(January 16, 2018 at 6:02 pm)Shell B Wrote:

(January 16, 2018 at 6:01 pm)Khemikal Wrote: But "the claw"...apparently, is. 

Dude, he'd already eaten her out, IIRC. They'd kissed and undressed. The claw may not be pleasant, but it wasn't like, "Hey, I just met you . . . "

(January 18, 2018 at 1:42 am)Hammy Wrote:

(January 16, 2018 at 3:19 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: The guy here should have been paying more attention, in my opinion. He should have had more simple consideration for her feelings. The fact that he didn't have that consideration makes him a douchebag creep in my book.

From what I've read it seems he was more clueless than inattentive.

(January 18, 2018 at 2:19 am)Hammy Wrote: Get eaten out. Suck the guy's dick. Say you don't feel comfortable..

Quote:Make yourself more clear when the guy wasn't getting the message.

Quote:When you finally make it clear he does get the message.

Quote:The guy gets you a lift. Then say the next day by text message that you were assaulted. Makes perfect sense. /sarcasm

(January 16, 2018 at 9:39 pm)Shell B Wrote: Fuck, Tiz. CONTEXT.

I said "grabbing someone's tit isn't something you do to initiate sex."

Khem said, "but the claw apparently is."

I pointed out how it wasn't the initiating move in this scenario. I didn't say "hey, man. Totes cool to ram your fingers down someone's mouth." I just pointed out the obvious difference between starting off there and it being a failed move after you've already got down, so to speak. That doesn't mean it was a smooth, smart move. And, just to be utterly clear, if she said "I don't like you putting your fingers in my mouth" after the first time he did it, her testimony suggests he would have stopped doing it. It would have been a one time fuck up instead of a repeated violation, assuming we've got the facts right.

(January 16, 2018 at 11:15 pm)pool the matey Wrote: @everyone defending this dude, will you have the same attitude if this happened to your daughter?

(January 18, 2018 at 1:11 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Thena, Joods isn't blaming Grace. Joods is saying that according to the account, Grace was not forced to do anything, and could have either left and/or said NO at any time.

Joods is saying that Grace can't call sexual assault on a situation where she was not being forced and was free to leave or say no at any time.

This isn't victim blaiming. This is distinguishing the difference between an uncomfortable situation with a douchy guy, and a crime of sexual assault.

(January 17, 2018 at 8:49 am)Cyberman Wrote:

(January 16, 2018 at 5:14 pm)Khemikal Wrote: Ah, well...I don't think she's gonna be able to make that one stick.  I don;t know if that amounts to much,  I don't think that she could make it stick even if it were, meaningfully, a sexual assault.

Wouldn't matter anyway, whether or not it was assault. In these sorts of cases, usually the accusation is enough. Maybe not in the legal arena, but most definitely in the public one. Some years ago, a relative of mine was accused of sexual assault on minors. He denied it, the statements of the alleged victims were all over the place, forensic and other investigation came back negative, and one of the alleged victims even came out and gave details of why they were making the allegations (hint: compensation money). Yet my relative still served nine years after being coerced into pleading guilty by his own solicitor. His name is on the sex offenders register for the rest of his life.

But despite knowing all the context, there were people at the time - and still are - who said they don't care about all that and that he obviously must be guilty, because why else would the kids say such things? Why would the police have locked him up? Phrases like "no smoke without fire" were thrown about even by people who have known him for years.

(January 17, 2018 at 8:54 am)Cyberman Wrote:

(January 17, 2018 at 7:52 am)Khemikal Wrote: I think that people who are having trouble understanding nonverbal sexual cues should probably abstain from attempting to have sex.

I'm sure you're not advocating breeding out people with (eg) Asperger's from the population, and that I'm reading more into your textual cues than you intended.

(January 18, 2018 at 2:28 am)Thena323 Wrote: "aggression", "pressure", "pushiness" or anything but.

(January 17, 2018 at 10:05 am)polymath257 Wrote:

(January 17, 2018 at 8:54 am)Cyberman Wrote: I'm sure you're not advocating breeding out people with (eg) Asperger's from the population, and that I'm reading more into your textual cues than you intended.

And this is one of the aspects of this case. How does one read non-verbal clues? if you misinterpret them, you get a ruined career. But it is *always* possible to misinterpret them.

So the best thing is to ask. Communication until there is agreement. Not sexy, but necessary.

(January 17, 2018 at 1:19 pm)Shell B Wrote:

(January 17, 2018 at 1:06 pm)pool the matey Wrote: Ad hominem attacks are not arguments, they're ad hominem attacks.

It's a fine line, but yeah. Say your argument is that a person can't be a train operator because said person has a crippling learning disability, it's not a nice thing to have to say, but it's a valid argument. You could argue that a person isn't actually a nice person because they act like an asshole all the time. If the latter is true, it's an argument because it follows the premise. If you just say, "You're wrong about this because you're an asshole," that's an ad hom. Of course, there are a million other examples, but I think it's important sometimes to make clear that unless it's used as part of the argument, it's not an ad hom. It's just an insult. And, it might be insulting, but it might not be an ad hom. Distinctions.

I'm not sure what ad hom you're talking about though. I didn't catch one.