|
Post by the light works on Jan 12, 2015 17:40:55 GMT
biggest problem with public shaming is that with our current public focus, shameful things draw attention and hollywood lives by the policy of "any attention is good attention" thus when they go to rehab, their crimes are not just forgiven but celebrated.
so, sadly, I must regretfully conclude that the biggest problem in our society (on that particular topic) is that there is an element which is vicariously thrilled by people's bad behavior, and encourages it with their habit of seeking it out. there are not just those who think that Polanski has escaped justice long enough to go free, but think of him as a hero for doing so.
the other side of the coin was a woman who attempted to sue Boy George for child support, claiming he was the father of her child. he gave a defense that even a fundie would have to applaud."
something to the effect of "I'm gay. I don't have sex with women."
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jan 13, 2015 8:58:50 GMT
For and against...
It takes two to tango.
I have had a situation where a good friend of mine was Drunk, with someone of the opposite sex, and stopped right there and sent them home. They both wanted it, but, what would happen afterwards?. They came to me, because they were worried, as the other party was a good friend of both of us, and they accepted my council was balanced. My view?.. That was the best thing you could have done. It showed respect. It showed restraint. And I was right, the other party respected them more because what they had done.... And also was quite happy to go home as they also had the same fears.. I get them face to face to discuss, and now they have been married over 30 years.
I dispute the idea that because you are drunk and incapable you should forgive sins.
I question someone's ability to say that will never again happen... It happened once. Is that enough?
That depends on the person. It cant be a one size fits all decision.
And there we have the problem....
BOTH are drunk. BOTH are "Up for it" But the blame lies solely on the Man?..
With that in mind, a jury of 12 sit and listen to the evidence. Beyond all reasonable doubt.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jan 13, 2015 9:15:55 GMT
Celebrity lifestyle. If you ant do the time, dont do the crime.
If you are soooo good at what you do you become famous, either stop it now, as its becoming silly, or accept that you have restrictions.
You are rich and famous, you play football well, can you restrain yourself?... I put the David Beckham up as one example.. I never heard one complain abut him forcing his attention on any woman... "Quite a gentleman" was what I hear, and thats from the staff at the Manchester Bar where all the footballers went.
Of course, in these days, that may all get called into question.... I cant stand and say he was 100% "Pure" all the time?..
But he has managed to stay out of the "Rip 'em apart" gutter press.
He is not alone... Many CAN and WILL stay on the right side of decency.
Its not that hard then is it?
And we have evidence of those who didnt getting into a lot of gutter press headlines... So the warnings of what may happen are out there, loud and proud. No one can say they didnt get warned.
Are there any ex-70's DJ's not under suspicion?... Apart from Terry Wogan (Who is God) ..... Even the Hairy Cornflake got accused.
So I can say that maybe in the past there has been HUGE amounts of questionable and downright illegal treatment of young ladies. But this world now is growing up, you an not do that now, and just expect to get away with it.
You will be under the microscope, at all times... Either live with it or do something else.
You cannot be famous and expect to be left alone.
I know, because I know someone who runs a celebrity Holiday Hotel where Camera's are not allowed, and they are doing a roaring trade by those who need a break. So much so, they can, if they wanted to, pick and choose the guests?...
But back to being famous. If you dont want a news crew camped on your front lawn, dont be famous.
Just because you kick a football doesnt mean you can raise kids?... No. But if your ability to kick a football bought you from the poverty line to rich, you have a lifestyle that anyone can do, and young kids who dont have much will see that as a way to get out of the gutter. It gives them hope. You dont have to be their friend to be their hero... We have a youth player for one of the famous teams living close to here... The whole neighbourhood, even the ones who dont support "that" team, wish him well and hope he does get a Premier team slot soon... We dont want him to be the babysitter, we just want to support and idolise local talent. BECAUSE he is local talent.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 13, 2015 15:39:53 GMT
For and against... It takes two to tango. I have had a situation where a good friend of mine was Drunk, with someone of the opposite sex, and stopped right there and sent them home. They both wanted it, but, what would happen afterwards?. They came to me, because they were worried, as the other party was a good friend of both of us, and they accepted my council was balanced. My view?.. That was the best thing you could have done. It showed respect. It showed restraint. And I was right, the other party respected them more because what they had done.... And also was quite happy to go home as they also had the same fears.. I get them face to face to discuss, and now they have been married over 30 years. I dispute the idea that because you are drunk and incapable you should forgive sins. I question someone's ability to say that will never again happen... It happened once. Is that enough? That depends on the person. It cant be a one size fits all decision. And there we have the problem.... BOTH are drunk. BOTH are "Up for it" But the blame lies solely on the Man?.. With that in mind, a jury of 12 sit and listen to the evidence. Beyond all reasonable doubt. it is easier to make up for not having sex when you both wanted it than it is to make up for having sex when one of you didn't want it.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 13, 2015 15:43:56 GMT
history and current events has been filled with the more powerful taking advantage of that power to afford themselves opportunities not available to common folk. it is only fairly recently that society has decided that it is inappropriate for rich and famous people to use girls as disposable playthings.
