condoms], so I said we can only continue if you pull out, because I don't take birth control. When the time came, I was on top of him, he was saying that he was about to, and I was like ok I'm getting off, and he held me down physically, so that I could not get off of him. I smacked him and said 'no, stop!'."
This is something all women are taught not to do. Even in group sex ed in my high school, the girls were told that pulling out doesn't guarantee anything and you can't trust that the man, even if they have no ill intentions whatsoever, will pull out during the heat of sex. This isn't a case of a guy coercing her into this, she's the one that suggested they do it without protection. Both parties in this were acting foolish, but the unprotected sex was consensual. It's her fault for suggesting they have unprotected sex and it's his fault for agreeing to it.
Apparently pictures show Justin Bieber out and about with friends on the night / evening he's accused of sexually assaulting a girl.
Additionally she accused him of taking her back to the 4 seasons hotel.
Justin Bieber wasn't staying at the 4 season. The only time he was there was at the restaurant for a meal reservation he had which allegedly got reported and spread round social media about him being at that hotel.
I don't think we'll get objective truth here but it's a weird situation and I felt like pointing out the weirdness in her claims because she was not on contraceptives but she was fine having unprotected sex as long as he pulled out......... it just seems weird to me that somehow she thought only him blowing his load in her was a risk not the fact sperm would be getting released even before he fired his load fully.
"He said he didn't have any [condoms], so I said we can only continue if you pull out, because I don't take birth control. When the time came, I was on top of him, he was saying that he was about to, and I was like ok I'm getting off, and he held me down physically, so that I could not get off of him. I smacked him and said 'no, stop!'."
This is something all women are taught not to do. Even in group sex ed in my high school, the girls were told that pulling out doesn't guarantee anything and you can't trust that the man, even if they have no ill intentions whatsoever, will pull out during the heat of sex. This isn't a case of a guy coercing her into this, she's the one that suggested they do it without protection. Both parties in this were acting foolish, but the unprotected sex was consensual. It's her fault for suggesting they have unprotected sex and it's his fault for agreeing to it.
Since both points are fairly similar I will address them together, what matters in the context of this being a rape allegation is if he forced her into a sexual act she didn't want to engage in, according to her testimony he did, both of them may have been foolish but at the end of the day if someone agrees to have sex that doesn't mean they are giving you permission to engage in any kind of sexual activity, if they put limits on what is OK to engage with it should be respected to do the contrary is harassment, it's the reason why people that are into S&M have safe words, because if when those boundaries are over-stepped that is harassment.
In other words, no means no, so assuming things happened in the manner that she describes Syndicate should would've willingly overstepped her boundaries and therefore become a harasser, it's that simple, again I'm not saying he is guilty, but let's not try to minimise the issue, it's not OK to do these kinds of things claiming this kind of behaviour isn't harassment isn't helpful.
Since both points are fairly similar I will address them together, what matters in the context of this being a rape allegation is if he forced her into a sexual act she didn't want to engage in, according to her testimony he did,
Rape: Unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against a person's will or with a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent because of mental illness, mental deficiency, intoxication, unconsciousness, or deception
The sexual intercourse was not done forcibly, under threat of injury or against her will, she was not underage or incapable of valid consent. This was not rape.
No. I refuse to accept that rape can be anything you want it to be and I refuse to accept your belief that women are weak, stupid and incapable of being responsible for themselves. These were two consenting adults that agreed to do something irresponsible and stupid despite BEING TAUGHT that pulling out is no guarantee and that when engaged in sex, even consensual sex, men will be under the influence of adrenaline and may not pull out in time or at all.
Rape: Unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against a person's will or with a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent because of mental illness, mental deficiency, intoxication, unconsciousness, or deception
The sexual intercourse was not done forcibly, under threat of injury or against her will, she was not underage or incapable of valid consent. This was not rape.
No. I refuse to accept that rape can be anything you want it to be and I refuse to accept your belief that women are weak, stupid and incapable of being responsible for themselves. These were two consenting adults that agreed to do something irresponsible and stupid despite BEING TAUGHT that pulling out is no guarantee and that when engaged in sex, even consensual sex, men will be under the influence of adrenaline and may not pull out in time or at all.
