Tara Reade who accuses Biden of sexual assault now fears for her life.

[wellwisher]

Smells political to me. Considering MTG and Gaetz are pushing the testimony. Of course your Fox source is pushing it too.

Even if it does smell political, the Durham report shows a pattern of Democrat Swamp behavior from 2014, onward, where justice was politicized, and any victim not with the Democrat mob, will be called the criminal, since injustice now has a dual standard. Let us predict that the outcome of her case, will look just like another page out of the Durham report. Trump will be prosecuted, but the victims of Biden will ignored, even with both data sets in front of the partial injustice department.

If an Injustice Department is the new way, and the Conservative gain full power, they get to play just as dirty, since the Democrats have made this the new rules. The Democrats; Harry Reid, changed how Supreme Court Justice would be elected, assuming Hillary was going to win in 2016; stack the Court. When Trump won, the Democrats got a major set back with their own rule change. Trump stacked the Court.

If injustice is now legal and nobody in power who plays that game ever gets punished, like Obama, Biden, Clinton, Schumer, Pelosi, and Schiff, and company. You can harass the opposition, intimidate witnesses and whistle blowers, and even raid their homes, then if Republicans were to get elected, they get to take advantage of the dirty rule change. This is acceptable by the Left, so these are the new rules, right?

The Republicans need a pit bull in poodle clothing, to get in and make the most of it. Payback is a witch. It will be harder to cheat this time, even with the injustice rules in place. The crappy job the Left is doing will scare away Independents. The Reparation promises will cause blacks to boycott. Democrats leaders can can fix it, by going to the police and have them cuff you. Once justice is served, the rules can become honest again; Reform a Justice department and get rid of the Democrats created Injustice Department.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Even if it does smell political, the Durham report shows a pattern of Democrat Swamp behavior from 2014, onward, where justice was politicized, and any victim not with the Democrat mob, will be called the criminal, since injustice now has a dual standard. Let us predict that the outcome of her case, will look just like another page out of the Durham report. Trump will be prosecuted, but the victims of Biden will ignored, even with both data sets in front of the partial injustice department.

If an Injustice Department is the new way, and the Conservative gain full power, they get to play just as dirty, since the Democrats have made this the new rules. The Democrats; Harry Reid, changed how Supreme Court Justice would be elected, assuming Hillary was going to win in 2016; stack the Court. When Trump won, the Democrats got a major set back with their own rule change. Trump stacked the Court.

If injustice is now legal and nobody in power who plays that game ever gets punished, like Obama, Biden, Clinton, Schumer, Pelosi, and Schiff, and company. You can harass the opposition, intimidate witnesses and whistle blowers, and even raid their homes, then if Republicans were to get elected, they get to take advantage of the dirty rule change. This is acceptable by the Left, so these are the new rules, right?

The Republicans need a pit bull in poodle clothing, to get in and make the most of it. Payback is a witch. It will be harder to cheat this time, even with the injustice rules in place. The crappy job the Left is doing will scare away Independents. The Reparation promises will cause blacks to boycott. Democrats leaders can can fix it, by going to the police and have them cuff you. Once justice is served, the rules can become honest again; Reform a Justice department and get rid of the Democrats created Injustice Department.

One name. One hush check

Paula Jones.

Clinton settles sexual harassment suit, Nov. 14, 1998

The settlement with Paula Jones, reached without the suit going to trial, heaped fuel on Clinton’s impeachment proceedings by the Republican-controlled House.

www.politico.com

 

[nPeace]

One person's satiation is not worth another's trauma.

Just as I thought Feminism It's about the woman The man is of no account.

 

[fantome profane]

Just as I thought Feminism It's about the woman The man is of no account.

If the man says stop, stop. It works either way. The man has the right to say no, and to withdraw consent.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Just as I thought Feminism It's about the woman The man is of no account.

Note my use of gender neutral terms.

My spouse has asked me to stop in the middle of sex because it was uncomfortable at the time. I complied. It wasn't a big deal. I switched to ol' Righty and Lefty.

I was with a girl, and sometime between foreplay and intercourse decided I wasn't ready for sex with her. I don't think she was entirely happy, but complied. She was good about it even if disappointed.

