Outrageous Sexual Assuault

One eyed Jack

UCDVet wrote: »

Cool - well, I'll let me wife know that our marriage was really born out of SEXUAL ASSAULT because some people on After Hours didn't approve. What a horrible person I must be

For all your yak about truth and honesty, the least you could do is be honest about telling your wife you were trying to justify sexual assault and nobody's buying it.

Take those chips off your shoulders while you're at it.

DivingDuck

namloc1980 wrote: »

Unless you have a survey which covers this situation: percentage of women who say no but mean yes when harassed and groped by a drunk at a society dinner of peers, then your stats are irrelevant.

It would be irrelevant even then.

If 70% of women said no but meant yes when harassed and groped by a drunk at a society dinner of peers, it still wouldn't excuse harassing and groping the remaining 30%.

yes there

eviltwin wrote: »

I'm not arguing your stats, I'm arguing context. If X amount of people have said no when they mean yes I'd like to know the situation. I think its pretty clear from this situation that the woman involved was not into it and didn't want him to persist.

Think its obvious the situations ucdvet is on about. Two people on a date, she says no, not that kind of girl, obviously to not come across as a slapper, invariable with drink it ends up with both in bed together.

The situation in question is clearly completely different. What is all the fuss about?

UCDVet

DivingDuck wrote: »

Your posts read as if you are offering this fact as justification for continuing to advance on people when they've asked you to stop. Women, specifically, since that's what the study you quoted refers to. (We have no statistics for men, though it would be an interesting question to ask.) That's what people are taking issue with, because there are a great many women out there who say no and mean no.

You have a strong bias on this opinion which you've clearly stated several times by explaining how you came to meet your partner. With all due respect, this seems to be clouding you ability to accept the fact that for every happy couple who came together despite token resistance, there are literally millions of women who have had to deal with unwanted advances from men after they repeatedly asked them to stop. Your experience is the exception rather than the rule.

The "lifetime of happiness" you mention is an incredibly unlikely outcome. How many men did your wife tell to get lost before she ended up with you? For even a woman who did eventually find happiness with a man she initially rebuffed, there are most likely plenty of men she genuinely rejected, both before and since.

There is nothing tough about this decision.

Keep your hands (and other body parts) to yourself when you receive a no.

I've said several times in this thread that I am not offering these facts as justification for not stopping when someone says no. I'm certainly not implying that No always means yes. No can mean No. But it can also mean yes.

My first post was in response to someone who said:

She told him to go away and he continued. I don't see the outrage about him being done

My point was that being told to go away and not immediately going away isn't as clear-cut as just that.

From there, people responding to my post, I replied and now it's pages later and people read my post as though I'm saying what *THIS GUY* did was okay (I said he probably did commit a crime, but that the article didn't have much in the way of details). Or that because I quoted a study that shows it's common for women to say no when they mean yes, that I endorse rape. Which I don't.

My original post wasn't even about *touching* so much as being told by a girl to go away, and no immediately doing so. Depending on the context of the situation, I don't think it's as clear-cut as that.

eviltwin

yes there wrote: »

Think its obvious the situations ucdvet is on about. Two people on a date, she says no, not that kind of girl, obviously to not come across as a slapper, invariable with drink it ends up with both in bed together.

The situation in question is clearly completely different. What is all the fuss about?

So why bring it into this thread then?

UCDVet

One eyed Jack wrote: »

For all your yak about truth and honesty, the least you could do is be honest about telling your wife you were trying to justify sexual assault and nobody's buying it.

Take those chips off your shoulders while you're at it.

I've never tried to justify sexual assault. If you want to click back and quote me saying as much, I'd appreciate it.

UCDVet

eviltwin wrote: »

So why bring it into this thread then?

My first post was in response to someone else's. I felt it was completely on-topic and relevant to their comment. That's generally how these things go.

Then people responded to me, I responded back, etc, etc...

After a while, the conversation might not be particularly on original topic.

UCDVet

namloc1980 wrote: »

Unless you have a survey which covers this situation: percentage of women who say no but mean yes when harassed and groped by a drunk at a society dinner of peers, then your stats are irrelevant.

If you'd like to provide more relevant statistics, please do. But if you have no stats, well, that's infinitely more irrelevant

UCDVet

DivingDuck wrote: »

It would be irrelevant even then.

If 70% of women said no but meant yes when harassed and groped by a drunk at a society dinner of peers, it still wouldn't excuse harassing and groping the remaining 30%.

