“Stepdad” father figure says the hell with it...

[laterbloomer]

Jun 11, 2019 8:16:58 GMT -5 hoops902 said:

Jun 10, 2019 19:45:45 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

I don't think we need to believe all women, but we do need to listen to every woman that claims she was assaulted. There are a portion out there that immediately assume the woman is lying, and doesn't even give her a chance to tell her story.

1.  This seems super similar to how everyone just assumes the man is lying and doesn't want to hear his side.

2.  I think if you make an accusation, not only should people listen to your story, but you NEED to tell your story.  No more drive-by accusations where the story is "this guy assaulted me a long time ago, that's all I'm going to say about it, but you should believe it".  If you're going to accuse someone, accuse them, and let them defend themselves if they choose to.  A lot of the recent stories, primarily of famous individuals, seems to be in the vein of making accusations that cannot be defended against because they contain no specifics to actually defend.  In at least one case I can think of, the person being accused wasn't even named to avoid being liable for what the accuser said, it was just made very clear "who they were talking about".

1. Unfortunately we are a very far way from people assuming the man is lying. Sexual assault is still a very hard conviction.

2. Does it strike you at all that if the woman can't prove her allegations she is vulnerable to a liable suit? 

[hoops902]

Jun 11, 2019 11:34:03 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

Jun 11, 2019 8:16:58 GMT -5 hoops902 said:

1.  This seems super similar to how everyone just assumes the man is lying and doesn't want to hear his side.

2.  I think if you make an accusation, not only should people listen to your story, but you NEED to tell your story.  No more drive-by accusations where the story is "this guy assaulted me a long time ago, that's all I'm going to say about it, but you should believe it".  If you're going to accuse someone, accuse them, and let them defend themselves if they choose to.  A lot of the recent stories, primarily of famous individuals, seems to be in the vein of making accusations that cannot be defended against because they contain no specifics to actually defend.  In at least one case I can think of, the person being accused wasn't even named to avoid being liable for what the accuser said, it was just made very clear "who they were talking about".

1. Unfortunately we are a very far way from people assuming the man is lying. Sexual assault is still a very hard conviction.

2. Does it strike you at all that if the woman can't prove her allegations she is vulnerable to a liable suit? 

1.  It's not always about convictions...we're not far away at all from people assuming allegations are true.  How many well-known celebrities/directors/producers etc haven't been convicted but have been fired or don't get work based purely on accusation with no conviction of any kind?  There's a massive difference between how society sees things and whether there is proof for a conviction and the standard that poses.

2.  Being worried that someone will sue you about lying about them is no reason to throw grenades from the shadows.  You can't have it both ways.  You can't simultaneously say that we need to listen to women's stories, and then say it's fine if women want to use this as a tool for slandering someone's name while trying to hide in the shadows from the consequences of making horrific allegations against them.  If you're going to accuse them of something, then accuse them.  Cowardly and passive-aggressively hinting that someone did something horrendous while trying to hide from the repercussions of whether your claims are true doesn't actually help anyone.  It doesn't help actual victims when claims like that start making legitimate claims seem more about revenge and/or attention-seeking than truth, and it doesn't help society when you can non-accuse accuse someone of something so significant without giving them any real possibility of defending themselves.  

If you want people to believe you, then you need to convince people to believe you.  "This person is bad, trust me because I say so" is not a reason to be believed.  Unless you're one of the people who thinks "believe the woman because she's a woman".  For the people who say "listen to her story", I think that's absolutely the right answer.  But a story with zero details can't then be put forth as a believable story.  That's not really specific to even this topic.  If you say "believe me because I say you should believe me", then no intelligent individual is going to think that's a valid reason to believe you.

[hoops902]

Jun 11, 2019 11:31:29 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Jun 11, 2019 8:16:58 GMT -5 hoops902 said:

1.  This seems super similar to how everyone just assumes the man is lying and doesn't want to hear his side.

2.  I think if you make an accusation, not only should people listen to your story, but you NEED to tell your story.  No more drive-by accusations where the story is "this guy assaulted me a long time ago, that's all I'm going to say about it, but you should believe it".  If you're going to accuse someone, accuse them, and let them defend themselves if they choose to.  A lot of the recent stories, primarily of famous individuals, seems to be in the vein of making accusations that cannot be defended against because they contain no specifics to actually defend.  In at least one case I can think of, the person being accused wasn't even named to avoid being liable for what the accuser said, it was just made very clear "who they were talking about".

