Trump guilty of sexual abuse and defamation

gorfias

Unrealistic but happy
Legacy
May 13, 2009
7,127
1,885
118
Country
USA
Ah, and here we have the predictable equation of rough sex fantasies with wanting to be sexually assaulted (along with more prurient judgementalism over how a victim should act in their opinion).

I almost have a complete line on my classic misogyny bingo card. Anyone going to insinuate that women would be fine with being assaulted if the guy was handsome, so therefore its their fault for being shallow? I really want to win that toaster oven.
OK, please explain the difference. I'm all ears.
Also:
Do you agree with the lawyerly position that a man should seek verbal consent before elevating every single act of sexuality?
Hypothetical: Man and woman are passionately making out.
Man: 1) "Now may I put my hand over your left breast"?
2) "Now may I cup your right buttock cheek"?
She doesn't say yes to 2) but he does so anyway? She has every legal right to claim sexual assault.

I would prefer a world where women are obliged, if reasonably able to do so, scream, "rape!" as a safe word to stop unwanted sexual activity. I think that would save on a lot of time, effort, money and hurt feelings, protecting both men and women.
 

Baffle

Elite Member
Oct 22, 2016
3,466
2,748
118
OK, please explain the difference. I'm all ears.
I sometimes enjoy the idea of beating the shit out of people I don't like, but when it comes down to it I don't really want to physically hurt someone over and over again while they're curled up in a ball on the ground crying and begging me to stop. The idea of something and the reality of something are different things.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kwak and gorfias

gorfias

Unrealistic but happy
Legacy
May 13, 2009
7,127
1,885
118
Country
USA
I sometimes enjoy the idea of beating the shit out of people I don't like, but when it comes down to it I don't really want to physically hurt someone over and over again while they're curled up in a ball on the ground crying and begging me to stop. The idea of something and the reality of something are different things.
I don't think this is where @Silvanus is going on this one. I think by your analogy, you mean a woman might fantasize about being ravished but never actually want to be ravished in reality. I think what Silvanus is writing is something maybe subjective? That if you escalate sex, that while making out with a woman, you put your hand on her butt without consent, if after the fact, she decides that this bothered her, that is assault. If she liked it, it was not.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,261
5,898
118
Country
United Kingdom
OK, please explain the difference. I'm all ears.
One is a fantasy and the other isn't. One is assault and the other isnt. If you're incapable of telling the difference, and treating the two things very differently, then you need help.

Also:
Do you agree with the lawyerly position that a man should seek verbal consent before elevating every single act of sexuality?
Hypothetical: Man and woman are passionately making out.
Man: 1) "Now may I put my hand over your left breast"?
2) "Now may I cup your right buttock cheek"?
She doesn't say yes to 2) but he does so anyway? She has every legal right to claim sexual assault.
Not necessarily verbal consent, no, a lot of it is contextual. But none of this is really relevant to outright assault.

I would prefer a world where women are obliged, if reasonably able to do so, scream, "rape!" as a safe word to stop unwanted sexual activity. I think that would save on a lot of time, effort, money and hurt feelings, protecting both men and women.
Then you're preferring a world in which men are absolved of the responsibility to not rape people.

Someone in a traumatic situation may well react with shock, denial, or emotional withdrawal. It is not reasonable to expect everyone to respond with emotional and logical clarity-- not least because millions of people are vulnerable, less verbal, or neurodivergent in lesser or greater respects. And this is all aside from the fact that assault frequently goes alongside implicit threat. That includes the threat that objection will invite retribution.
 

Ag3ma

Elite Member
Jan 4, 2023
2,574
2,207
118
That if you escalate sex, that while making out with a woman, you put your hand on her butt without consent, if after the fact, she decides that this bothered her, that is assault. If she liked it, it was not.
Escalation is an implicit part of making out, something everyone and courts recognise. The legal expectation is that a person making out desists if told their escalation is undesirable, or otherwise should have known that the escalation was undesirable.
 

gorfias

Unrealistic but happy
Legacy
May 13, 2009
7,127
1,885
118
Country
USA
One is a fantasy and the other isn't. One is assault and the other isnt. If you're incapable of telling the difference, and treating the two things very differently, then you need help.
A powerful man aggressively and forcefully taking sex from a woman is something (most?) women want and enjoy when it happens. The obvious existence of their fantasies helps quantify this. People DO, often, want their fantasy to be reality.