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Nov 23, 2016 15:56:00 GMT
I was searching for something else on tThe Citadel and came across this old thread, which in fairness to the man involved means I should inform you of developments earlier this year. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-37659009The footballer in question Ched Evans was found not guilty of rape following new evidence and a retrial.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 23, 2016 16:24:12 GMT
I was searching for something else on tThe Citadel and came across this old thread, which in fairness to the man involved means I should inform you of developments earlier this year. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-37659009The footballer in question Ched Evans was found not guilty of rape following new evidence and a retrial. thanks for the update. so many stories just disappear in the ether. it sounds to me like investigation had demonstrated the alleged victim had allegedly initiated sexual encounters with other men in exactly the same manner previous to the ched case; and then claimed to have no memory of the encounters. leads me to an alledgely victim shaming "it is you who is choosing to get this drunk."
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Nov 23, 2016 16:39:14 GMT
It's a thorny issue yes a person should not have their past sexual encounters held against them, but on the other hand if they have a certain type of behaviour can it mitigate against acusations of an alleged attack?
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 23, 2016 16:53:40 GMT
It's a thorny issue yes a person should not have their past sexual encounters held against them, but on the other hand if they have a certain type of behaviour can it mitigate against acusations of an alleged attack? if there is a pattern of behavior, then it is quite probably relevant. if it is her pattern of behavior to get blackout drunk and initiate sex with random men, and then try to accuse the men of rape, then she needs to be charged with entrapment. there was a case I heard about several years ago (more than several, closer to many) in which a legal adult with a developmental disability was accused of statutory rape of an underage girl. in the investigation it was determined that the relationship was initiated by the girl who had a history of initiating sexual relationships with older men, and that she had been entirely in control of the relationship. the big challenge is separating history which is not relevant to the case from history which is.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Nov 24, 2016 7:53:44 GMT
I have a few comments. "Too drunk to consent" Swings BOTH ways. If the woman in question had been too drunk to consent, does it matter how many times she gets that drunk?.. Obviously yeas as that is a danger to herself, but, does it mean if she consents twice whilst two drunk, then she is capable of consenting, despite there being a law on being too drunk?. Ched evans denies he took part... but, he also didnt do a bloody thing to try and stop someone obviously drunk from having sex anyway... His partner and his family and HER family "Stood by him" Despite knowing that he partook of drunken parties where sex was involved.... he may have denied this time but how many times did he partake in his life?.. Obviously NOT on the night he was accused of rape..... And we have who's word on that?.
The outcome of this trial has proved only one thing, that there is "Reasonable doubt" on all sides as to who did what to whom with what and for how much, and that certain parties were drunk. All of them. And as the law currently states you can be too drunk to consent, I now have to ask, what level is too drunk?... Because it is entirely believable that I have broken that law, with my current wife and a lot of previous parties, if not all of them, on various occasions when we have all partied late intro the night. So who does that law protect?. It doesnt protect long-term partners?.. why not?... there are cases of rape inside marriage. It does not protect Men?.. why not?.. It does not protect anyone at all other than those who cry "Rape" AFTER the event?..
The facts are that this case, yet ANOTHER case of Young Footballers getting into drunken orgies in hotel rooms, has "Bought the game into disrepute", and the practise of after-game parties is now frowned upon.
To the detriment of Shreks Donkey... [Wayne Rooooney] He was at a hotel after the Scotland England football match having a few "Bevies" after the match, at that hotel at the same time, there was a big Wedding party .... One of the guests recognised Rooney, and invited him to the party, because they were all HUGE fans... He obliged, just to show his face, a sort of impromptu guest appearance, just to be nice?.. And afterwards has been blasted all over the papers as "Gate crashing the wedding"....
