If you have been raped

[Tryharder62]

Never have. Never will.

 

[dolf]

So let me ask you this. Are we at the point where we have to establish a new category and standard when it comes to women reporting sexual assault? Should the standard be that if a woman makes the claim that she had been sexually assaulted to any extent, at any point in her life, that claim is considered the truth, based solely upon the CLAIM, and whoever she names as her attacker is considered guilty until proven innocent?
That's essentially where we are, is it not?
Does that make sense? Is society willing to accept the potential consequences?

no, a lot of rapists will always (MUST always) get away with it, because people are innocent until proven guilty.

What a lot of people don't get is that the accuser is also innocent (of making false accusations) until proven guilty.

It's a terribly complicated concept, but you can treat accusers and accused reasonably. You don't have to choose one to lynch. You can think that someone did wrong without abusing them and those close to them.

 

[Ramone45]

no, a lot of rapists will always (MUST always) get away with it, because people are innocent until proven guilty.

What a lot of people don't get is that the accuser is also innocent (of making false accusations) until proven guilty.

It's a terribly complicated concept, but you can treat accusers and accused reasonably. You don't have to choose one to lynch. You can think that someone did wrong without abusing them and those close to them.

Do you think Democrats on the Judicial Committee believe Judge Kavanaugh is innocent until proven guilty? I don't.

 

[dolf]

Do you think Democrats on the Judicial Committee believe Judge Kavanaugh is innocent until proven guilty? I don't.

I expect that they believe he is guilty, but accept that he'll never be convicted and have no intention of beating him up or mailing explosives to his house.

Sometimes life is unfair. Millions of women live with the trauma of their abusers getting away with it on top of the trauma of the offence, and a rich man with a successful career will have his suitability to be richer and more successful called into question.

 

[Pookie]

So let me ask you this. Are we at the point where we have to establish a new category and standard when it comes to women reporting sexual assault? Should the standard be that if a woman makes the claim that she had been sexually assaulted to any extent, at any point in her life, that claim is considered the truth, based solely upon the CLAIM, and whoever she names as her attacker is considered guilty until proven innocent?
That's essentially where we are, is it not?
Does that make sense? Is society willing to accept the potential consequences?

No, it's not where we're at. If you took your head out of your ass, you could see that.

 

[Desiremakesmeweak]

What I regularly find entertaining HERE - especially considering that this is a place to do with sex and erotica - is the truly remarkable level of sheer functional sexual illiteracy in evidence in some of the comments, despite that these people are strident and quite aggressive (beyond just 'assertive') in the way they say things.

I have had a long discussion recently with a number of people in the sex industry that I know and who know me, and we had all independently come to the same conclusion, including several bi-sexual women: namely, that we all have strong doubts that Christine Ford has ever actually had sex with a man. The things she said, the words and phrases she used suggest ignorance of sex with a male...

It is not altogether outside the realm of all possibilities - on a different point - that a woman would or might fail to tell her fellow females in the vicinity or likely to encounter the purported 'assaulter' to beware of him or the two males in question... not altogether impossible, if unlikely and calling into some question her moral judgment and care for those around her.

But it was specifically her details regarding the supposed 'act/s' and assault that led me and others I have been speaking with about what we all saw and heard in the testimony to doubt very gravely that she has EVER had sex with a male.

Now you have to bear in mind that I have been writing here for ten years and have been in the sex industry for a lot longer than that.

 

[SpeareChucker]

Okay, that amuses me.


Doesn't she have kids? We keep hearing about a husband...

 

[Sean]

I have had a long discussion recently with a number of people in the sex industry that I know and who know me, and we had all independently come to the same conclusion, including several bi-sexual women: namely, that we all have strong doubts that Christine Ford has ever actually had sex with a man. The things she said, the words and phrases she used suggest ignorance of sex with a male...

So her kids were, what, virgin births? Fucking moron.

 

[AdrianHot]

Everyone here who thinks that rule "innocent until proven guilty" is wrong are rapists, because I say so and they are guilty of rapes. Serial rapes. And killings!

 

[dolf]

Fucksake

 

[Sean]

What I regularly find entertaining HERE - especially considering that this is a place to do with sex and erotica - is the truly remarkable level of sheer functional sexual illiteracy in evidence in some of the comments, despite that these people are strident and quite aggressive (beyond just 'assertive') in the way they say things.

I have had a long discussion recently with a number of people in the sex industry that I know and who know me, and we had all independently come to the same conclusion, including several bi-sexual women: namely, that we all have strong doubts that Christine Ford has ever actually had sex with a man. The things she said, the words and phrases she used suggest ignorance of sex with a male...

It is not altogether outside the realm of all possibilities - on a different point - that a woman would or might fail to tell her fellow females in the vicinity or likely to encounter the purported 'assaulter' to beware of him or the two males in question... not altogether impossible, if unlikely and calling into some question her moral judgment and care for those around her.

