Trump guilty of sexual abuse and defamation
- Thread starter Ag3ma
- Start date
No, women just have to want to sleep with you. Which does put it out of reach for many Iguess and that makes them angry.
The truth is that a jury weighed up the evidence presented by both sides of a dispute and decided that under the balance of probabilities, Donald Trump committed sexual assault against E. Jean Carroll.
I respect their judgement.
This is going as expected. Don't stop tho. Also
www.newsweek.com
Lulz
Ex-Donald Trump staffers accuse him of sexual harassment in the White House
It came after a Manhattan jury found the former president liable for sexually abusing and defaming E. Jean Carroll.
www.newsweek.com
Hey, remember when Taylor Swift was sexually assaulted in public and froze and didn't say anything, even though there were people, including bodyguards around?
I mean, I could give loads of examples that weren't Taylor Swift (generally without them having their own bodyguards around, but often with other people), but this is a famous and memorable example. Very, very often, victims do not react in the way society says victims are "supposed" to. That does not mean we should throw them under a bus, even if you like the rapist's politics.
I mean, I could give loads of examples that weren't Taylor Swift (generally without them having their own bodyguards around, but often with other people), but this is a famous and memorable example. Very, very often, victims do not react in the way society says victims are "supposed" to. That does not mean we should throw them under a bus, even if you like the rapist's politics.
I want to be very clear.
It has never been about what 'society says how a victim should act.'
Its usually one person or small group saying that how THEY would act and pretending soceity agrees with them and everyone should do what they do (even though they have never been in that situation)
I.e. it's nonsense. Always has been. Always will be
At best it's how they would act. But I would doubt that as many gun nuts claim they are a good guy with a gun but most likely would run away at the first sign of trouble
If you are this dude claiming how women should act. Congrats. You are only talking about you and you are probably lying to yourself
1) You are right about a thing. I absolutely made the wrong choice of words. I should have said force-ably pursuing, not taking. Taking implies completion. A guy that doesn't know when he's crossed a line is committing rape.
Now do you concede my point? That sex isn't always like the Goofy Gophers? And that it is as likely, (more likely IMHO) that Trump wouldn't know that, if it happened, he had crossed a line with a women who laughed and didn't make a peep, much less punch him in the face, had sex with him in public within ear shot of others?
2) Possible, not plausible.
3) OK
4) Is it? If men are constantly going on about wanting to be Batman, is it OK to assume I want to be Batman? I think not.
1) This is why I warn men that acting this way, even if it seems actually consensual, is dangerous: don't do it. I've written as much during this thread. And not only can a woman change her mind during sex, she can consent and later regret it. Women can make false claims and/or claims that they are simply telling "their truth". See such stories as that about comedian Aziz Ansari and Mattress Girl. T
2) See my answer 4 above.
3) I would still call that rape.
4) See my answer 4 above.
I think it takes willfulness to think there cannot be a connection proportionate to the apparent commonality of that fantasy. Like, not many people are attracted to cartoon animals. But some are. And they do engage in cos-play.
She doesn't have to win the fight. But she could have done it and I think that would have been the end of it.
ITMT: I did not know that about Caville. Thanks. I do think he was MGTOW monk. Many of that group do go back to the "plantation". I hope this works out for him.
Last edited:
Which bit? The guy who stole the television, or the Jury ruling sexual assault? Both?
Dunno, they seem to have a lot of voice and power for a small group, seems that society is listening to them.
If he didn't have consent from her, then there's not a valid "he didn't know" excuse. He didn't care.
And no, the fact that sex "isn't like the Goofy Gophers" doesn't give men the right to completely bypass the need for consent.
You believe its implausible mostly because you don't have much knowledge of/concern for the phenomenon of sexual assault (and how widespread it is), so you're incredulous.
I'd recommend you look at victim testimony or read reports by those who work to help victims of sexual assault. Listen to the people who actually go through this, and the professionals who help them.
...and yet you believe that because some women have an interest in sexually assertive men in a fantasy, therefore they want men to be aggressive and disregard consent in real life. What you're saying here about men wanting to be Batman is obviously true. Yet you're applying exactly the opposite standard to women, and insisting that if they fantasise about something, they must also want the extreme form of that thing in real life.
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.
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?
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.
Earlier @Ag3ma posted that the current law treats sexual escalation as being consented to until it isn't. I mentioned that isn't where many law schools want the law to go. I forgot about the Canadian case where a guy is making out with a girl at a Frat party, he puts his finger in her. This is digital rape. The guy is acquitted but not because of constructive consent, but that the Defense enters into evidence that the girl posted in social media that she always says "no" at first. Crappy reasoning. Add to that that in the West, marital rape is now a thing. That's a whole other thing for another thread (again, we get way off topic in politics. I'm headed back to movies etc. ASAP). but the direction does seem certain. And that's before we get to talking about so much main stream media trying to end heterosexual romance (loveless, unlovely, brutish, man-like women with no love interests and effeminate and/or comic relief incompetent men in things like Disney and Marvel movies). You really sure someone out there isn't trying to outlaw nookie?
