wilkie

um. well. basic anatomy: fingering does imply penetration. and it is clearly sexual assault regardless.

Have you seen this thread? Not only are people misinformed about what constitutes sexual assault, but on top of that they are ignorant of what constitutes consent. It's quite honestly TERRIFYING.

There are three accounts of what happened all supporting her account of what happened. There is absolutely no guarantee that the courts are a safer, or better way for her to make her accusation. It might be the opposite. Or the police won't care.

Those all existed in her account.

I can assure you that my method means I do not rape people and your method means you might. And that's regardless of how many people employ my very reasonable and clear method of determining consent. Has the thought ever occurred to you that the fact that people believe ambiguous signals to be consent may actually CONTRIBUTE to the fact that 1 in 5 women experiences rape in their lifetime?

Well, lawnchair larry, I have asked, and have been asked, permission to do this very thing. It's really not that uncommon nor unwise to do so.

Actually, pretty much every point in this is victim blaming.

Now this is some first-class victim blaming. :(

Yes, actually, I don't have any doubts about it. I'm removing the capacity for doubt by being responsibly cautious. That's my responsibility. That's our responsibility. It's not even remotely fantasy to consider this.

Guess which of us that makes more likely to be morally right about this issue. I'll save you the trouble; it's me. If you are wrong about what is not rape, you've raped somebody. It's not hard to get clear consent.

And if you are wrong in your 'psychic' ability, that's sexual assault. The ends never justify the means when you don't get consent. A woman (can we call them women instead of females?) may not care for explicit permission, but that's irrelevant since no woman wants to be sexually assaulted.

It highlights the fact that you are being far too general about when rape is allowed.

And she had to return to that job without any reason to believe that they would offer any support.

"Blaming the victim" means suggesting that the victim of a crime perpetrated by another was not the fault of the person who committed the crime, but rather their fault is somehow absolved by the actions of the victim. This is considered a terrible thing to do because it completely removes the victim's right to NOT be a victim.

"because you feel like it" ... this is a terrible thing to conclude. Let's just all 'feel like' getting consent, alright?

This would condone drugging your victim and is obviously and dangerously wrong.

easy for you to say

If you haven't, in a soft voice, in a comfortable place, in a responsible way ever asked someone if they would like help taking off their pants... you are missing out. It's not that hard. Really. There are lots of reasonable questions that also act as good communication that I really don't want to teach you. Hey! There's a good question to ask next time!

I think that a person who agrees to a body shot expects that somebody drink a shot from their body, and then they get up, and then nothing directly happens as a result and they get to choose what happens next. I reject the notion that consenting to a body shot is equivalent to foreplay.

His hand was down her pants in public... we are way passed the fuzzy moral lines. This is certainly sexual assault and I'm not sure how one can argue that she is responsible for making it clear by some unwritten protocol that all people understand rather than have it be understood that you have the burden and responsibility to not sexually harass people.

I'd say 0 blog posts doesn't constitute a very good defense. But it is interesting we will still give him this huge benefit of the doubt.

'a presence of a yes and the lack of coercion,' since sexual assault is generally defined by this. Him being her employer, and thus responsible for her career, can certainly be asserted as possible coercion, even if there is any implied 'yes', which I don't think there was at any rate.

In what you are arguing, you fail to realize that there is only one victim. And while that might be the accused, in this case where we have 3 accounts supporting the accuser... well... it's not wrong to side with either of them, but you can't really call out supporting her side as biased in any way.

Even without the two witnesses corroborating, this is most certainly sexual assault.

Not a very substantial defense. You've quoted 1 of 3 accounts suggesting a crime, and there aren't any accounts of a defense. The only defense so far is a bunch of rather ridiculous hearsay by a bunch of internet people who weren't there.

The trigger warnings suggest that those who have been sexually assaulted don't need to read the article because they already know more than what it is going to say, and it is cruel to have them read it without suggesting it may cause them grief through invoking their own pain.

To be 'triggered' by trigger warnings is certainly a constructed prejudice against empathy.

The fact that you think that statement is bold says a lot about how far we are from solving it and helping people.

Here is his post after the event explaining why he was fired (it doesn't): http://objo.com/2013/01/31/funemployment/

Read this slowly, you can do it-- you're good at reading:

It should be expected not that victims live up to another's definition of responsibility, but that people be responsible enough not to create victims.

This is the painted lie that her company allowed him to make: http://objo.com/2013/01/31/funemployment/

This is the reality. I don't hold too much optimism that the police would somehow solve this problem considering the damage done and the lack of any support to go back to.