But it was specifically her details regarding the supposed 'act/s' and assault that led me and others I have been speaking with about what we all saw and heard in the testimony to doubt very gravely that she has EVER had sex with a male.

Now you have to bear in mind that I have been writing here for ten years and have been in the sex industry for a lot longer than that.

And just for the record, why the fuck would it matter if she was a virgin? Do you think only sexually active women get assaulted?

 

[Pookie]

What I regularly find entertaining HERE - especially considering that this is a place to do with sex and erotica - is the truly remarkable level of sheer functional sexual illiteracy in evidence in some of the comments, despite that these people are strident and quite aggressive (beyond just 'assertive') in the way they say things.

I have had a long discussion recently with a number of people in the sex industry that I know and who know me, and we had all independently come to the same conclusion, including several bi-sexual women: namely, that we all have strong doubts that Christine Ford has ever actually had sex with a man. The things she said, the words and phrases she used suggest ignorance of sex with a male...

It is not altogether outside the realm of all possibilities - on a different point - that a woman would or might fail to tell her fellow females in the vicinity or likely to encounter the purported 'assaulter' to beware of him or the two males in question... not altogether impossible, if unlikely and calling into some question her moral judgment and care for those around her.

But it was specifically her details regarding the supposed 'act/s' and assault that led me and others I have been speaking with about what we all saw and heard in the testimony to doubt very gravely that she has EVER had sex with a male.

Now you have to bear in mind that I have been writing here for ten years and have been in the sex industry for a lot longer than that.

You've had long discussions with a number of people in the sex industry since yesterday morning about this? That's when her testimony was. And they all reach the conclusion that she's never had sex? Really?

 

[Que]

What I regularly find entertaining HERE - especially considering that this is a place to do with sex and erotica - is the truly remarkable level of sheer functional sexual illiteracy in evidence in some of the comments, despite that these people are strident and quite aggressive (beyond just 'assertive') in the way they say things.

I have had a long discussion recently with a number of people in the sex industry that I know and who know me, and we had all independently come to the same conclusion, including several bi-sexual women: namely, that we all have strong doubts that Christine Ford has ever actually had sex with a man. The things she said, the words and phrases she used suggest ignorance of sex with a male...

It is not altogether outside the realm of all possibilities - on a different point - that a woman would or might fail to tell her fellow females in the vicinity or likely to encounter the purported 'assaulter' to beware of him or the two males in question... not altogether impossible, if unlikely and calling into some question her moral judgment and care for those around her.

But it was specifically her details regarding the supposed 'act/s' and assault that led me and others I have been speaking with about what we all saw and heard in the testimony to doubt very gravely that she has EVER had sex with a male.

Now you have to bear in mind that I have been writing here for ten years and have been in the sex industry for a lot longer than that.

I think it credible xhe suffered sexual trauma. Not out of the realm of the likely that the incident she is reporting publically is not her primary, sexual trauma. Those who do experience these offenses can manifest that in widely divergent ways. Some become sexually repressed, some become hyper-sexual.

It is also not uncommon for such a victim to remain in a emotionally regressive state. It's impossible to know any of these things at a distance but her affect seems off.

I tend to believe she is an abuse survivor, and feel this process abused her further. She, and any victim deserves better support than she got.

One doesn't get a Masters or a PhD in Psychology without going through rather extensive therapy so that one can understand the process. My inexpert and distant and therefore unreliable opinion is that she got substandard care and support somewhere in that process.

 

[someoneyouknow]

And yet, we're supposed to believe all those white male Catholic priests were raping boys even though nothing was ever reported until decades later.

 

[Que]

And just for the record, why the fuck would it matter if she was a virgin? Do you think only sexually active women get assaulted?

You seem very angry.

Which do prefer to assault?

 

[LadyFunkenstein]

A woman can come forward in a day, a year or 30 years. It does not matter and is up to her. BUT whoever she accuses is innocent until proven guilty, so the longer she waits, the harder it is to prove.

Kavanaugh is innocent until he is proven to be guilty in a court of law. Period. So much time has passed and the details so vague no prosecutor would bring a case against him. Maybe that's because of the time lapse or maybe he didn't do it. We will never know.

 

[Que]

And yet, we're supposed to believe all those white male Catholic priests were <bannable material redacted> even though nothing was ever reported until decades later.

You truly suck at forming analogies.

You do realize there is at a minimum corroboration that the victim and perpetrator were in the same place and at the same time? That in each case there is a pattern of behavior so 5har separate incidents validate the veracity of the others?

It was never about how long ago her memory was but the quality of the recall and the utter lack of anything that was verifiable (that happens with time) and the utter lack of any fact that is falsifiable (that makes it unusable testimony)

You cannot demand the accused provide minute-by-minute alibi for years of his life. Oddly, Kavenaugh did a decent job as anyone could of that.