It's hard to come out against people who have power over you, and who could ruin you, if you're not believed. Sadly, I know several women (including Ellen DeGeneres, who recently talked about this) who were molested by a step father and either hid the fact, afraid they would get blamed, or told their mom, who didn't believe them. Some even had to leave their home and go live with their dad, because mom sided with step dad. When you look at some of these late after the fact accusations, like those against Harvey Weinstein or Kavanagh, it's always a young woman going up against a more powerful man - in this case, a major movie director and a star student from a wealthy family - who could ruin the woman, if she isn't believed.

Rape often isn't about sex, it's about a male exerting his power over a woman, and the woman takes a big risk accusing him in public, especially since, historically, women often aren't believed. Maybe in a couple decades attitudes will have changed and this will no longer be the case.   

I didn't say anything about delay in accusation.  Kavanaugh seems fine to me.  There was an accusation, against a specific person, in a specific place, at a specific time, etc.  That's something, it at least can be responded to, both sides listened to, and you can decide what you believe.  Now it's a VERY long time ago, and so when I'm hearing the other person's side of the story, I think you have to take that into account (because not all of us keep real/imaginary calendars from 40 years ago detailing our daily activities).  

That's very different from "Mike Jones touched me inappropriately, they're an abuser, I won't say anything more about it because I don't want to, but you should believe me because I say so even though I provide no details or really any reason to believe me", or "This one guy I dated *hint hint wink wink Mike Jones but I'm not saying his name* was inappropriate and sexually assaulted me, but I'm not trying to get him in trouble so I won't say his name, even though it's super obvious who I'm talking about and AM secretly trying to get him in trouble in a really passive-aggressive kind of way".

[billisonboard]

Jun 11, 2019 11:51:20 GMT -5 hoops902 said:

... If you say "believe me because I say you should believe me", then no intelligent individual is going to think that's a valid reason to believe you.

There are people who I will be more likely to believe based solely on previous experience of their integrity. There are people who I will doubt immediately. I do think that there is a value in a life well lived and encourage younger people who I work with to develop an honorable reputation.

[hoops902]

Jun 11, 2019 12:11:24 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Jun 11, 2019 11:51:20 GMT -5 hoops902 said:

... If you say "believe me because I say you should believe me", then no intelligent individual is going to think that's a valid reason to believe you.

There are people who I will be more likely to believe based solely on previous experience of their integrity. There are people who I will doubt immediately. I do think that there is a value in a life well lived and encourage younger people who I work with to develop an honorable reputation.

I think that's a far cry from "believe me because you should believe me" though.  That might be "believe me, because you know me, and you know I'm an honest individual who would never lie about such a thing"...and that tends to work well for 1-on-1 relationships but not so well for large public declarations.  And it certainly doesn't work when 2 strangers are telling opposing stories and both saying "believe me because I say so".  

[laterbloomer]

Jun 11, 2019 11:51:20 GMT -5 hoops902 said:

Jun 11, 2019 11:34:03 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

1. Unfortunately we are a very far way from people assuming the man is lying. Sexual assault is still a very hard conviction.

2. Does it strike you at all that if the woman can't prove her allegations she is vulnerable to a liable suit? 

1.  It's not always about convictions...we're not far away at all from people assuming allegations are true.  How many well-known celebrities/directors/producers etc haven't been convicted but have been fired or don't get work based purely on accusation with no conviction of any kind?  There's a massive difference between how society sees things and whether there is proof for a conviction and the standard that poses.

2.  Being worried that someone will sue you about lying about them is no reason to throw grenades from the shadows.  You can't have it both ways.  You can't simultaneously say that we need to listen to women's stories, and then say it's fine if women want to use this as a tool for slandering someone's name while trying to hide in the shadows from the consequences of making horrific allegations against them.  If you're going to accuse them of something, then accuse them.  Cowardly and passive-aggressively hinting that someone did something horrendous while trying to hide from the repercussions of whether your claims are true doesn't actually help anyone.  It doesn't help actual victims when claims like that start making legitimate claims seem more about revenge and/or attention-seeking than truth, and it doesn't help society when you can non-accuse accuse someone of something so significant without giving them any real possibility of defending themselves.  

If you want people to believe you, then you need to convince people to believe you.  "This person is bad, trust me because I say so" is not a reason to be believed.  Unless you're one of the people who thinks "believe the woman because she's a woman".  For the people who say "listen to her story", I think that's absolutely the right answer.  But a story with zero details can't then be put forth as a believable story.  That's not really specific to even this topic.  If you say "believe me because I say you should believe me", then no intelligent individual is going to think that's a valid reason to believe you.

