Numbering for clarify response
![1683741076761.png 1683741076761.png](https://eg-forums-escapist-data.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com/data/attachments/8/8800-bf81c6020ffc3cbe2370b19b738a4b83.jpg)
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.
1) I don't think passionate encounters always act out like an episode of Goofy Gophers. Sorry.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.
![1683741076761.png 1683741076761.png](https://eg-forums-escapist-data.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com/data/attachments/8/8800-bf81c6020ffc3cbe2370b19b738a4b83.jpg)
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.