 

[SalviaDivinorum]

Never have. Never will.

I understand the first part of your answer. Could you expand on the second?

 

[Pookie]

A woman can come forward in a day, a year or 30 years. It does not matter and is up to her. BUT whoever she accuses is innocent until proven guilty, so the longer she waits, the harder it is to prove.

Kavanaugh is innocent until he is proven to be guilty in a court of law. Period. So much time has passed and the details so vague no prosecutor would bring a case against him. Maybe that's because of the time lapse or maybe he didn't do it. We will never know.

Totally agree. But then there is the court of public opinion. The whole exercise yesterday was completely about political posturing by attempting to sway public opinion. Democratic senators had no illusion of derailing things. They put republicans in a position of appearing to support someone who looks guilty of rape (as well as a little unhinged) ... just before the mid-terms. A big turn-out by women at the polls is rarely a good thing for republicans.

Again, never found guilty in court, so he is innocent. But the court of public opinion? Will it pay off for democrats? We'll know in a little over a month.

 

[someoneyouknow]

You truly suck at forming analogies.

You do realize there is at a minimum corroboration that the victim and perpetrator were in the same place and at the same time? That in each case there is a pattern of behavior so 5har separate incidents validate the veracity of the others?

It was never about how long ago her memory was but the quality of the recall and the utter lack of anything that was verifiable (that happens with time) and the utter lack of any fact that is falsifiable (that makes it unusable testimony)

You cannot demand the accused provide minute-by-minute alibi for years of his life. Oddly, Kavenaugh did a decent job as anyone could of that.

And yet, many of these cases of supposed rape by priest had the exact same conditions, but other than the priests and their uneducated supporters, people have no problem believing what happened.

I guess when it's a guy claiming he was raped we're supposed to automatically believe it because women have been claiming for so long they're the victims of rape and assault we make excuses for it. "Maybe if hadn't been at the party, and drinking, this wouldn't have happened. But then again, she was drinking, so maybe she made it all up."

And for the record, I know someone who voiced almost those identical words. A true con artist supporter. There was a rape case in our area where the girl was drunk and he all but said it was her fault because she was drunk. I asked him if his daughter had the same thing happen to her and he said he'd shoot the guy.

So yeah, complete double standard. Just like Kavanaugh.

 

[SpeareChucker]

A woman can come forward in a day, a year or 30 years. It does not matter and is up to her. BUT whoever she accuses is innocent until proven guilty, so the longer she waits, the harder it is to prove.

Kavanaugh is innocent until he is proven to be guilty in a court of law. Period. So much time has passed and the details so vague no prosecutor would bring a case against him. Maybe that's because of the time lapse or maybe he didn't do it. We will never know.

If Flake gets his way, and there is a one-week FBI investigation, how hated will they become when they don't find out anything more than we already know?

 

[LadyFunkenstein]

Totally agree. But then there is the court of public opinion. The whole exercise yesterday was completely about political posturing by attempting to sway public opinion. Democratic senators had no illusion of derailing things. They put republicans in a position of appearing to support someone who looks guilty of rape (as well as a little unhinged) ... just before the mid-terms. A big turn-out by women at the polls is rarely a good thing for republicans.

Again, never found guilty in court, so he is innocent. But the court of public opinion? Will it pay off for democrats? We'll know in a little over a month.

It will further erode an important voting block for Democrats: African Americans.

Most of us don't buy into this "Believe all women" grandstanding because it was not so long ago that white women lying about sexual assault and/or rape put blacks to death at the end of a noose , by the flames of a burning building or bludgeoned to death.

Emmit Till was brutally murdered when a white woman accused him of sexual assault back in 1955. The murderers go off because hey, he wanted to rape her!
But it turns out she was a liar, lied on the stand and we learned this how and when? She confessed she lied... in 2017.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/us/emmett-till-lynching-carolyn-bryant-donham.html

I am not the only one who remembers this. I don't have a strong opinion about Kavanaugh as a jurist but I am not jumping on the "Hang him!!" bandwagon because the old white lady says so. People lie, men and women alike. Innocent until proven guilty, due process please.

This is going to backfire... more blacks are going to stay home or vote in ways unexpected. The "Court of Public Opinion" is only who the media presents.Some of us aren't included on that court so our bullshit detectors don't register.

 

[BBX50]

Okay, that amuses me.


Doesn't she have kids? We keep hearing about a husband...

so here is the QUESTION again


she was married in 2001

she FIRST mentioned this to the husband in 2012

WHY THE WAIT OF 6 YEARS?

 

[SpeareChucker]

Do you mean 11 years?

 

[jp55665566]

I'd like to see a #MeToo movement for men who have been falsely accused of rape.