They are not being thrown from the shadows. You know exactly who said it and what they said. The women are not being protected from repercussions for speaking out, they are just being protected for being charged for speaking out.

Let's put the onus on men being the ones that have to be convincing. "This person's lying, believe me because I'm such a nice guy" should not be accepted by any intelligent individual as a valid reason to believe you.

[hoops902]

Jun 11, 2019 13:05:04 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

Jun 11, 2019 11:51:20 GMT -5 hoops902 said:

1.  It's not always about convictions...we're not far away at all from people assuming allegations are true.  How many well-known celebrities/directors/producers etc haven't been convicted but have been fired or don't get work based purely on accusation with no conviction of any kind?  There's a massive difference between how society sees things and whether there is proof for a conviction and the standard that poses.

2.  Being worried that someone will sue you about lying about them is no reason to throw grenades from the shadows.  You can't have it both ways.  You can't simultaneously say that we need to listen to women's stories, and then say it's fine if women want to use this as a tool for slandering someone's name while trying to hide in the shadows from the consequences of making horrific allegations against them.  If you're going to accuse them of something, then accuse them.  Cowardly and passive-aggressively hinting that someone did something horrendous while trying to hide from the repercussions of whether your claims are true doesn't actually help anyone.  It doesn't help actual victims when claims like that start making legitimate claims seem more about revenge and/or attention-seeking than truth, and it doesn't help society when you can non-accuse accuse someone of something so significant without giving them any real possibility of defending themselves.  

If you want people to believe you, then you need to convince people to believe you.  "This person is bad, trust me because I say so" is not a reason to be believed.  Unless you're one of the people who thinks "believe the woman because she's a woman".  For the people who say "listen to her story", I think that's absolutely the right answer.  But a story with zero details can't then be put forth as a believable story.  That's not really specific to even this topic.  If you say "believe me because I say you should believe me", then no intelligent individual is going to think that's a valid reason to believe you.

They are not being thrown from the shadows. You know exactly who said it and what they said. The women are not being protected from repercussions for speaking out, they are just being protected for being charged for speaking out.

Let's put the onus on men being the ones that have to be convincing. "This person's lying, believe me because I'm such a nice guy" should not be accepted by any intelligent individual as a valid reason to believe you.

Your argument makes a lot more sense now that we know your stance on issues is that you are guilty until proven innocent, and if accused you don't have the right to know the details of what you're being accused of.  That's not a particularly popular stance I'm guessing, but it has been super effective at locking up tons of minorities without cause.  

[hoops902]

I'd be very interested to hear what you think is a "convincing" argument to "You sexually assaulted me, believe me, but I won't provide any details"...that doesn't involve "Ummmmm no I didn't, you're lying".  

[laterbloomer]

Jun 11, 2019 13:30:16 GMT -5 hoops902 said:

I'd be very interested to hear what you think is a "convincing" argument to "You sexually assaulted me, believe me, but I won't provide any details"...that doesn't involve "Ummmmm no I didn't, you're lying".  

You are behaving like there are no consequences for a woman when she says even that much. We are still in a time when a woman that speaks up faces professional repercussions, embarrassment and harassment from the general public and being ridiculed on for it by strangers on the internet. Who has more reason to lie? 

[hoops902]

Jun 11, 2019 13:40:15 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

Jun 11, 2019 13:30:16 GMT -5 hoops902 said:

I'd be very interested to hear what you think is a "convincing" argument to "You sexually assaulted me, believe me, but I won't provide any details"...that doesn't involve "Ummmmm no I didn't, you're lying".  

You are behaving like there are no consequences for a woman when she says even that much. We are still in a time when a woman that speaks up faces professional repercussions, embarrassment and harassment from the general public and being ridiculed on for it by strangers on the internet. Who has more reason to lie? 

So now your logic is being clarified to "people should have to prove their innocence rather than being proven guilty because accusers have less reason to lie"?   How's that working out for the all the minorities locked up based on false accusations (or is your entire point that this is the way it should be?)?  All of their accusers almost certainly had less reason to lie than someone facing jail time based on an accusation?  A person being accused of something horrific will always have a huge reason to lie compared to someone who faces no consequences for not making an accusation.

