Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That makes little sense. Why would a criminal attack someone who knows who they are, when they could just attack a person who doesn't know their identity? I think in a lot of these cases where the person is known, there is some kind of sexual rapport or misunderstanding. I don't think we can draw parallels with gay pedophiles and heterosexual adults.
Oh ffs. Many women (and boys) are assaulted by bosses, family members, friends of their husbands/boyfriends, the dad of the kids they babysit, their co workers, their friend's dad, a casual acquaintance, a teacher, a classmate, a member of their social circle, on a date with someone, a neighbor.
Assaulted out of the blue with no warning and no previous sexual relationship, encounter or flirting. Those assaults are extremely difficult to report, there often isn't any evidence, it's a he said she said thing, others wouldn't believe it, families and friendships, work relationships, careers are torn apart. They are threatened with awful consequences if they tell. Their lives are torn upside down just as much by the telling as the assault. So they don't. That's a lot of cases where the person is known.
I'm finding it hard to judge whether these posts of yours are just really naive or if you're being deliberately obtuse.
If a person says no, no matter what stage you're at in an encounter, whether you date them, are married to them, have just bought them 100 drinks and an expensive dinner, if they've just taken all their clothes off -then that's that. You are not entitled to sex. Ever. A person is allowed to say no, at anytime. You can be mad, feel lied to, led on, teased, whatever - you can never talk to that person again, you can bad mouth them all over town, you can curse their name and rage to god.
But you aren't entitled to sex. Ever. And if you take it anyway, that's assault, and the victims are really assault victims.
I'm not disputing that in theory, but you just described what would be about the least sympathetic and believable victim.
We can only take an argument to so far of an extreme until we conclude no one is entitled to anything and might makes right.
I'm not disputing that in theory, but you just described what would be about the least sympathetic and believable victim.
We can only take an argument to so far of an extreme until we conclude no one is entitled to anything and might makes right.
Dude, just about any assault victim can be made to look unsympathetic and like a liar. Just ask any lawyer for the defendant. That doesn't change the fact that someone was assaulted, and it's against the law.
Oh ffs. Many women (and boys) are assaulted by bosses, family members, friends of their husbands/boyfriends, the dad of the kids they babysit, their co workers, their friend's dad, a casual acquaintance, a teacher, a classmate, a member of their social circle, on a date with someone, a neighbor.
I'm not saying assaults like these never happen, but many consensual encounters happen this way too, and it's harder to believe they aren't consensual.
Quote:
Assaulted out of the blue with no warning and no previous sexual relationship, encounter or flirting. Those assaults are extremely difficult to report, there often isn't any evidence, it's a he said she said thing, others wouldn't believe it, families and friendships, work relationships, careers are torn apart. They are threatened with awful consequences if they tell. Their lives are torn upside down just as much by the telling as the assault. So they don't. That's a lot of cases where the person is known.
I'm finding it hard to judge whether these posts of yours are just really naive or if you're being deliberately obtuse.
I find these much more believable and if you can show that the suspect's DNA or other evidence is there, that it was against the victims will is not hard to believe or prove at all.
Thank you for the generalization. The person I know who gossips the most is a man. Men accrue info and gossip and call it "locker-room talk." Same, same.
No wonder men and women don't "get" each other; we're too busy defending our respective genders from baseless generalizations lobbed from the other gender. What a waste of time and a shame.
Look, everyone knows women are more emotional than men, by a wide margin. Certainly there is enough overlap that generalizations aren't always true, but that doesn't make them wrong.
Women are overwhelmingly more interested in people. Men are overwhelmingly more interested in things. This is a scientific reality, not my opinion.
Men are tinkerers, women like to talk. Men are more concerned with principles, women are more concerned with outcomes. Men are builders, women are caretakers.
Women are far more bonded to their family and their children. Women, in defense of their children, will attack you with the ferocity of a lion. Men tend to be more rational and fair-minded. Men demand respect and order. Women demand acceptance.
There is a biological explanation for all of these tendencies. But I never proclaimed any of these things to be either inferior or superior.
Because in those scenarios it's harder to believe without doubt that it was against the accusers will and the accused knew so. And also the accuser's actions confused the issue of determining consent.
I'm not saying assaults like these never happen, but many consensual encounters happen this way too, and it's harder to believe they aren't consensual.
I find these much more believable and if you can show that the suspect's DNA or other evidence is there, that it was against the victims will is not hard to believe or prove at all.
There's often no proof. That's just the nature of the beast. Why do you think some of these guys get away with it for years and years before they're finally convicted? Often at great cost to the accuser.
There's often no proof. That's just the nature of the beast. Why do you think some of these guys get away with it for years and years before they're finally convicted? Often at great cost to the accuser.
I think in most of those cases they have all the proof needed, they just don't have a confirmed identity of the suspect, such as a DNA match.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