 

[Debater Slayer]

How do you know he didn't work on it?

It has been years since I followed any news about him closely, but I recall reading some criticism that he appealed to class far too often and didn't dedicate enough time to racial issues, which could have given him more ground among Black voters.

She was attractive enuf to win, having received
more total votes than Trump. But the electoral
college system isn't based upon that.
She had support from many because they wanted
a female President. Her record & agendas were
largely ignored.
It irked me that Democrats (& Republicans) paid
no attention to her penchant for violent policies.

I don't know that she got the support she did because of being a woman. I had the impression at the time that many didn't like her but still thought that, regardless of past record, Trump would be more dangerous as a president.

I suppose that was a reasonable argument if they saw no reason to conclude that she would start any new wars even though she had been hawkish in the past. An unstable and impulsive Trump would quite arguably be more likely to drag the US into another conflict, potentially a nuclear one. At least Hillary Clinton would probably be easier for Congress to hold back just like Obama was when he tried to obtain authorization for military action in Syria.

There are far greater dangers posed here than sexual
predation, eg, war, stacking SCOTUS with anti-civil
libertarians, war, insurrection, war. The difference is
harm to a few individuals vs harming entire segments
of a population, both domestically & abroad.

I know. I was just comparing Trump and Biden with respect to the main issue that is under discussion in this thread, which is sexually predatory behavior.

You posted....
"... if the US could intervene in Russia non-militarily to remove Putin from power..."
And in post #212, you compared killing Putin with killing Castro, thus showing
that we were discussing assassination.
USA has no political power in Russia.
What would that mean other than covertly assassinating him?

You brought up Castro in the exchange, not I. I didn't even mention anything about an attempt to kill either Castro or Putin. I was just continuing the discussion about the general idea of overthrowing a foreign leader, not saying it should be done violently. However, I've edited that post to prevent any potential misinterpretation.

I think trying to assassinate any leader, let alone the leader of a nuclear power, would be significantly rash and irresponsible, in addition to carrying a whole host of ethical problems. You could have asked instead of concluding the most drastic interpretation possible.

You must be able to see why I inferred what I did.

You only added "non-violent" in this post.
How would intelligence services effect such a coup within Russia?
Do you see the risks of doing this?

I don't know how they would, since I have no idea to what extent they have influence there or what levels of intelligence about Putin's regime they have on hand. I just know that the US has previously managed to overthrow leaders without assassinating them or using military force.

And failing at it.

Believing that US motives are more ethical this time
doesn't increase the chances of success, nor does it
reduce the risks & terrible consequences of failure.

That's true, which is why I believe that an attempt to overthrow him (as I said, non-violently) should only be an absolute last resort—that is, if the situation came down to either attempting that option or letting Ukraine fall and be annexed by Putin, opening the door to more invasions and escalated threats from him.

If Putin is to be killed, it should not be by USA.
Let his own people make that choice, which could be legal there.
And let's hope his replacement is a reasonable & peaceful person.

I'm not interested in talking about anyone's death. I just hope he gets replaced and thrown in prison for the rest of his life.

 

[Revoltingest]

It has been years since I followed any news about him closely, but I recall reading some criticism that he appealed to class far too often and didn't dedicate enough time to racial issues, which could have given him more ground among Black voters.

He struck me as trying very hard.
But not everyone makes it.

I don't know that she got the support she did because of being a woman.

I recall it being a major interest.

I had the impression at the time that many didn't like her but still thought that, regardless of past record, Trump would be more dangerous as a president.

Some thought both were dangerous.

I suppose that was a reasonable argument if they saw no reason to conclude that she would start any new wars even though she had been hawkish in the past. An unstable and impulsive Trump would quite arguably be more likely to drag the US into another conflict, potentially a nuclear one. At least Hillary Clinton would probably be easier for Congress to hold back just like Obama was when he tried to obtain authorization for military action in Syria.

Opinions varied on the relative threat posed by each.

You brought up Castro in the exchange, not I. I didn't even mention anything about an attempt to kill either Castro or Putin. I was just continuing the discussion about the general idea of overthrowing a foreign leader, not saying it should be done violently. However, I've edited that post to prevent any potential misinterpretation.

