Quote:Interesting that you didn't say this to any of the men on here.
None of them went so far as to post the definition of the word "let". That's a gross insult to victims of sexual assault and rape. It exonerates the aggressor. Although we disagree on much, I actually like you, but that post disgusted me. Blaming the victim instead of accepting the obvious that nobody should be touched unless they want to be. "They let it happen." Nobody let's themselves be attacked or raped.
Quote:Interesting that you didn't say this to any of the men on here.
Did Miss Utah let him do it?
Quote:None of them went so far as to post the definition of the word "let". That's a gross insult to victims of sexual assault and rape. It exonerates the aggressor. Although we disagree on much, I actually like you, but that post disgusted me. Blaming the victim instead of accepting the obvious that nobody should be touched unless they want to be. "They let it happen." Nobody let's themselves be attacked or raped.
And your response disgusted us all, and not doubling down on it because she posted a definition? Is that really the way you want to go? This is sad and reprehensible.
And all in pursuit of your own childish desire to twist the words of a 30 second tape. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Quote:And your response disgusted us all, and not doubling down on it because she posted a definition? Is that really the way you want to go? This is sad and reprehensible.
And all in pursuit of your own childish desire to twist the words of a 30 second tape. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Stop the phony outrage. It is unbecoming of you. Are you related to Ann Navarro?
Quote:And your response disgusted us all, and not doubling down on it because she posted a definition? Is that really the way you want to go? This is sad and reprehensible.
And all in pursuit of your own childish desire to twist the words of a 30 second tape. You should be ashamed of yourself.
I should be ashamed for attacking the notion victims "let" themselves be touched? That's clearly the point that was being made. I married a woman who still struggles with things that happened to her a very long time ago. She didn't "let" those things happen to her. The idea women will "let" themselves be touched inappropriately by someone because they have money, fame or power is manure. Whether or not Trump did it is irrelevant. She is trying to make the point these women "let" this happen as if it's okay. That's disgusting and shocking to come from a woman. Making excuses for this type of behavior and making arguments which blame victims is reprehensible.
go read what he said to Bchbunnie. Tell me if that's phony outrage.
It's one thing to say something crass or offensive behind closed doors among guys. That may be stupid and barbarrick, but it's not the same as directing that kind of insinuation to a woman's face. Usually, guys who feel comfortable saying things like that to a woman are comfortable doing and saying other things...
What he said was crass, but for me to say anything negatively would be hypocritical because I have said far worse anonymously and in private :pinch:
Quote:I should be ashamed for attacking the notion victims "let" themselves be touched? That's clearly the point that was being made. I married a woman who still struggles with things that happened to her a very long time ago. She didn't "let" those things happen to her. The idea women will "let" themselves be touched inappropriately by someone because they have money, fame or power is manure. Whether or not Trump did it is irrelevant. She is trying to make the point these women "let" this happen as if it's okay. That's disgusting and shocking to come from a woman. Making excuses for this type of behavior and making arguments which blame victims is reprehensible.
1.) sometimes maybe, just maybe, when someone uses the term let these things so on and so forth they might actually be talking about something consensual based on their rapport, attractiveness, wealth etc. The idea that you start out with the premise of sexual assault and then back into this backhanded garbage about posting a definition is intellectually dishonest and beneath the discourse of this board. If you want to criticize him for cheating on his wife, fine. I'm right there with you. If you want to say that what he was disgusting, fine, I can see that. If you want to say that what he said was arrogant and he sounds like a prick fine, that's your prerogative, I can't argue with you. Making the leap that not only was he advocating sexual assault on a stranger but that anyone who disagrees with your assumption is beneath your respect is just childish.
2.) Moreover, you're starting to sound like one of those guys who beat up his girlfriend... "Well she SHOULD do the dishes... If she just did the dishes this wouldn't have happened!" Bull feathers. There is no reason to disrespect a woman like that, especially when she just posted a definition that you don't like. If she posts a lists of synonyms are you going to take off your belt and show her whose boss?