[laterbloomer]

Jun 11, 2019 13:53:13 GMT -5 hoops902 said:

Jun 11, 2019 13:40:15 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

You are behaving like there are no consequences for a woman when she says even that much. We are still in a time when a woman that speaks up faces professional repercussions, embarrassment and harassment from the general public and being ridiculed on for it by strangers on the internet. Who has more reason to lie? 

So now your logic is being clarified to "people should have to prove their innocence rather than being proven guilty because accusers have less reason to lie"?   How's that working out for the all the minorities locked up based on false accusations (or is your entire point that this is the way it should be?)?  All of their accusers almost certainly had less reason to lie than someone facing jail time based on an accusation?  A person being accused of something horrific will always have a huge reason to lie compared to someone who faces no consequences for not making an accusation.

I repeat there are huge consequences to women that speak out. Why are you refusing to acknowledge this? 

Sexual assault is very difficult to prove. It often comes down to he said she said. I refuse to continue to concede that advantage to the men that assault women. You are giving the discomfort of a few men that may be falsely accused more weight than the actual suffering of women that get assaulted. Your argument has enabled men to assault women with impunity for generations. 

The number of false accusations is very small. Focusing on that is a way of distracting from the bigger issue of  men assaulting women without consequence.

[laterbloomer]

Jun 11, 2019 13:53:13 GMT -5 hoops902 said:

Jun 11, 2019 13:40:15 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

You are behaving like there are no consequences for a woman when she says even that much. We are still in a time when a woman that speaks up faces professional repercussions, embarrassment and harassment from the general public and being ridiculed on for it by strangers on the internet. Who has more reason to lie? 

So now your logic is being clarified to "people should have to prove their innocence rather than being proven guilty because accusers have less reason to lie"?   How's that working out for the all the minorities locked up based on false accusations (or is your entire point that this is the way it should be?)?  All of their accusers almost certainly had less reason to lie than someone facing jail time based on an accusation?  A person being accused of something horrific will always have a huge reason to lie compared to someone who faces no consequences for not making an accusation.

They don't just have less reason to lie, there are very real consequences for lying. Shit, there are very real consequences for telling the truth. 

[hoops902]

Jun 11, 2019 14:21:35 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

Jun 11, 2019 13:53:13 GMT -5 hoops902 said:

So now your logic is being clarified to "people should have to prove their innocence rather than being proven guilty because accusers have less reason to lie"?   How's that working out for the all the minorities locked up based on false accusations (or is your entire point that this is the way it should be?)?  All of their accusers almost certainly had less reason to lie than someone facing jail time based on an accusation?  A person being accused of something horrific will always have a huge reason to lie compared to someone who faces no consequences for not making an accusation.

I repeat there are huge consequences to women that speak out. Why are you refusing to acknowledge this? 

Sexual assault is very difficult to prove. It often comes down to he said she said. I refuse to continue to concede that advantage to the men that assault women. You are giving the discomfort of a few men that may be falsely accused more weight than the actual suffering of women that get assaulted. Your argument has enabled men to assault women with impunity for generations. 

The number of false accusations is very small. Focusing on that is a way of distracting from the bigger issue of  men assaulting women without consequence.

I'm giving weight to a process that requires those accused to be proven guilty, or at MINIMUM to be provided the details of what they're being accused of...as opposed to saying "anyone accused must prove their innocence, even without any details of the accusation for them to prove are untrue".

So do you believe that people accused should be guilty until proven innocent?  Or innocent until proven guilty?  Or do you think those rules should change based on the gender of the accused and the accuser?

[laterbloomer]

Jun 11, 2019 14:39:07 GMT -5 hoops902 said:

Jun 11, 2019 14:21:35 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

I repeat there are huge consequences to women that speak out. Why are you refusing to acknowledge this? 

Sexual assault is very difficult to prove. It often comes down to he said she said. I refuse to continue to concede that advantage to the men that assault women. You are giving the discomfort of a few men that may be falsely accused more weight than the actual suffering of women that get assaulted. Your argument has enabled men to assault women with impunity for generations. 

The number of false accusations is very small. Focusing on that is a way of distracting from the bigger issue of  men assaulting women without consequence.

I'm giving weight to a process that requires those accused to be proven guilty, or at MINIMUM to be provided the details of what they're being accused of...as opposed to saying "anyone accused must prove their innocence, even without any details of the accusation for them to prove are untrue".

So do you believe that people accused should be guilty until proven innocent?  Or innocent until proven guilty?  Or do you think those rules should change based on the gender of the accused and the accuser?