I think trying to assassinate any leader, let alone the leader of a nuclear power, would be significantly rash and irresponsible, in addition to carrying a whole host of ethical problems. You could have asked instead of concluding the most drastic interpretation possible.

I don't know how they would, since I have no idea to what extent they have influence there or what levels of intelligence about Putin's regime they have on hand. I just know that the US has previously managed to overthrow leaders without assassinating them or using military force.

We've settled that issue.

That's true, which is why I believe that an attempt to overthrow him (as I said, non-violently) should only be an absolute last resort—that is, if the situation came down to either attempting that option or letting Ukraine fall and be annexed by Putin, opening the door to more invasions and escalated threats from him.

I'm not interested in talking about anyone's death. I just hope he gets replaced and thrown in prison for the rest of his life.

We agree USA shouldn't assassinate Putin,
but that he should go...provided no one
worse replaces him.

 

[nPeace]

If the man says stop, stop. It works either way. The man has the right to say no, and to withdraw consent.

Note my use of gender neutral terms.

My spouse has asked me to stop in the middle of sex because it was uncomfortable at the time. I complied. It wasn't a big deal. I switched to ol' Righty and Lefty.

I was with a girl, and sometime between foreplay and intercourse decided I wasn't ready for sex with her. I don't think she was entirely happy, but complied. She was good about it even if disappointed.

...but you guys... and or, gals, are talking about sex.
We were discussing rape, remember.
If I knew you were talking about ethics during sex, I would say, forget about casual sex, and get married to someone you love.

Of course, in everything - not just sex - it's ethical to be considerate of everyone's feelings... but we aren't talking about that... were we?
I'm saying there was just consent to sex. There was no agreement on taking the feelings of the person into consideration.

What about the man's feelings?
First, he never grabbed the woman, and forced her to have sex. She was a willing participant.
When she says stop, and he says go, who should comply?

Remember, they both agreed to sex, and are engaging in sex... not by force.

 

[fantome profane]

...but you guys... and or, gals, are talking about sex.
We were discussing rape, remember.
If I knew you were talking about ethics during sex, I would say, forget about casual sex, and get married to someone you love.

Of course, in everything - not just sex - it's ethical to be considerate of everyone's feelings... but we aren't talking about that... were we?
I'm saying there was just consent to sex. There was no agreement on taking the feelings of the person into consideration.

What about the man's feelings?
First, he never grabbed the woman, and forced her to have sex. She was a willing participant.
When she says stop, and he says go, who should comply?

Remember, they both agreed to sex, and are engaging in sex... not by force.

You just can't seen to wrap you head around the idea that consent can be revoked. But it can. If one person says stop, the other must stop. It is that simple. I don't know why you don't understand it. It doesn't matter which partner wants to stop. If someone says stop, stop. And if the other wants to "finish", they can "finish" by themselves.

Even if they both agreed, either can change their mind. They have that right. There is no such thing as "no backsies".

If they both agree to have sex, we are talking about sex. If one does not agree, we are talking about rape. If they both agreed, but one changes their mind, and the other says, I am gonna do it anyway, that is rape.

Both partners must agree from the beginning to the end. Each time.

(and btw, it doesn't matter if you get married, the same rules apply)


Back to the tea analogy. You offer a cup of tea, someone accepts the cup of tea. They drink half the cup of tea and enjoy it, but then they decide they have had enough tea. You should not jump up and force the rest of the tea down their throat screaming "but you agreed to tea!".

It doesn't matter if they agreed to tea before, they don't want anymore tea now.

And it doesn't matter if they agreed to sex before, if they don't want sex now, and you force it on them, that is called rape.

Can't explain it any better than that.

 

[nPeace]

You just can't seen to wrap you head around the idea that consent can be revoked. But it can. If one person says stop, the other must stop. It is that simple. I don't know why you don't understand it. It doesn't matter which partner wants to stop. If someone says stop, stop. And if the other wants to "finish", they can "finish" by themselves.

Even if they both agreed, either can change their mind. They have that right. There is no such thing as "no backsies".

If they both agree to have sex, we are talking about sex. If one does not agree, we are talking about rape. If they both agreed, but one changes their mind, and the other says, I am gonna do it anyway, that is rape.

Both partners must agree from the beginning to the end. Each time.