The actions we describe can be interpreted either way in that there is NO difference between the physical conduct of the male in this case. Just, sometimes after the fact, the subject response of the female, which may not even be accurate accounting of how she felt at the time.

Not necessarily verbal consent, no, a lot of it is contextual. But none of this is really relevant to outright assault.

Her laugh and relative lack of resistance is context. Apparent constructive consent isn't much of a defense for a man.

Then you're preferring a world in which men are absolved of the responsibility to not rape people.
You're preferring a world in which men are sent mixed messages (even she concedes her response was to laugh and later not, in a public area, not say a word: I promise you: if some guy stuck his erection up my butt people on the other side of the Earth would hear me screaming my objections) and women have no agency, no will, no responsibilities, and can cause a man a great deal of suffering on a whim rather than simply say a single, one syllable word. And they can cause this harm decades after alleged "abuse" is said to have occurred. I put in quotes as, after review, I don't think SHE was sure what she thought about the encounter.

Someone in a traumatic situation may well react with shock, denial, or emotional withdrawal. It is not reasonable to expect everyone to respond with emotional and logical clarity-- not least because millions of people are vulnerable, less verbal, or neurodivergent in lesser or greater respects. And this is all aside from the fact that assault frequently goes alongside implicit threat. That includes the threat that objection will invite retribution.
Retribution? She's getting $5 million. She's written books and done multiple interviews about it. This includes after he was POTUS. She is not afraid. She was 52? 57? when this happened? She was a grown up.

I expect adult women to act like adults.

I do not think, from your writing, that you do.[/quote]

Escalation is an implicit part of making out, something everyone and courts recognise. The legal expectation is that a person making out desists if told their escalation is undesirable, or otherwise should have known that the escalation was undesirable.
Would you believe me if I told you that there are schools of thought in law schools that want my explanation to govern? If not, I'll try to find some links for you.
 

CaitSeith

Formely Gone Gonzo
Legacy
Jun 30, 2014
5,356
371
88
This is why I don't understand why literally any of you even bother talking to TStorm. There's like...maybe a dozen people active in this forum so no one is on the sideline here needing convincing and every single thread in this subforum is filled with TStorm saying something...let's say Zany...and everyone arguing with him about his zaniness until the next zany thing he says and the cycle just repeats.

I've stopped bothering coming to a lot of these threads as they always devolve in the same exact way.
At least engaging has him use his time here instead on the Zany places that worsen his zaniness.
 

CaitSeith

Formely Gone Gonzo
Legacy
Jun 30, 2014
5,356
371
88
A jury has found ex-president Donald J. Trump guilty of sexual abuse (but not rape) and defamation, and he has been ordered to pay E. Jean Carroll $5 million. Trump intends to appeal.

I hope this gives E. Jean Carroll some peace of mind after her traumatic experience.

Just a nitpick. It's "liable", not "guilty". Sorry, I have spent too much time watching lawyers in YouTube.
 

Dalisclock

Making lemons combustible again
Legacy
Escapist +
Feb 9, 2008
11,270
7,059
118
A Barrel In the Marketplace
Country
Eagleland
Gender
Male
This is why I don't understand why literally any of you even bother talking to TStorm. There's like...maybe a dozen people active in this forum so no one is on the sideline here needing convincing and every single thread in this subforum is filled with TStorm saying something...let's say Zany...and everyone arguing with him about his zaniness until the next zany thing he says and the cycle just repeats.

I've stopped bothering coming to a lot of these threads as they always devolve in the same exact way.
I had to put the ignore function on for him.

Because otherwise I'll probably get banned for speaking my mind about his odious views.
 

Ag3ma

Elite Member
Jan 4, 2023
2,574
2,207
118
Her laugh and relative lack of resistance is context.
Wouldn't it be a lot more useful to base judgements on how real-life people in real-life situations respond, rather than the subjective opinions of people who haven't faced that situation?

Take the classic threat responses of "fight, flight, freeze". A man stands immobile in front of a truck unexpectedly about to run him down. Do we really argue "I'd have run out of the way, if he didn't that means he wanted to die"?