Prove it to who? Obviously not you. And we aren't talking about criminal charges. So who are you saying they have to prove it to?

[laterbloomer]

Jun 11, 2019 14:39:07 GMT -5 hoops902 said:

Jun 11, 2019 14:21:35 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

I repeat there are huge consequences to women that speak out. Why are you refusing to acknowledge this? 

Sexual assault is very difficult to prove. It often comes down to he said she said. I refuse to continue to concede that advantage to the men that assault women. You are giving the discomfort of a few men that may be falsely accused more weight than the actual suffering of women that get assaulted. Your argument has enabled men to assault women with impunity for generations. 

The number of false accusations is very small. Focusing on that is a way of distracting from the bigger issue of  men assaulting women without consequence.

I'm giving weight to a process that requires those accused to be proven guilty, or at MINIMUM to be provided the details of what they're being accused of...as opposed to saying "anyone accused must prove their innocence, even without any details of the accusation for them to prove are untrue".

So do you believe that people accused should be guilty until proven innocent?  Or innocent until proven guilty?  Or do you think those rules should change based on the gender of the accused and the accuser?

Innocent until proven guilty is a legal standard. We aren't talking about legal accusations here.

[hoops902]

Jun 11, 2019 14:52:00 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

Jun 11, 2019 14:39:07 GMT -5 hoops902 said:

I'm giving weight to a process that requires those accused to be proven guilty, or at MINIMUM to be provided the details of what they're being accused of...as opposed to saying "anyone accused must prove their innocence, even without any details of the accusation for them to prove are untrue".

So do you believe that people accused should be guilty until proven innocent?  Or innocent until proven guilty?  Or do you think those rules should change based on the gender of the accused and the accuser?

Innocent until proven guilty is a legal standard. We aren't talking about legal accusations here.

So you think outside of the courtroom...it should be "guilty until proven innocent"? 

[happyhoix]

Jun 11, 2019 14:39:07 GMT -5 hoops902 said:

Jun 11, 2019 14:21:35 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

I repeat there are huge consequences to women that speak out. Why are you refusing to acknowledge this? 

Sexual assault is very difficult to prove. It often comes down to he said she said. I refuse to continue to concede that advantage to the men that assault women. You are giving the discomfort of a few men that may be falsely accused more weight than the actual suffering of women that get assaulted. Your argument has enabled men to assault women with impunity for generations. 

The number of false accusations is very small. Focusing on that is a way of distracting from the bigger issue of  men assaulting women without consequence.

I'm giving weight to a process that requires those accused to be proven guilty, or at MINIMUM to be provided the details of what they're being accused of...as opposed to saying "anyone accused must prove their innocence, even without any details of the accusation for them to prove are untrue".

So do you believe that people accused should be guilty until proven innocent?  Or innocent until proven guilty?  Or do you think those rules should change based on the gender of the accused and the accuser?

I'm not sure where these mysterious women are that don't come right out and accuse people of sexual assault.

What usually happens is a woman says 'I was working late last night, Ralph came through and shoved me up against a wall, stuck his hand up my dress, tried to put his tongue in my mouth, I finally got away from him and ran downstairs to the security desk to get away from him.'

Ralph, who is probably a senior employee (you never hear of junior employees trying to assault their bosses) says (chose one of the following) 1) I'm married, I would never do that, 2) that never happened, I was in my office talking to my BF the whole time, you can ask him, 3) that never happened, you know how tightly wound she is, 4) I went into her office to give her a file and complained about her shoddy work, no doubt she's trying to get back at me. 5) That woman keeps coming on to me, I keep telling her I'm not interested but she won't leave me alone, I think she's a nympo.

Then, since he's a senior guy, and since there is no proof that anything at all happened, the woman gets moved to a different department, or transferred to a different facility, with a note put in her file about how she isn't a team player, and her career gets blocked at that company, while the guy continues on without a hitch.

Same thing happens if it's the coach, or the priest, or an older family member, or the dad of the kid you babysat. There is no proof of what happened, unless there is actually semen present, and no witnesses, so no evidence, and nothing happens to the guy, but the woman gets a reputation for being loose, or not a team player, or a drama queen, or maybe she's trying to blackmail the guy.

I know this is a difficult problem, because these incidents rarely have a witness, and even if there is proof the woman had sex, that can easily be attributed to a BF or husband, unless there is semen (which is easy for the guy to prevent). But historically, it's a difficult problem for women to prove the man guilty, not a difficult problem for the man to assert his innocence.