I do NOT like the Wooney at all, he is over=paid, under-skilled, and a bit of a bloody nightmare as a "representative" of the game, but, in this case, all he did was try and be nice.....
It also shows the current feelings towards Footballers and how they may celebrate a win.
You have to ask, if you are not allowed to celebrate a win, in any way, is it worth the win?. The current trend is that winners should not celebrate in any way because that "Hurts the feelings" of those who loose.....
Which is all kinds of "Special snowflake" wrong....
However, can I draw the middle line?. YES you should be able to celebrate a win, party hard, and get incapable. "In a protected space" is my advice. People attending do so on the grounds that hey have signed away any rights by attending, and what happens in the party, stays ion the party, as long as it is legal. Keep the party Legal.. adhere to all laws at all times. And "Keep it in your trousers" guys?.. despite numerous stories of gold-diggers abound, you believe that that ONE person is going to be your special friend because you just met her for the first time?.. Which swings both ways, ladies beware of Men in the same situation.
And lastly, ban all media from the party. If anyone at all is found to be representing in any way any news paper/site/magazine/whatever/even flakebook, have them ejected immediately.
What happens in the party, stays in the party, let it be "legend" as a bloody good story afterwards, nut just that, a bloody good story, not backed with video evidence, nor photographs or partly naked people.
In Summary...
I do not like, trust, or believe Ched Evans, I do not like believe or trust Ms Woman who was the alleged "Victim" either, only certain people know the truth, and they have pleaded the Fifth, they wont be telling. This court case has done nothing but stir the pot. Mr Evans is disliked by a large community for even taking part in such parties, especially those that attract young impressionable ladies, when "You know what is going to happen". Therefore, nothing changes. Despite a lengthy costly trial, you cannot change peoples minds by Force. Just because you were not guilty of the crime does not in any way force anyone to agree that you should be a "poster boy" and welcome as such at any football ground. You attended the party, you know the law, and yet you did nothing to prevent a "too drunk" person from consenting to sex with your friends?.. despite you allegedly refusing yourself?.. because of that same law?.. Or are you just saying that because of your partners support?... I have a question... You still allegedly guilty of something there. exactly what?.. And no I dont want an answer, because I may not believe what I am told anymore.
Probably Perjury by telling lies in court as well...
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 24, 2016 13:20:32 GMT
my opinion is that it is possible to take advantage of someone being too dunk to consent; but at the same time, it is possible for a person to make a habit of getting drunk and seeking sex which in repetition becomes a waiving of the right to complain. as for drunk sex inside a relationship, if there is an agreement before getting drunk that drunk sex is acceptable, then consent has been given.
any kind of a celebrity that expects random sex in payment for celebrity status is, in my opinion, a dinosaur trying to live by outdated norms. - even though there are still groupies in abundance. (groupies being those who believe the star experience is not complete without having sex with the star)
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Nov 25, 2016 11:14:21 GMT
Continuing on with all that, I need to ask questions, and maybe continue the discussion, and what I am saying here is open to discussion...
I propose, that if a situation arises where a "Party" is to be held, then it be done in a way that if you enter that property, you are implying by entering that property, that consent is "Given", and, if you are liable to have objections, you shouldnt have gone there anyway.
We return to TLW's ideal that "Personal responsibility" is something that relies on the person taking full blame for their own actions. You Drink, You Drunk, if that leads to bad experiences, know when to STOP drinking, or just dont drink.
If you are out "Partying" with a bunch of footballers, "You know the score", and by merely joining in with their fun, you accept responsibility, and therefore, "Consent" to the full range of what that may bring, and if you have a problem with that, then you should have used the exits available. If you are too drunk to understand the implications, then those serving you that drink should ideally intervene. But we all know that is often not possible, and quite often not even welcome, so, although ideal, not in any way should it be a responsibility for anyone serving alcohol to know exactly when they should intervene, and they should not be held responsible for any stupid decision made AFTER someone has consumed "Too much", in the truth that as they elected to drink it, its their responsibility. Its not as if you are held down and forced to consume... After all, that is illegal, and we are discussing LEGAL in all ways parties that break no rules here. Those who join in and continue to join in, and do not choose to leave "After a certain point", must be made to understand, that the same as Drink Driving, Drunk Sex holds its own responsibilities, and can have unforeseen circumstances if you partake.
ALSO. It takes two to tango....
Presuming this is just the usual act and not being tricked into BDSM and otherwise unexpected acts...