You are refuting quite a few things I never even said or implied, but whatever let's address them.
If you wish pedantic about it, the definition (Without citation) that you listed clearly states that sexual intercourse carried out forcibly, in any case her testimony was that when it was time to comply with the limitations they both agreed on he restrained her and forced himself onto her, therefore fitting your own definition even if it started out as consensual sexual intercourse.
Refusing to accept facts, doesn't change them, doesn't matter if you throw a temper tantrum, second I don't believe women are weak, I have made no statements at all regarding women's capabilities, I don't know where you got that from, I've even mentioned how I've experienced sexual abuse and clarified that I'm male, which is why it concerns me that people are trying to diminish the gravity of the issue and why I've stated that I'm biased, I'm biased to side with the victims because I've been there too and it sucks, and I'd honestly rather not go into detail, which if you've noticed I've avoided doing in all my posts because I'm not particularly comfortable talking about this, which by the way I have managed to keep to myself despite some distasteful comments that have been made.
And I believe I've already addressed your last point in the first paragraph.
The fact that the pull out method is a relatively ineffective form of contraception has absolutely no bearing on anything (although using the method is still far, far less risky than not doing so). Shockingly, your opinion of whether or not someone is foolish has no impact on their legal rights regarding consent. People can make bad decisions, but that doesn't mean you're allowed to rape them.
Regardless, if you are having sex with someone and they try to get off you, and your response is to physically restrain them. If someone tells you clearly and unambiguously to stop and slaps you and you choose to continue regardless, that is rape. Both cases clearly meet the legal definition of rape, they are deliberate violations of someone's ability to consent. I would also point out that consent typically applies on a per act basis. If someone has made clear they do not want you to ejaculate inside them, then you cannot knowingly and deliberately do that even if you are already having consensual sex. If you do it by accident, that is different, but the second you know that someone does not want to do something and you deliberately engineer a situation where they have no choice, particularly if you are physically restraining or coercing them, then you have clearly crossed the legal line. Rape, in legal terms, is based on the perpetrator's willingness to ignore the victim's consent.
I refuse to accept that rape can be whatever you want it to be and I refuse to accept your belief that men are weak, stupid and incapable of being responsible for themselves. If you don't agree with the legal definition of rape and want to quote encyclopedias instead, then tough. Noone cares.
Surely someone taught you about how consent works, so stop being so foolish.
The sexual intercourse was not done forcibly, under threat of injury or against her will, she was not underage or incapable of valid consent. This was not rape.
If you're part-way through sex and your partner tells you to stop, you stop, because consent has just been withdrawn. It's not a difficult concept. The pulling out method is definitely not wise as it will be unusually prone to accidents, but if a person agrees to unprotected sex on the basis of that and then reneges on pulling out, it's definitely a problem, isn't it?
I am deeply skeptical about the "overwhelmed with passion" argument to not stopping, especially if the explicit beforehand agreement was not to continue to the point of ejaculation. I think it's vastly more likely to be that the person who ignores the stop command just doesn't want to, safe in the knowledge that the morning after pill or abortion are sufficient backstops so they can indulge their short-term gratification safely.
The sexual intercourse was not done forcibly, under threat of injury or against her will, she was not underage or incapable of valid consent. This was not rape.
Just to be clear, if a person shouts at you to stop having sex at them, your reaction would be to stop having sex with them as opposed to pinning them against you and refusing to let them go? Like that's not exactly a grey area, don't have sex with someone who is literally hitting you to stop you having sex with them.
Funny phrase, that. Suggests you know it's correct, but don't want to agree. "I don't agree", maybe, but "I refuse to accept" is very much "No, Santa totally is real, and that's a belief I'm clinging to despite all evidence to the contrary".
The problem is that's exactly how everything goes.
You allow me to come over your house to watch the game. If I come to your house, say it's nice, get on the phone to have my mail forwarded to your address and then take over your basement.. I way stepped over the line.
You get to dictate who stays in your house for however long of time you choose to do that for. If you understand that with an item, a possession, you can understand how a woman or man can rescind their offer whenever they feel. That's free will. And in speaking of free will, yes, it's up to the other party whether to respect it or not. But that choice is the choice of whether someone decided to become a rapist or not.