[happyhoix]

Jun 11, 2019 14:55:20 GMT -5 hoops902 said:

Jun 11, 2019 14:52:00 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

Innocent until proven guilty is a legal standard. We aren't talking about legal accusations here.

So you think outside of the courtroom...it should be "guilty until proven innocent"? 

No.

But I don't think the woman should be 'lying until proven truthful' either.

[hoops902]

Jun 11, 2019 15:00:57 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Jun 11, 2019 14:55:20 GMT -5 hoops902 said:

So you think outside of the courtroom...it should be "guilty until proven innocent"? 

No.

But I don't think the woman should be 'lying until proven truthful' either.

The question was whether she should have to provide actual details.  Or as laterbloomer believes, if she can just say "This guy sexually assaulted me, that's all I'm saying, believe me because I say so since women don't lie".  No time, no place, no details...and then it should be up to the man to prove that throughout his entire lifetime every day of his was free of sexual assault of this person.

As an example, I thought the Kavanaugh thing was fine as noted earlier in the thread...neither can prove it one way or the other definitively, but the accuser provided details which at least the accused can perhaps respond to or reasonably offer up proof/likelihood of innocence based on a specific accusation.  They at least have a method of defending themselves more than a "did not" "did so" where laterbloomer and apparently others think the answer is "believe the women, women don't lie".  

ETA:  Specifically, is it reasonable to be "guilty until proven innocent", if by the very nature of the accusation there is literally zero way you can prove your innocence due to the nebulousness of the accusation (no time, no place, etc...ignoring that even with that stuff it might still be super difficult to prove innocence in general).  Also specifically, there cannot even be a weighing of the testimony by others, because the testimony of each is nothing more than "did so" "did not" due a complete lack of any details on the accusation.

[cktc]

Jun 11, 2019 14:55:20 GMT -5 hoops902 said:

Jun 11, 2019 14:52:00 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

Innocent until proven guilty is a legal standard. We aren't talking about legal accusations here.

So you think outside of the courtroom...it should be "guilty until proven innocent"? 

Outside the court of law it's not about guilt or innocence. It's about people being able to share their experiences and hopefully help others without being penalized and stigmatized. In general interactions I take everything with a grain of salt. Would you read a yelp review and say "PROVE IT"? No, you would read a couple more, see the general consensus, if the complaints or accolades have any bearing on your own expectations, then you proceed as you see fit. 

[happyhoix]

Jun 11, 2019 15:07:14 GMT -5 hoops902 said:

Jun 11, 2019 15:00:57 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

No.

But I don't think the woman should be 'lying until proven truthful' either.

The question was whether she should have to provide actual details.  Or as laterbloomer believes, if she can just say "This guy sexually assaulted me, that's all I'm saying, believe me because I say so since women don't lie".  No time, no place, no details...and then it should be up to the man to prove that throughout his entire lifetime every day of his was free of sexual assault of this person.

As an example, I thought the Kavanaugh thing was fine as noted earlier in the thread...neither can prove it one way or the other definitively, but the accuser provided details which at least the accused can perhaps respond to or reasonably offer up proof/likelihood of innocence based on a specific accusation.  They at least have a method of defending themselves more than a "did not" "did so" where laterbloomer and apparently others think the answer is "believe the women, women don't lie".  

ETA:  Specifically, is it reasonable to be "guilty until proven innocent", if by the very nature of the accusation there is literally zero way you can prove your innocence due to the nebulousness of the accusation (no time, no place, etc...ignoring that even with that stuff it might still be super difficult to prove innocence in general).  Also specifically, there cannot even be a weighing of the testimony by others, because the testimony of each is nothing more than "did so" "did not" due a complete lack of any details on the accusation.

No, that is not what laterbloomer is saying. You have a bias that you're reading into her comments.

[hoops902]

Jun 11, 2019 15:09:33 GMT -5 cktc said:

Jun 11, 2019 14:55:20 GMT -5 hoops902 said:

So you think outside of the courtroom...it should be "guilty until proven innocent"? 

Outside the court of law it's not about guilt or innocence. It's about people being able to share their experiences and hopefully help others without being penalized and stigmatized. In general interactions I take everything with a grain of salt. Would you read a yelp review and say "PROVE IT"? No, you would read a couple more, see the general consensus, if the complaints or accolades have any bearing on your own expectations, then you proceed as you see fit. 