What about all those many instances where people have gone round saying "If that happened to me, I'd do X", and then found themselves in that sort of situation, and didn't do X? That tells us that people can have a very poor idea of what they will actually do when put under the pressure in the moment. They have even less idea about other people who they have even fewer insights into. In fact we do this all the time, regularly, just not usually on things as big as rape and death. "If my boss asked me to do that job, I'd refuse". And then three weeks later there they are, doing that job because in the heat of the moment they wouldn't tell their boss no.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
18,726
3,610
118
I had to put the ignore function on for him.

Because otherwise I'll probably get banned for speaking my mind about his odious views.
Had Gorfias on ignore for a while, but then he stopped talking about Trump a bit after his attempted insurrection and spent more time on films they'd watched and stuff so undid that.
 

gorfias

Unrealistic but happy
Legacy
May 13, 2009
7,127
1,885
118
Country
USA
Okay. A rape apologist. Just what this forum lacked.
It is not rape when it is wanted and slinging that term around so carelessly diminishes the impact it should have.
Wouldn't it be a lot more useful to base judgements on how real-life people in real-life situations respond, rather than the subjective opinions of people who haven't faced that situation?

Take the classic threat responses of "fight, flight, freeze". A man stands immobile in front of a truck unexpectedly about to run him down. Do we really argue "I'd have run out of the way, if he didn't that means he wanted to die"?

What about all those many instances where people have gone round saying "If that happened to me, I'd do X", and then found themselves in that sort of situation, and didn't do X? That tells us that people can have a very poor idea of what they will actually do when put under the pressure in the moment. They have even less idea about other people who they have even fewer insights into. In fact we do this all the time, regularly, just not usually on things as big as rape and death. "If my boss asked me to do that job, I'd refuse". And then three weeks later there they are, doing that job because in the heat of the moment they wouldn't tell their boss no.
True, but in a court case the finder of fact must make all sorts of logical inferences. "What I would do" will inform that fact finder.
Is it more likely than not, that if this person was being raped, she'd have yelled bloody murder in a public place? I think so.
Are your suggestions possible? Maybe she froze? Seem plausible. But not probable.
 
Last edited:

Absent

And twice is the only way to live.
Jan 25, 2023
1,594
1,552
118
Country
Switzerland
Gender
The boring one
It is not rape when it is wanted and slinging that term around so carelessly diminishes the impact it should have.
Sure. Except it's always wanted. Women love that.
 

Dalisclock

Making lemons combustible again
Legacy
Escapist +
Feb 9, 2008
11,270
7,059
118
A Barrel In the Marketplace
Country
Eagleland
Gender
Male
Had Gorfias on ignore for a while, but then he stopped talking about Trump a bit after his attempted insurrection and spent more time on films they'd watched and stuff so undid that.
Gorifias also participates in other things on the forums, which means we can talk about things that we can have a chill dialogue on. Tstorm basically lives here in Current events as far as I can tell and spends all of his time defending whatever shitty thing Trump/the right/The Church has done this week so it's not like we can bond over our shared love of Metal Gear or something like that. Fuck, I don't even know if Tstorm cares about anything other then acting as Trumps unpaid PR rep here.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Xprimentyl

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,261
5,898
118
Country
United Kingdom
A powerful man aggressively and forcefully taking sex from a woman is something (most?) women want and enjoy when it happens.
No, women do not want men to "forcefully take sex". I cannot believe I have to write that sentence. You have a frankly delusional view of what goes on in a woman's mind.

Her laugh and relative lack of resistance is context. Apparent constructive consent isn't much of a defense for a man.
"Lack of resistance" is not meaningful context at all. Her laugh has numerous other explanations-- I nervously laughed when I was surrounded by people who threatened me in an otherwise empty car park. Was I therefore consenting to assault?

Retribution? She's getting $5 million. She's written books and done multiple interviews about it. This includes after he was POTUS. She is not afraid. She was 52? 57? when this happened? She was a grown up.
OK, I suggest it's time you did a little research into why rapes are so rarely reported. The causes are well documented and researched.

Apart from the kneejerk disbelief, dismissal, and victim-blaming-- which you are engaged in here-- there is also the fact that reporting a sexual assault very often has severe consequences for the reporter. We're talking about public harassment and abuse; financial ruin; professional setbacks; future partners being more likely to leave. The list goes on.