Last edited:
And Trump could have decided not to sexually assault her, thus avoiding the entire ugly situation. But he chose not to do that and now he's paying the price for that choice. Not her choice, his.
If you think simply fighting back is enough to scare off a rapist, you are incredibly naïve about rape.
Again, this is why a man who thinks he is giving into how a woman wants sex, even if she does (and obviously if he is mistaken and she doesn't) is putting himself too in danger. Don't do it. Better to just not get laid. One of my best buddies was in this situation. He walked away and stayed out of trouble.
Would getting punched in the face have ended it? I think so.
There is a difference between a guy that thinks a woman just wants an aggressive man who crosses that line and is guilty of rape with a man that wants to harm a woman and enjoys that he is crossing a line.
Well yes. Though I'd also like to point out that he's also putting her in even more danger, which is rather worse. If ever someone has to stop and wonder if what they are doing is rape, they should not be doing it.
She's an eccentric writer who once had her own tv show, and every interview she gives goes sideways as some point.
Both.
But I am the one whose words reflect their judgment. Do you think a jury that looked her in the eyes and said "no, we don't believe you were raped" was sending the message "we hope this gives you some peace of mind from your traumatic experience."
Honestly, Carroll herself doesn't think this is about trauma, in her own words, she filed this suit to clear her name. She didn't need justice for peace of mind, she needed the court to tell people she didn't make up the encounter entirely.
I think that might be more than a little arrogant.
Honestly, this section is just fucking weird. It looks like the arguments of someone who wants to argue, but appears to demonstrate no knowledge or understanding of anything he's trying to argue about.
The jury are there to assess facts and come to a reasonable conclusion, it's not their job to check whether the conclusion gave someone peace of mind. I wished E Jean Carroll found peace of mind from the verdict, not the jury. She seems pretty satisfied.
The trial contains credible evidence that Carroll experience trauma at the time of the incident, and long-term aftereffects (PTSD, basically). Are you calling her and other witnesses liars? If so, what is your justification for doing so?
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.
I suspect that you do actually know this, it's just part of a stupid routine to demean E Jean Carroll and trivialise the trial findings in order to protect Donald Trump. Which is, as The Donald himself might put it, "SAD!!!"
She's hardly the first ADHD person to get a TV show. And that doesn't mean she can't be raped or assaulted.
Because there may not be sufficient evidence to find him criminally liable for rape.
On the other hand, Trump has talked in public about touching women's genitals without their consent. While that is not in and of itself evidence that he did that to this one person, it is a very strong indication that he considers that kind of conduct to be acceptable. Not finding him criminally liable for rape is not, in and of itself, a suggestion that his accuser is unreliable or her statement is false, merely that there is not enough corroborating evidence to support criminal liability for that particular offence, given that he has not openly talked about .
I have noticed that a lot of men spend a lot of time fantasizing about the kinds of sexual fantasizes they think women have without taking the time to actually ask or investigate in any detail.
To put it bluntly, I think most straight men can't tell the difference between bottoming fantasies, submissive fantasies, masochistic fantasies, rape fantasies and actual rape.
It's interesting that you posted this, because it's actually highly relevant. It's actually a common phrase that got repeated over and over again in the conservative backlash to Andrea Dworkin's book Intercourse, generally by people who hadn't read the book. Catherine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin were both heavily involved in the anti-pornogrpahy movement, but the reality is that neither ever said such a thing.
Nonetheless Intercourse, by my reckoning, is an incredibly interesting book because, leaving aside any judgement as to whether it contains any objective truth, it does represent a set of observations and conclusions about the way men look at and understand sex and women's bodies which clearly resonated with the experiences of a great many women and touched a nerve for a lot of men who didn't appreciate being put under the microscope. Its central claim, and one I broadly agree with, is that this entire culture's concept of what "normal" sexuality looks like is utterly, utterly warped around the neurotic fantasies of straight men. Because it is incredibly, incredibly difficult for straight men to understand that the bodies they want to fuck are actually people who have inner lives and experiences outside of the desires and fantasies men have about them.
In essence, straight men find the idea of bottoming scary and degrading, and so you end up imagining that women (and men) who enjoy bottoming must enjoy being degraded, rather than the much more plausible reality that they simply don't find bottoming as scary as you do.
Last edited:
Did you mean "can" not "can't" tell? I have suggested in this thread that women use the one syllable word, "rape" as a safety word of sorts. Except for a monster that actually wants to hurt a woman, I'd think that would force a guy who does care to be able to tell the difference and not cross that line.
You also seem to think there isn't a lot of investigation into this topic. I did a yahoo search and found a ton about it. Has a lot of people curious. Example result: https://inews.co.uk/opinion/why-som...and-why-thats-nothing-to-be-ashamed-of-212098
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. 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.
though I understand one may not: I am sympathetic to the idea that, for instance, a man might fantasize about having 2 women in a 3 way but given the opportunity, would be put off by the idea of making that a reality. But for a lot of men? I think they'd be on board.