If a yelp review said "don't eat here, it sucks, trust me"...I wouldn't say "prove it".  I'd say "this person is an idiot and their opinion should hold no weight".  If someone said "the chicken was overcooked and took 45 minutes to arrive at my table"  they're provided me some details about it, and if the restaurant responds that it was overcooked because they sent it back 3 times to be cooked even longer...I can weigh both sides and decide who I believe.  

And of COURSE it's about guilt or innocence outside of the court room.  It starts being about guilt or innocence the moment you start announcing that someone committed a crime.

[hoops902]

Jun 11, 2019 15:13:07 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Jun 11, 2019 15:07:14 GMT -5 hoops902 said:

The question was whether she should have to provide actual details.  Or as laterbloomer believes, if she can just say "This guy sexually assaulted me, that's all I'm saying, believe me because I say so since women don't lie".  No time, no place, no details...and then it should be up to the man to prove that throughout his entire lifetime every day of his was free of sexual assault of this person.

As an example, I thought the Kavanaugh thing was fine as noted earlier in the thread...neither can prove it one way or the other definitively, but the accuser provided details which at least the accused can perhaps respond to or reasonably offer up proof/likelihood of innocence based on a specific accusation.  They at least have a method of defending themselves more than a "did not" "did so" where laterbloomer and apparently others think the answer is "believe the women, women don't lie".  

ETA:  Specifically, is it reasonable to be "guilty until proven innocent", if by the very nature of the accusation there is literally zero way you can prove your innocence due to the nebulousness of the accusation (no time, no place, etc...ignoring that even with that stuff it might still be super difficult to prove innocence in general).  Also specifically, there cannot even be a weighing of the testimony by others, because the testimony of each is nothing more than "did so" "did not" due a complete lack of any details on the accusation.

No, that is not what laterbloomer is saying. You have a bias that you're reading into her comments.

Since laterbloomer seems intent on ducking the questions, and you know precisely what she is saying, maybe you can communicate her feelings for her.

[happyhoix]

Jun 11, 2019 15:15:06 GMT -5 hoops902 said:

Jun 11, 2019 15:13:07 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

No, that is not what laterbloomer is saying. You have a bias that you're reading into her comments.

Since laterbloomer seems intent on ducking the questions, and you know precisely what she is saying, maybe you can communicate her feelings for her.

Nope, I won't speak for her, but I can 100% assure you that no rational person would expect another human being to have documented proof of what they have done, where they were, who they talked to for every single hour of every day of their life, so they can disprove they sexually harassed anyone - that's just foolish.

[Miss Tequila]

Jun 11, 2019 13:05:04 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

Jun 11, 2019 11:51:20 GMT -5 hoops902 said:

1.  It's not always about convictions...we're not far away at all from people assuming allegations are true.  How many well-known celebrities/directors/producers etc haven't been convicted but have been fired or don't get work based purely on accusation with no conviction of any kind?  There's a massive difference between how society sees things and whether there is proof for a conviction and the standard that poses.

2.  Being worried that someone will sue you about lying about them is no reason to throw grenades from the shadows.  You can't have it both ways.  You can't simultaneously say that we need to listen to women's stories, and then say it's fine if women want to use this as a tool for slandering someone's name while trying to hide in the shadows from the consequences of making horrific allegations against them.  If you're going to accuse them of something, then accuse them.  Cowardly and passive-aggressively hinting that someone did something horrendous while trying to hide from the repercussions of whether your claims are true doesn't actually help anyone.  It doesn't help actual victims when claims like that start making legitimate claims seem more about revenge and/or attention-seeking than truth, and it doesn't help society when you can non-accuse accuse someone of something so significant without giving them any real possibility of defending themselves.  

If you want people to believe you, then you need to convince people to believe you.  "This person is bad, trust me because I say so" is not a reason to be believed.  Unless you're one of the people who thinks "believe the woman because she's a woman".  For the people who say "listen to her story", I think that's absolutely the right answer.  But a story with zero details can't then be put forth as a believable story.  That's not really specific to even this topic.  If you say "believe me because I say you should believe me", then no intelligent individual is going to think that's a valid reason to believe you.

They are not being thrown from the shadows. You know exactly who said it and what they said. The women are not being protected from repercussions for speaking out, they are just being protected for being charged for speaking out.

Let's put the onus on men being the ones that have to be convincing. "This person's lying, believe me because I'm such a nice guy" should not be accepted by any intelligent individual as a valid reason to believe you.

In the US, guilt has to be proven, not innocence

Do you think all people accused need to prove their innocence or just men? Do we start locking people up with no evidence other than someone saying they did something?