3.) I too am married to and have dated in the past women who have struggled with legitimate sexual assault and the baggage that comes with it. Trivializing it to serve your own warped agenda ( and to cover the fact that you yourself have been basically run out of two threads that you yourself started because you DON'T have a compelling case to make against Trump on policy ) is a slap in the face to your wife, mine, and all the women in the world who have had to deal with sexual assault not just some rich guy bragging about the perks of being a billionaire...
Quote:1.) sometimes maybe, just maybe, when someone uses the term let these things so on and so forth they might actually be talking about something consensual based on their rapport, attractiveness, wealth etc. The idea that you start out with the premise of sexual assault and then back into this backhanded garbage about posting a definition is intellectually dishonest and beneath the discourse of this board. If you want to criticize him for cheating on his wife, fine. I'm right there with you. If you want to say that what he was disgusting, fine, I can see that. If you want to say that what he said was arrogant and he sounds like a [BAD WORD REMOVED] fine, that's your prerogative, I can't argue with you. Making the leap that not only was he advocating sexual assault on a stranger but that anyone who disagrees with your assumption is beneath your respect is just childish.
2.) Moreover, you're starting to sound like one of those guys who beat up his girlfriend... "Well she SHOULD do the dishes... If she just did the dishes this wouldn't have happened!" Bull feathers. There is no reason to disrespect a woman like that, especially when she just posted a definition that you don't like. If she posts a lists of synonyms are you going to take off your belt and show her whose boss?
3.) I too am married to and have dated in the past women who have struggled with legitimate sexual assault and the baggage that comes with it. Trivializing it to serve your own warped agenda ( and to cover the fact that you yourself have been basically run out of two threads that you yourself started because you DON'T have a compelling case to make against Trump on policy ) is a slap in the face to your wife, mine, and all the women in the world who have had to deal with sexual assault not just some rich guy bragging about the perks of being a billionaire...
But to address point #3
He has done more than brag about it.
You have me pegged..
I am not in any way, shape or form someone who raises a hand to women. I am an active advocate for equality and women's rights. I am friends with crisis rape counselors. I took incredible offense that the excuse making would venture over into the implication women willingly "let" themselves be touched inappropriately. I would have blasted anyone who made such an argument. It's twice as shocking to have come from someone who could easily be the target of such behavior.
Quote:None of them went so far as to post the definition of the word "let". That's a gross insult to victims of sexual assault and rape. It exonerates the aggressor. Although we disagree on much, I actually like you, but that post disgusted me. Blaming the victim instead of accepting the obvious that nobody should be touched unless they want to be. "They let it happen." Nobody let's themselves be attacked or raped.
It's your opinion that he was talking about sexually assaulting woman, I don't share that opinion.
In the same audio tape, he is talking about hitting on and being rejected by Nancy O'Dell. “I moved on her, and I failed. I’ll admit it" is what he said about her. He took no for an answer, not the classic response from someone that sexually assaults women for sport.
And as far as the definition of let goes, it had nothing to do with insulting ACTUAL victims of sexual assault and rape. Throwing around words like sexual assault and rape without cause does nothing but diminish the legitimate claims of such incidents. He wasn't talking about forcing women to accept his advances, he never said anything about grabbing their [bad word removed] whether they wanted him to or not.
The man is a misogynistic [BAD WORD REMOVED] hole, but bragging about woman letting you kiss them and grab their [bad word removed] because you are famous is completely different than sexually assaulting them.
Interesting that NOW you are suddenly so concerned about women being disrespected.
Quote:You have me pegged..
I am not in any way, shape or form someone who raises a hand to women. I am an active advocate for equality and women's rights. I am friends with crisis rape counselors. I took incredible offense that the excuse making would venture over into the implication women willingly "let" themselves be touched inappropriately. I would have blasted anyone who made such an argument. It's twice as shocking to have come from someone who could easily be the target of such behavior.
and your response? being disrespectful to a woman then trying desperately to justify it... all I need to know. Thank you.
Quote:It's your opinion that he was talking about sexually assaulting woman, I don't share that opinion
In the same audio tape, he is talking about hitting on and being rejected by Nancy O'Dell. “I moved on her, and I failed. I’ll admit it" is what he said about her. He took no for an answer, not the classic response from someone that sexually assaults women for sport.