This is 100% true.

One eyed Jack

UCDVet wrote: »

I've never tried to justify sexual assault. If you want to click back and quote me saying as much, I'd appreciate it.

Your whole "no doesn't always mean no" spiel. Yes it does. If you're told to go away, go away. I don't care that you met the love of your life when she told you to go away, the fact is you didn't, but you shouldn't be waffling on as if your behaviour should be interpreted by everyone else as acceptable behaviour. Your wife is cool with it, you're cool with it, but it really shouldn't come as a surprise to you that other people aren't.

Holsten

Seems heavy handed to me.

She elbowed him and told him to feck off, why does it need to go through the courts if that was the end of it?

UCDVet

DamagedTrax wrote: »

but consent is implied thru body language, words and other small hints. if you dont pick up on any of them its not the girls fault.

im pretty sure your average assault victim isnt writhing with pleasure during the proceedings. (although strangely, some do. but thats a weird topic for a different thread).

Ironically, this is a huge, huge problem when it comes to sexual assault and rape. A lot of times, what one person sees as implied consent *isn't*.

Like, 'Look at her shirt - she clearly is into me, or shouldn't have worn something so low cut' or 'When we were dancing, he was TOTALLY up against me. I knew he wanted it!'

Sometimes it's right. But sometimes it isn't. Implied consent is tricky. And remember, if you get it wrong, even once, you're risking a lifetime as a sexual offender. That's tough.

Now swap the sex's and the public will view the story differently.

namloc1980

UCDVet wrote: »

If you'd like to provide more relevant statistics, please do. But if you have no stats, well, that's infinitely more irrelevant

Not really but you carry on justifying your no doesn't mean no stance.

UCDVet

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Your whole "no doesn't always mean no" spiel. Yes it does. If you're told to go away, go away. I don't care that you met the love of your life when she told you to go away, the fact is you didn't, but you shouldn't be waffling on as if your behaviour should be interpreted by everyone else as acceptable behaviour. Your wife is cool with it, you're cool with it, but it really shouldn't come as a surprise to you that other people aren't.

I'm sorry, but you are misunderstanding.

My 'No doesn't always mean no' is NOT AN OPINION. It's well documented. These are published, peer-reviewed, academic papers. I'm sorry that you don't like their findings, but it is what it is. No does not always mean no. The MAJORITY of sexually active women in college campuses reported saying No when they meant Yes.

That DOES NOT MEAN no always means yes. If someone says no, and means no, and you continue, you have committed a crime. Usually a very serious crime that can ruin your life.

I've EXPLICITLY SAID, I'm not advocating any sort of dating technique here. I'm not advising people to keep hitting women.

LorMal

Lyaiera wrote: »

What punishment? He was fined. He has no jail sentence. He's not on the sex offender's register. That's pretty much as low as it can go without getting to poor box donations.

Really - think that losing his job and future career prospects forever, maybe his marriage, being a social pariah, the fines, the media coverage..etc - is this an appropriate level of punishment in your view?

UCDVet

namloc1980 wrote: »

Not really but you carry on justifying your no doesn't mean no stance.

It's not *my* stance. It's the accepted stance of the academic community. I'm sorry you don't like it. To be honest, I don't like it. But our personal feelings, sadly, do not chance the reality of the world we live in.

DamagedTrax

UCDVet wrote: »

Sometimes it's right. But sometimes it isn't. Implied consent is tricky. And remember, if you get it wrong, even once, you're risking a lifetime as a sexual offender. That's tough.

if you get it wrong to the point where you're actually assaulting the girl, you're a f**king imbecile and should probably be locked up.


i do get what you're saying, i dont think you're advocating assault. i just think that 'getting it wrong' is not even an attempt at an excuse.

there comes a point somewhere between meeting a woman and putting your penis inside her, where you could easily figure out if she wants it or not. if you're not sure, best not take a chance.

reminded me of this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4hNaFkbZYU

Now swap the sex's and the public will view the story differently.

No, they wouldn't. A very few would.

One or two guys would be on here saying he should be grateful and they'd love a bit of harassment themselves, one or two commentators would differentiate between male and female victim impact, but the vast majority would see it for exactly what it is. Nasty, persistent harassment and sexual assault, regardless of the genders.

DivingDuck

UCDVet wrote: »

I'm certainly not implying that No always means yes. No can mean No. But it can also mean yes.