[Rukh O'Rorke]

How on earth did this turn to a sexual assault argument?

[Miss Tequila]

Jun 11, 2019 18:53:05 GMT -5 Rukh O'Rorke said:

How on earth did this turn to a sexual assault argument?

Ha! No idea.

[Bonny]

Jun 11, 2019 14:58:41 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Jun 11, 2019 14:39:07 GMT -5 hoops902 said:

I'm giving weight to a process that requires those accused to be proven guilty, or at MINIMUM to be provided the details of what they're being accused of...as opposed to saying "anyone accused must prove their innocence, even without any details of the accusation for them to prove are untrue".

So do you believe that people accused should be guilty until proven innocent?  Or innocent until proven guilty?  Or do you think those rules should change based on the gender of the accused and the accuser?

I'm not sure where these mysterious women are that don't come right out and accuse people of sexual assault.

What usually happens is a woman says 'I was working late last night, Ralph came through and shoved me up against a wall, stuck his hand up my dress, tried to put his tongue in my mouth, I finally got away from him and ran downstairs to the security desk to get away from him.'

Ralph, who is probably a senior employee (you never hear of junior employees trying to assault their bosses) says (chose one of the following) 1) I'm married, I would never do that, 2) that never happened, I was in my office talking to my BF the whole time, you can ask him, 3) that never happened, you know how tightly wound she is, 4) I went into her office to give her a file and complained about her shoddy work, no doubt she's trying to get back at me. 5) That woman keeps coming on to me, I keep telling her I'm not interested but she won't leave me alone, I think she's a nympo.

Then, since he's a senior guy, and since there is no proof that anything at all happened, the woman gets moved to a different department, or transferred to a different facility, with a note put in her file about how she isn't a team player, and her career gets blocked at that company, while the guy continues on without a hitch.

Same thing happens if it's the coach, or the priest, or an older family member, or the dad of the kid you babysat. There is no proof of what happened, unless there is actually semen present, and no witnesses, so no evidence, and nothing happens to the guy, but the woman gets a reputation for being loose, or not a team player, or a drama queen, or maybe she's trying to blackmail the guy.

I know this is a difficult problem, because these incidents rarely have a witness, and even if there is proof the woman had sex, that can easily be attributed to a BF or husband, unless there is semen (which is easy for the guy to prevent). But historically, it's a difficult problem for women to prove the man guilty, not a difficult problem for the man to assert his innocence.

hoops902,

You should read James Patterson's book "Filthy Rich" about Jeffery Epstein. Vulnerable women are preyed upon because these predators make a calculated risk decision about a woman's ability to fight back.

The book is deeply, deeply disturbing on many levels and underscores how the wealthy and connected get away with horrible behavior.

And FWIW, I actually believed both parties in the Kavanaugh hearing. The courage Dr. Ford exhibited was amazing. There was absolutely no benefit to her. And I can believe that Kavanaugh doesn't remember the incident. If he got routinely black-out drunk at parties as a teenager messing around with another young teenager would not be something he would remember as important.

Imagine if he handled it by saying, I'm sorry for what happened to you. I do not remember doing anything like that but if I did I'm sorry. I've done a lot of growing up from being a foolish teenager and hold myself up to the highest standards.

That would have taken courage and some real class.

[Bonny]

Jun 11, 2019 18:53:05 GMT -5 Rukh O'Rorke said:

How on earth did this turn to a sexual assault argument?

Control and power over financially dependent women.

Sexual assault isn't really about sex. It's about power. It can go the other way; it's just very rare because historically women haven't had the power majority or the physical strength to overpower an adult male.

[laterbloomer]

Jun 11, 2019 14:55:20 GMT -5 hoops902 said:

Jun 11, 2019 14:52:00 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

Innocent until proven guilty is a legal standard. We aren't talking about legal accusations here.

So you think outside of the courtroom...it should be "guilty until proven innocent"? 

You are the one saying the woman must be lying. Do you have any proof of that?

The result of your logic is that if a woman can't prove that a man assaulted her she is not allowed to say anything. Or she has to bare her soul for your satisfaction. And I say she doesn't. No one should make false accusations. But if a woman has been assaulted she can talk about it as much or as little as she is comfortable with. You seem to be assuming that if she isn't willing to lay out the details of a humiliating and traumatic event to your satisfaction she must be lying. I vehemently disagree and encourage woman that have been assaulted to speak up to whatever level they are comfortable doing so.