And as far as the definition of let goes, it had nothing to do with insulting ACTUAL victims of sexual assault and rape. Throwing around words like sexual assault and rape without cause does nothing but diminish the legitimate claims of such incidents. He wasn't talking about forcing women to accept his advances, he never said anything about grabbing their [bad word removed] whether they wanted him to or not.
The man is a misogynistic [BAD WORD REMOVED] hole, but bragging about woman letting you kiss them and grab their [bad word removed] because you are famous is completely different than sexually assaulting them.
Don't believe you know the legal definition of assault.
Quote:It's your opinion that he was talking about sexually assaulting woman, I don't share that opinion.
In the same audio tape, he is talking about hitting on and being rejected by Nancy O'Dell. “I moved on her, and I failed. I’ll admit it" is what he said about her. He took no for an answer, not the classic response from someone that sexually assaults women for sport.
And as far as the definition of let goes, it had nothing to do with insulting ACTUAL victims of sexual assault and rape. Throwing around words like sexual assault and rape without cause does nothing but diminish the legitimate claims of such incidents. He wasn't talking about forcing women to accept his advances, he never said anything about grabbing their [bad word removed] whether they wanted him to or not.
The man is a misogynistic [BAD WORD REMOVED] hole, but bragging about woman letting you kiss them and grab their [bad word removed] because you are famous is completely different than sexually assaulting them.
If you believe all of these things about the man, why take him at his word these women all "let" him do it? That's what blew me away. He is referencing predatory behavior. Sure it's not much different than picking up at a bar, but he goes to the point of inferring he grabs women by the crotch and they "let" him because he gets away with it. Were these women intimidated, concerned about the consequences of standing up for themselves, shocked and froze up? Maybe they are not strong willed. You posed the argument these women "let" it happen to them. It's wrong any way you slice it. Of course, women should be able to stand up for themselves. Not all can. And nobody should be blamed for allowing something to happen to them they do not invite.
Quote:and your response? being disrespectful to a woman then trying desperately to justify it... all I need to know. Thank you.
Standing up against the notion women who are victims do not "let" it happen. That's all.
Quote:Standing up against the notion women who are victims do not "let" it happen. That's all.
Just as I am sure you stand up for making sure that dishes are washed, and your clothes are ironed with your iron hand of justice against women who disobey you. Have a nice morning...
Quote:Just as I am sure you stand up for making sure that dishes are washed, and your clothes are ironed with your iron hand of justice against women who disobey you. Have a nice morning...
You are shooting blanks in the dark. Doesn't remotely describe me. I am married to one of the most independent women I have ever met who would never have gotten with me if I were anything like this. But don't let me ruin the image you've concocted in that fascinating brain of yours.
Quote:If you believe all of these things about the man, why take him at his word these women all "let" him do it? That's what blew me away. He is referencing predatory behavior. Sure it's not much different than picking up at a bar, but he goes to the point of inferring he grabs women by the crotch and they "let" him because he gets away with it. Were these women intimidated, concerned about the consequences of standing up for themselves, shocked and froze up? Maybe they are not strong willed. You posed the argument these women "let" it happen to them. It's wrong any way you slice it. Of course, women should be able to stand up for themselves. Not all can. And nobody should be blamed for allowing something to happen to them they do not invite.
Or maybe he "gets away with it" because they actually let him. You don't think women would willingly allow him to kiss them and more? The man looks like a troll doll and has three very beautiful wives, there are woman that want to be with him.
And this needs to be said.
No woman that is sexually assaulted or raped "let" it happen. Period. I never said that, and I damn sure don't think that.
Quote:let 1 (lĕt)
v. let, let·ting, lets
v.tr.
1. To give permission or opportunity to; allow:
So if you are taking him at his word that he does these things, then you need to stop ignoring the "let" part of his comments.
Like someone else on here said, words matter. Not just the ones you want to pick and choose to pay attention to.
"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the--if he--if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not--that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement....Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true."
-William Jefferson Clinton