The fact that she has managed to get a (relatively measly) settlement many years after it happened is fucking irrelevant. She had good reasons to believe it wouldn't go well for her if she reported it. Because statistically speaking, it very often goes badly.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Dalisclock

gorfias

Unrealistic but happy
Legacy
May 13, 2009
7,127
1,885
118
Country
USA
Sure. Except it's always wanted. Women love that.
Oy.
No, women do not want men to "forcefully take sex". I cannot believe I have to write that sentence. You have a frankly delusional notion of women, informed (I suspect) in part by aggressive, male-produced pornography.
EDIT: sorry, forgot to respond to this.
You appear to agree that aggression and force are common in female sexual fantasies. Are you arguing that it is virtually impossible that a woman, even one with such fantasies, would ever want this for herself in reality? I don't find that credible but I would like to know your position on this.
"Lack of resistance" is not meaningful context at all. Her laugh has numerous other explanations-- I nervously laughed when I was surrounded by people who threatened me in an otherwise empty car park. Was I therefore consenting to assault?
Ag3ma and I above discussed the merits and weaknesses of considering "what I'd do" in a given situation. It does inform us. You think you are experiencing a $5 million traumatic attack? Expecting one to shout out in a public space doesn't seem beyond the pale.
OK, I suggest it's time you did a little research into why rapes are so rarely reported. The causes are well documented and researched.

Apart from the kneejerk disbelief, dismissal, and victim-blaming-- which you are engaged in here-- there is also the fact that reporting a sexual assault very often has severe consequences for the reporter. We're talking about public harassment and abuse; financial ruin; professional setbacks; future partners being more likely to leave. The list goes on.

The fact that she has managed to get a (relatively measly) settlement many years after it happened is fucking irrelevant. She had good reasons to believe it wouldn't go well for her if she reported it. Because statistically speaking, it very often goes badly.
But we aren't discussing all rape. We're discussing this "rape" of a 50 year old professional in a public space in which she didn't punch this older man in the face and immediately call for help from the many attendants no doubt in the space.

What is more likely? How do we expect adults with agency to act? That is what is at issue and you are accepting the incredible while infantilizing someone who, if telling the truth, should have acted like an adult. I don't think she is telling us the whole truth, even if the facts happened (they did meet and have sex at this public place: I think Donald is saying even that didn't happen).

EDIT: Appears he denies the fact pattern even happened: https://thehill.com/homenews/admini...s-e-jean-carroll-allegation-shes-not-my-type/
 
Last edited:

Absent

And twice is the only way to live.
Jan 25, 2023
1,594
1,552
118
Country
Switzerland
Gender
The boring one
What oy. It wouldn't be "forceful" if there was consent. It wouldn't be "ravishing". What you're saying is that women hope to be raped (to be groped/penetrated against their ostensible will) and enjoy that. Can't have this without "no means yes", verbal or not.

Actually can't have that with the very notion of rape, that you're, in practice, directly erasing.
 

gorfias

Unrealistic but happy
Legacy
May 13, 2009
7,127
1,885
118
Country
USA
What oy. It wouldn't be "forceful" if there was consent. It wouldn't be "ravishing". What you're saying is that women hope to be raped (to be groped/penetrated against their ostensible will) and enjoy that. Can't have this without "no means yes", verbal or not.

Actually can't have that with the very notion of rape, that you're, in practice, directly erasing.
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.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,261
5,898
118
Country
United Kingdom
EDIT: sorry, forgot to respond to this.
You appear to agree that aggression and force are common in female sexual fantasies. Are you arguing that it is virtually impossible that a woman, even one with such fantasies, would ever want this for herself in reality? I don't find that credible but I would like to know your position on this.
Do you genuinely fail to recognise the difference between "aggression and force" in a consensual encounter and rape? Or are you just being obtuse?


Ag3ma and I above discussed the merits and weaknesses of considering "what I'd do" in a given situation. It does inform us. You think you are experiencing a $5 million traumatic attack? Expecting one to shout out in a public space doesn't seem beyond the pale.
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.

But we aren't discussing all rape. We're discussing this "rape" of a 50 year old professional in a public space in which she didn't punch this older man in the face and immediately call for help from the many attendants no doubt in the space.
Uh-huh, except advanced age and a public personage actually make several of those adverse impacts worse, not better.

someone who, if telling the truth, should have acted like an adult.
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, from the perspective of a guy who thinks women want to be attacked.

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.