(and btw, it doesn't matter if you get married, the same rules apply)


Back to the tea analogy. You offer a cup of tea, someone accepts the cup of tea. They drink half the cup of tea and enjoy it, but then they decide they have had enough tea. You should not jump up and force the rest of the tea down their throat screaming "but you agreed to tea!".

How do you stop drinking tea? It's your hand that puts the cup to your mouth. It's the same hand that takes the cup away.
With sex, it's not your hand that's doing anything. So how are you raped when you are having sex?

 

[fantome profane]

How do you stop drinking tea? It's your hand that puts the cup to your mouth. It's the same hand that takes the cup away.
With sex, it's not your hand that's doing anything. So how are you raped when you are having sex?

I really cannot explain it any clearer than I did.

If someone says stop, stop.

 

[nPeace]

I really cannot explain it any clearer than I did.

If someone says stop, stop.

I don't think your problem is failing to explain your position.

 

[fantome profane]

I don't think your problem is failing to explain your position.

I don't think so either.

 

[nPeace]

I don't think so either.

Good. We agree on something else.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

I don't think your problem is failing to explain your position.

I am curious. Do you think a person should stop in the middle of having sex if their partner asks them to?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

How do you stop drinking tea? It's your hand that puts the cup to your mouth. It's the same hand that takes the cup away.
With sex, it's not your hand that's doing anything. So how are you raped when you are having sex?

You go to shake my hand.

I grip your hand a little too tightly and it hurts you.

You ask me to let go of your hand.

I apologise and let go of your hand.

It really isn't any more complicated than that. If you can wrap your head around the above, it should not be hard to wrap your head around the idea of someone asking another person to stop during sex, or literally any other physical activity.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

...but you guys... and or, gals, are talking about sex.
We were discussing rape, remember.
If I knew you were talking about ethics during sex, I would say, forget about casual sex, and get married to someone you love.

My wife and I are polyamorous. The girl I mentioned earlier that I decided not to have sex with was not my spouse, but we had all agreed beforehand that I could have sex with her.

Keep in mind too, there is marital rape. You can be raped by a spouse, even if you love them.

Of course, in everything - not just sex - it's ethical to be considerate of everyone's feelings... but we aren't talking about that... were we?
I'm saying there was just consent to sex. There was no agreement on taking the feelings of the person into consideration.

It's not about just feelings. It's about the person asserting their bodily autonomy and communicating that they don't want it to continue. If you consent to sex you consent that the sex can stop.

What about the man's feelings?
First, he never grabbed the woman, and forced her to have sex. She was a willing participant.
When she says stop, and he says go, who should comply?

Remember, they both agreed to sex, and are engaging in sex... not by force.

He should. After she says stop and he continues, he is then engaging in sex by force.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes. Let's stick to that.
You gave consent to sex. You both did things wrong. Or, your expectations were not satisfied. What do you do? Cry rape, because the guy did not stop when you wanted to?

Um yeah, because having sex or continuing to have sex with someone when they don't want to is rape.

What's your suggestion? Just keep carrying on with the painful sex that you're not enjoying??

I gave several examples to illustrate what that amounts to.
However, you seem only focused on what you said. Is that how conversations go?

I'd like to stick with the example I gave instead of jumping to others. Is there a problem with that? You still haven't addressed it.

Here is a scenario. Girl likes guy. Girl wants to have sex with guy. Guy wants to have sex with girl. Girl probably expects guy to take his time, and be gentle, but guy rushes into things and is rough. Girl tells guy to stop. It hurts. Guy says, well it's supposed to hurt... what did you think would happen, if you aren't a... you know.
Do you say the guy raped you?

Why do you want to keep changing the scenario? I gave one. I just asked you above if we could stick to it and you seem to have agreed above, and yet now we're jumping to something else.

Also, I'm not interested in scenarios with "what did you think would happen" type of questions. It reeks too much of the types of misogynistic tropes of the past I'd like to avoid.

Also, it's not supposed to hurt. And it's perfectly okay to ask your partner to stop having sex with you if it hurts you. Good grief!

Why you do this, is for one reason, and one reason only, but if I can't help you, to change that, I just can't.

I "do it" because I haven't gotten a straight answer. Still haven't.