Just to be clear, if a person shouts at you to stop having sex at them, your reaction would be to stop having sex with them as opposed to pinning them against you and refusing to let them go? Like that's not exactly a grey area, don't have sex with someone who is literally hitting you to stop you having sex with them.
The problem is that's exactly how everything goes.
You allow me to come over your house to watch the game. If I come to your house, say it's nice, get on the phone to have my mail forwarded to your address and then take over your basement.. I way stepped over the line.
You get to dictate who stays in your house for however long of time you choose to do that for. If you understand that with an item, a possession, you can understand how a woman or man can rescind their offer whenever they feel. That's free will. And in speaking of free will, yes, it's up to the other party whether to respect it or not. But that choice is the choice of whether someone decided to become a rapist or not.
100% agreed with both of you, I have no intent to argue here.
But it's also the sort of that, when exaggerated, could be, and probably has been, the premise of a stand-up comedian's joke.
"Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Stop!... Okay go. Yes! Yes! Yes! STOP! HA, GOTCHA!"
Just to be clear, if a person shouts at you to stop having sex at them, your reaction would be to stop having sex with them as opposed to pinning them against you and refusing to let them go?
"He said he didn't have any [condoms], so I said we can only continue if you pull out, because I don't take birth control. When the time came, I was on top of him, he was saying that he was about to, and I was like ok I'm getting off, and he held me down physically, so that I could not get off of him. I smacked him and said 'no, stop!'."
This is something all women are taught not to do. Even in group sex ed in my high school, the girls were told that pulling out doesn't guarantee anything and you can't trust that the man, even if they have no ill intentions whatsoever, will pull out during the heat of sex. This isn't a case of a guy coercing her into this, she's the one that suggested they do it without protection. Both parties in this were acting foolish, but the unprotected sex was consensual. It's her fault for suggesting they have unprotected sex and it's his fault for agreeing to it.
He stated above that it's not just "okay" but normal. And it's entirely the woman's fault.
Specter Von Baren said:
No. I refuse to accept that rape can be anything you want it to be and I refuse to accept your belief that women are weak, stupid and incapable of being responsible for themselves. These were two consenting adults that agreed to do something irresponsible and stupid despite BEING TAUGHT that pulling out is no guarantee and that when engaged in sex, even consensual sex, men will be under the influence of adrenaline and may not pull out in time or at all.
Rape: Unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against a person's will or with a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent because of mental illness, mental deficiency, intoxication, unconsciousness, or deception
The sexual intercourse was not done forcibly, under threat of injury or against her will, she was not underage or incapable of valid consent. This was not rape.
sounds pretty rapey, doesn't it? Now frankly I disagree with one part of the definition you gave (deceiving someone for sex isn't or at least shouldn't be rape), but using physical force like that seems pretty clear cut.
Anyway, on the Main Topic of this Thread
I actually thought about making a thread on this right away when r/Livestreamfails started updating their thread, but it seemed almost right away that some accusers wanted to air their hurt feelings on the coat-tails of some very serious allegations. Most of this stuff is TMI. It shouldn't be public. Furthermore, if one reads through the twitlongers and other statements these women made it becomes clear from their stories that they should be protected. Not against disasters or war or anything silly like that but from gamers. Boys on the internet are totally used to having a thick skin, but girls shouldn't have to go through the same. I'm afraid segregation in gaming is necessary.
Now even more important than anything else: Dr Disrespect has been banned from Twitch! Maybe something dirty on the Two-Time will surface? Again...
It takes the stance that women should exercise responsibility and wisdom on the basis that men can't resist their urges. It thus manages to arguably be a bit sexist both to me and women, firstly to imply men are weak and irresponsible, and then to imply blame to women if they're victimised because of it.
In another form, it's the logic behind Islamic ideas of women needing to dress modestly.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
:quality(85)/arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-infobae.s3.amazonaws.com/public/FASMMOWE6JDT7OUAXLQ6LODPFY.jpg)
www.infobae.com
www.muyinteresante.es
