Yes... it means giving him the permission
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
If Trump had said....
- Thread starter Estro Felino
- Start date
Stanyon
WWMRD?
I think you are vulgarizing male and female mating rituals, there are plenty of women who don't mind, sometimes even grabbing the genitals of males. Happened to me a few times and one even purred in my ear when she did it out of the blue.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Going non-consensual is vulgarizing them. If you can't accept there are inherent problems when you don't have consent, you have a very flawed sense of morality.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
He assumed permission. He said woman will just let a famous man walk up to them and grab them them by the *****. Consent automatically granted. It doesn't work that way.
Who knows...maybe it happened to the Melanija Knavs too...but then she married him....so it means she consented..
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Consent doesn't retroactively work like that, and you are assuming much with that post.
You do assume that heterosexual women don't like being touched by a man they fancy.
I, as a heterosexual woman do like being touched by a man I fancy.
This is giving a man consent.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
I assume people in general don't like unwanted and unsolicited touches, sexual or otherwise.
Fancying a man doesn't give consent, either. You can fancy a man, or woman, or whatever, but if you don't want them to touch you it is not ok for them to touch you.
Stanyon
WWMRD?
People are animals and as such give mating signals to show interest just like any other animals but of course it does not give consent to rape. I am interested in your sense of morality and where it came from because it seems very warped and removed from the natural world.
Why do you assume that the women Trump likes to "grab" fancies him? Your rhetoric is dangerous. Rape and sexual assault are serious. Perhaps you aren't as reserved with your body as other people, that's why you don't get it.
Terese..seriously..what you don't understand is that he did say "they will let you do it " meaning they did express their consent.
I studied law...please...let's be serious...this is juridically relevant to explain a situation where both people are consenting.
Please ask a lawyer...a jurist about that recording if you guys don't trust me.
I even took 26 as grading in crimes against sexuality, penal law.
I even took 26 as grading in crimes against sexuality, penal law.
I highly doubt they expressed their consent. And even if they did, it's such a vulgar and egotistical thing of Trump to say. His wealth reveals his mind.
Of course..but vulgarity and machismo are juridically and judicially irrelevant
PoetPhilosopher
Veteran Member
After I first knew about Trump, I believed some of his messages, and was ready to vote for him. Then I watched the debate where he paced around, implied he would lock up the person he was running against, Hilary, and called her a nasty woman. I didn't vote for anyone, and my opinion of things hasn't really improved from there.
That is true. But he has a powerful voice. So many look up to him. They see what he does and think it good. It's not.
PoetPhilosopher
Veteran Member
I've known a few Presidents. Bush II did some things I didn't care for, but never did he give me a feeling of disgust like I have now.
Because they disagree with you?
We get to be mods AND posters. So, a mod saying they find your opinion incorrect is nothing different to any other poster saying they find your opinion incorrect.
If a report is made by someone, then we have mod responsibilities, judging whether rules have been broken, based on a consensus of three.
Oh, is that what happened? I must have misremembered. I thought it was Donald explaining.
I think our president gets away with more, and I think it has to do with the size of the country and with the size of his political party. The country is too large. The government is too large. There are advantages to that, but its harder to hold politicians accountable.
You can see how the senators and representatives often claim they hate to support Trump, but they do anyway since he is in their party. Many of them have denounced him and then turned around and complemented him later. The parties are very strong and expert in keeping their own in line. Its the reason that impeachment, so far, has never been successful against any president (except Nixon technically). Nixon stepped down before he could be impeached and arranged to have himself pardoned, so he stepped down and was immediately pardoned by the new president. It was expected that he would be impeached, but we never found out for sure. He got himself a good deal and got out.
Its rare (and should be rare) for Congress to vote about impeachment although media fervor over impeachment is normal. Every president for the last twenty years it seems has had people calling for impeachment. Usually however it doesn't reach a vote in Congress. It became serious with Nixon, Bill Clinton and Trump. Reagan could have been impeached about the secret Iran-Contra weapons trade, but he never was directly implicated.
You can see how the senators and representatives often claim they hate to support Trump, but they do anyway since he is in their party. Many of them have denounced him and then turned around and complemented him later. The parties are very strong and expert in keeping their own in line. Its the reason that impeachment, so far, has never been successful against any president (except Nixon technically). Nixon stepped down before he could be impeached and arranged to have himself pardoned, so he stepped down and was immediately pardoned by the new president. It was expected that he would be impeached, but we never found out for sure. He got himself a good deal and got out.
Its rare (and should be rare) for Congress to vote about impeachment although media fervor over impeachment is normal. Every president for the last twenty years it seems has had people calling for impeachment. Usually however it doesn't reach a vote in Congress. It became serious with Nixon, Bill Clinton and Trump. Reagan could have been impeached about the secret Iran-Contra weapons trade, but he never was directly implicated.