All your questions were answered. Is there one on your mind you did not post?

I refer back to the post I was responding to.
It happened to me that my first time with a man was a bit unsettling and...painful.
But he was my boyfriend and I was deeply in love with him.
And I didn't express my consent explicitly because I didn't know what to do...because it was my first time.

The fact that another woman could have sued that man...in the US, shows that the American judicial system is flawed.
I am sorry.
Because it basically tells women: if you enjoyed the sexual act, it's not rape.
If you didn't enjoy it, it's rape.

That is, you can withdraw your consent, after the sexual act.

I see it like this...
The mindset is... If things do not go my way, I can simply just "change my mind", and have my way.
It's a form of cheating... interesting pun. To me it's like having your cake and eating it too.
It no doubt creates causality - the effects you don't want to accept.
That's the price of immorality.

Quite honestly, I find this viewpoint disgusting. You think asking a person to stop having sex with you because it's quite uncomfortable for you is "a form of cheating?" How on earth is that a form of cheating?

Asking a person who is having sex with you to stop because it hurts you is perfectly fine. A caring partner who gives a crap about you would honour your feelings and listen to you.

I don't know what your reference to the "price of immorality" is all about, but it sounds pretty disgusting to me. Nobody has the right to have sex with you if you don't want it. Period.

Thankfully, the Christian does not have to deal with that selfishness, because they don't hop into bed with every Tom, Dick, and Harry.

Who's talking about jumping into bed with every Tom, Dick and Harry? How interesting that that's where your mind went.

Even if somebody does want to have sex with multiple partners, those partners have no right to have sex with that person against their will or when they've asked to end it. What kind of bizarro world do you live in where that isn't the case? Where that's actually a form of cheating?

The man or woman they get into bed with, is one they take time to know. One who appreciates, respects, and loves them, so that they consider the feelings of each other.
That's the role morality plays in their life.

Unless they're asked to stop. And then it's a form of cheating ... or something. In actuality, it's a form of rape.
My partner would stop if I asked. The only further questions he would ask after that would be if I was okay and what could he do to help. But then again, he's not a rapist. According to you though, we're immoral evil atheists that are no better than pedophiles or something. Seems like maybe your views on this are a tad skewed, shall we say.

Those who do otherwise, runs along, and suffer the consequences... which they don't like, of course.

Oh okay. So people that you deem immoral sexually deserve whatever they get? What a horrid point of view.

 

[SkepticThinker]

They would not care what any backward individual thinks either. ...but isn't that the state of the world.

If a woman is being raped, yes, I agree she should scream her head off. She has nothing to be ashamed of... unless she is guilty of "playing the prostitute"... which is what some do.

Penal Code section 261 provides in relevant part the following definition of rape: "Rape is an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a person not the spouse of the perpetrator, under any of the following circumstances: ... (2) Where it is accomplished against a person's will by means of force or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the person or another." [4] To be convicted of rape the defendant must engage in an act of sexual intercourse with the person, the person must not be the spouse of defendant, the act of intercourse must be against the will of the person, and the act must be accomplished by force. (See CALJIC No. 10.00 (rev. 1982).) In essence, then, rape may be defined as nonconsensual sexual intercourse. (People v. Key (1984) 153 Cal. App. 3d 888, 895 [203 Cal. Rptr. 144].) [172 Cal. App. 3d 243]

Consent at the moment of penetration does not give the male a license to commit any act of force upon the female. It has been held that while withdrawn consent after penetration or during the act of sexual intercourse negates a rape, the male may be guilty of another crime, such as assault or battery. (State v. Way, supra, 254 S.E.2d at p. 762; see Annot. (1963) 91 A.L.R.2d 591, 597-598; see Comment (1954) 6 Stan.L.Rev. 719, 726, fn. 36.)

I don't think you can decide what is rape, based on your personal feeling.
People may begin to think people with your view are almost certainly female, and promoting a feminist movement. - If a woman says yes, go. If a woman says no, stop.
It does sound like a feminist movement.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You say that like it's a bad thing.

There are those that claim if it were not for Christianity that they would do all sorts of evil things. To me that always sounded like hyperbole. But when people cannot understand the simple concept of rape I start to think that they may be right about themselves.