But the point I'm trying to make is that the fact that it can mean yes doesn't in the slightest matter because you can never assume the no you are hearing is in fact a yes. It is as irrelevant a fact as the temperature of the surface of the sun or how many chucks a woodchuck could chuck (if a woodchuck could chuck wood).

To look at it another way: sometimes I eat a piece of cake after dinner. That doesn't mean I want every piece of chocolate cake offered to me, and when I politely refuse the cake, I expect it to be taken away, not shoveled into my mouth.

What you're talking about is essentially sexual Mrs Doyleism. The "Go on, go on, go on, go on, GO ON" approach to mating. Is that attractive? Another question: have you ever been in that situation? If so, wasn't it incredibly annoying? When you refuse something, and mean it, you'd like if it the other person would be mannerly enough to respect your request.

Now imagine that instead of something as trivial as a cup of tea, it's something as intimate and personal as your sexual experience. How many orders of magnitude worse would that be?

It doesn't matter if no sometimes means yes. You (not you personally, a hypothetical person) can't be sure that it does in this (hypothetical) instance, so you'd be putting another person through a horrible, traumatic experience on the off-chance that they might be lying because some women lied about their desire for some sex acts some of the time.

Again: just because it's true doesn't mean it's relevant. You keep pushing the validity of this fact, but even accepting it to be 100% iron-clad truth, it still doesn't matter because it in no way means it's true in every instance.

circadian

Anyone that believes this isn't sexual assault is, quite frankly, wrong.

Venus In Furs

LorMal wrote: »

Really - think that losing his job and future career prospects forever, maybe his marriage, being a social pariah, the fines, the media coverage..etc - is this an appropriate level of punishment in your view?

What the **** was he thinking doing as he did when he had all the above at stake, is what I'm thinking.
Fecking dope.

Venus In Furs

Deleted User wrote: »

Now swap the sex's and the public will view the story differently.

YOU might.

Sand

The assault seems completely out of order and the sentencing appears to be totally justified. The OP is clearly not serious.

What I cant process is they were at a gathering of solicitors, and the unwelcome attention was going on for 15 minutes. The guy was clearly drunk, was there nobody there to drag him off when it was clear there was a problem?

What I would wonder is if the fact he is drunk not mitigate his actions. He would clearly have been impaired and would have made decisions he would not otherwise have made. Right?

lanos

eviltwin wrote: »

Do you really think its okay to grope a woman who asks you to stop?

I don't think you understand where UCDvet is coming from.
In my experience, 15 years ago admittedly, a girl would come back to my apartment. End up in the bedroom. Kiss kiss cuddle cuddle.... drop the hand ....no stop....5 minutes later repeat.... no stop....... repeat 10 times.
In frustration, I hand her a spare duvet and tell her to sleep on sofa. 10 minutes later tap tap tap on the door.... ha ha result.
Sometimes no means try different tactics

Lyaiera

LorMal wrote: »

Really - think that losing his job and future career prospects forever, maybe his marriage, being a social pariah, the fines, the media coverage..etc - is this an appropriate level of punishment in your view?

The courts didn't decide any of that. The courts imposed a fine.

hollster2

Venus In Furs wrote: »

What the **** was he thinking doing as he did when he had all the above at stake, is what I'm thinking.
Fecking dope.

Thats what I was thinking he was feeling "boystrous" because he had a few beers was he thinking of the repercussions when he was doing this of and his wife a 2 children!

LorMal

Venus In Furs wrote: »

What the **** was he thinking doing as he did when he had all the above at stake, is what I'm thinking.
Fecking dope.

I think it is clear he was not thinking.
Still, it is too harsh.

circadian

lanos wrote: »

I don't think you understand where UCDvet is coming from.
In my experience, 15 years ago admittedly, a girl would come back to my apartment. End up in the bedroom. Kiss kiss cuddle cuddle.... drop the hand ....no stop....5 minutes later repeat.... no stop....... repeat 10 times.
In frustration, I hand her a spare duvet and tell her to sleep on sofa. 10 minutes later tap tap tap on the door.... ha ha result.
Sometimes no means try different tactics

What an absolute gent.

LorMal

Lyaiera wrote: »

The courts didn't decide any of that. The courts imposed a fine.

Indeed. That is only part of his punishment however.
Bringing it to court ensured maximum retribution in public. The actual fine is the least of his problems now