When both parties are equally drunk, you cannot in any way proportion blame to either one for consenting without the other one consenting unless it becomes obvious they say "NO" in such a way that it crosses the line into illegal acts and rape, if both parties consent when equally drunk then they are equally to blame?... If you "Lead someone on" without making it plain that there are boundaries NOT to be crossed, where do you draw the line?. And no you cant use any form of AFTER the event decision that it was a bad idea to legally pursue the other person if you consented at the time. Consent given is consent given, carpe diem, and caveat emptor.
To try and put it another way, If I drive a truck, I have "Due diligence" to check that truck out before I leave. 200 mile and I didnt notice there was a wheel missing, and it has been missing since I was handed the keys, who's fault is that for not counting the wheels before I leave?.. If I turn up with a Box Wagon trailer and its a Boat that should be on a low-loader, who's fault is it that I towed out the wrong trailer?.. If I get into bad weather conditions on a known "Ice road" and I find out I didnt check if I had snow chains, who's fault is that?.
If you are at a party and someone leads you towards a bed, what are you expecting?. If you do not say no, immediately, and make no attempt to leave, then you are sort of agreeing.?.. If you are attending "That type" of party, surely you are attending "That type" of party.
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Nov 26, 2016 1:04:01 GMT
This goes back IMHO to a video I posted a few weeks ago. It's an hour long and contains a fair amount of cursing, but it's rather worth it:
Some months back, a TEDx Talk was used to advocate for an anonymous computerized reporting system so that women on campus could report sexual harassment and sexual assault. To make the case for this, the speaker used a hypothetical story in which a woman named Sarah used the system to report a drunken sexual encounter with a man named Brad, an encounter that she regards as him having raped her.
Australian YouTube host Bearing did a video countering it by noting that the story presented in the Talk only gave Sarah's side, and that in order to fully understand what took place we'd need Brad's side as well. Bearing was called a "rape apologist" and a whole host of other nasty things because of it, especially by people who were already looking for an excuse to shout him down.
Thing is, one of Bearing's fans knew an actual attorney, one who had worked as a prosecutor for several years before going on to become a government law attorney. The fan put Bearing in touch with the guy, and soon the two were joined by a YouTube host who *had* survived a sexual assault. This led to the conversation in the video.
The gist of it? As the attorney notes, back when he was a prosecutor his superiors would have instructed him not to prosecute due to all of the unanswered questions. Sexual assault and rape charges require proof that the attacker had intent, and the story doesn't establish it; further investigation would have been needed. The attorney supported this by bringing up a then-ongoing legal battle in which a young man was suing his former college. The young man was accused of sexual assault by a fellow student, who claimed that he raped her. The police, however, discovered text messages from him to her which supported the idea that the pair had in fact been in a normal relationship both before *and* after the supposed incident, raising enough questions about the nature of the incident that decision was made not to prosecute. Despite this decision, the college decided that they themselves would declare him guilty and execute punishment; not only did they throw him out, they intervened to have him thrown out of another college he enrolled in.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Nov 26, 2016 12:10:31 GMT
Thgis is all over the news here in UK... This "Nonce" is goina make Jimmy Savile look "tame" as one person put it?.. he was a serial paedophile... and NO ONE did anything?... www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38113288
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 26, 2016 14:11:47 GMT
Thgis is all over the news here in UK... This "Nonce" is goina make Jimmy Savile look "tame" as one person put it?.. he was a serial paedophile... and NO ONE did anything?... www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38113288I think now hat we're giving attention to such things, we will be finding more and more. robbers rob banks because that's where the money is. pedos get involved with kids groups for a similar reason.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Nov 27, 2016 10:22:53 GMT
Thgis is all over the news here in UK... This "Nonce" is goina make Jimmy Savile look "tame" as one person put it?.. he was a serial paedophile... and NO ONE did anything?... www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38113288I think now hat we're giving attention to such things, we will be finding more and more. robbers rob banks because that's where the money is. pedos get involved with kids groups for a similar reason. The sheer scale of what this scumbag is alleged to have done, and I am reserving final judgement for after the whole trial, is horrendous. The mere allegations he continued on after doing jail time on no less than three occasions.... The Club "Knew" of concerns, but allowed him to continue. They now reckon that this will have a bigger impact that Yewtree... [thats the police operation that was on the BBC historic child sex abuse] MANY coaches have been "mentioned".
|
|