Misogyny and other gender issues.
-
Wtaf. That is mental.I'm still great and you still love it. -
Diluted Dante wrote:What in the name of fuck?
Pretty much sums it up.SFV - reddave360 -
Yossarian wrote:RedDave2 wrote:Yossarian wrote:If criminal investigations were an effective tool for dealing with these types of situations, I doubt we’d ever see anything like this across social media.
If the criminal investigation isn't given the chance though?
Just think a situation where people can post anything and it can become effectively truth without any real effort is as damaging to society as a broken justice system.
And I don't know if this is dealing with the situation. Landis might suffer a little on this but he can probably bounce back if it doesn't spread far enough. If there's truth to this (I haven't gone full into the complete murk of this but there is a rape allegation) he should face criminal action. Calling him out on twitter isn't really protecting others.
Warning people to watch out for someone who may be dangerous to them definitely is protecting others.
I’d also be amazed if none of these concerns were raised anywhere before they were on social media, people tend to protect those who can make them money.
Of course, ideally this would be dealt with by the proper authorities who would find the truth and determine the punishment, but we live in a world that’s very far from ideal. Warnings to others may be the only recourse some people have.
In reflection, I've realised my anger at this kind of thing isn't that woman are doing this instead of reporting it, but that they feel this might be the only option to protect each other. It's a fucked up system and whil I'm a firm believer in innocent unless proven guilty, there has to be a better way to report this kind of thing.
Also every time I read this stuff I feel damn ashamed at my gender. Some stuff is over-reaction but most of it would make me angry as hell. There is far too much of this stuff going on.SFV - reddave360 -
Trial by social media is not ideal, but it’s often necessary.
Because of the fears related to reporting these things, often there hasn’t been an opportunity for official investigation. These days, if a woman reports abuse, it’s not uncommon for Police to reach out to former partners to find out if there have been any issues previously. How do you do that when the victims could be any female they’ve ever had contact with? How do you gauge the proportionality? What if there’s been no initial report to set the ball rolling?
There will always be less desirable side effects of any shift. This one has created a climate which risked flirting with a witch-hunt mentality but, by the looks of things, even the less problematic men who found themselves named and shamed needed a think about their attitudes. The end result is, hopefully, a climate where women know that their complaints will be taken seriously, and they will not be doubted. -
And of course depending on the State America has some pretty messed up Statute of Limitations.
-
I don't get why statute of limitations is a thing, is there a genuinely good reason?
-
Partly it was to do with the increased chances of unreliable witness testimony and the possibility that evidence could be lost in the interim that could prejudice a case against someone.
Some states have changed their laws based on the availability of consistent evidence, like DNA, audio, video, etc, but others seem very slow or reluctant to change. -
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/nov/02/no-derrick-rose-didnt-overcome-his-gang-allegation
Long way to go for pro sports and miso.I'm still great and you still love it. -
Q: So they just said, ‘Hey, it’s the middle of the night. Let’s go over to plaintiff’s house’ and they never gave you a reason why they wanted to go over there?’
Rose: No, but we men. You can assume.
Q: I’m sorry?
Rose: I said we men. You can assume. Like we leaving to go over to someone’s house at 1 a.m., there’s nothing to talk about.
Q: All right. Is there — within what you just reviewed in those text messages — is there anything within them that would lead you to believe that plaintiff wanted to have sex with you and the other two defendants on August 26, 2013?
Rose: No.
The fuck? He got off after that? -
Diluted Dante wrote:Q: So they just said, ‘Hey, it’s the middle of the night. Let’s go over to plaintiff’s house’ and they never gave you a reason why they wanted to go over there?’
Rose: No, but we men. You can assume.
Q: I’m sorry?
Rose: I said we men. You can assume. Like we leaving to go over to someone’s house at 1 a.m., there’s nothing to talk about.
Q: All right. Is there — within what you just reviewed in those text messages — is there anything within them that would lead you to believe that plaintiff wanted to have sex with you and the other two defendants on August 26, 2013?
Rose: No.
The fuck? He got off after that?
It's quite shocking to read that isn't it? It's not even we were drunk and signals got confused. It's just we went over to have some good old sex. We men. What ya gonna do?SFV - reddave360 -
Sorry I'm out of context here, but is Rose a man? Why is she saying "We men" or that assumption is obvious?? Not attacking her, just looking for context as I have none at this point"I spent years thinking Yorke was legit Downs-ish disabled and could only achieve lucidity through song" - Mr B -
Diluted Dante wrote:Q: So they just said, ‘Hey, it’s the middle of the night. Let’s go over to plaintiff’s house’ and they never gave you a reason why they wanted to go over there?’
Rose: No, but we men. You can assume.
Q: I’m sorry?
Rose: I said we men. You can assume. Like we leaving to go over to someone’s house at 1 a.m., there’s nothing to talk about.
Q: All right. Is there — within what you just reviewed in those text messages — is there anything within them that would lead you to believe that plaintiff wanted to have sex with you and the other two defendants on August 26, 2013?
Rose: No.
The fuck? He got off after that?
Oh wow, he did? What the f-
Actually, Dante, could you do xplain what that proves? That bit you quoted. What does it prove such that no jury should acquit of rape?Don't wank. Zinc in your sperms -
Or reddave. You guys tell me what this proves.Don't wank. Zinc in your sperms
-
"I had no indication the person I had sex with wanted to have sex with me".
Kind of cuts to the heart of consent does it not? -
Not really, because at any time after he arrived she might have consented.Live= sgt pantyfire PSN= pantyfire
-
Seems I'm just as confused as Gonzo here, could somebody please add some context. It sounds like Rose is a female (yes I'm assuming gender there) and she's just said that if a bunch of guys are coming over it's for sex, so I wonder why she invited them if that's the case. I'm sure if some context was added it would make more sense, also I'm not being a rape apologist here, just I seem to only have 3% of a story"I spent years thinking Yorke was legit Downs-ish disabled and could only achieve lucidity through song" - Mr B
-
Just because you think it's common knowledge, doesn't mean it is, else Rose wouldn't have had to tell the court that "She and her men only go out at 0100 for sex""I spent years thinking Yorke was legit Downs-ish disabled and could only achieve lucidity through song" - Mr B
-
Diluted Dante wrote:"I had no indication the person I had sex with wanted to have sex with me".
Kind of cuts to the heart of consent does it not?
Is that your understanding of the case, that he had no indication from the person he had sex with wanted to have sex with him?
Can I ask you, is this an indication?
Spoiler:
You don't seem to understand the case, like you haven't looked into it but decided this was A FUCKING OUTRAGE WTF
Don't wank. Zinc in your sperms -
It's a pretty futile game to play, forming opinions about a case based on one piece of evidence from probably hundreds. Like panty says, consent could have been provided at any time after those messages. It might not, but you have no way of knowing, especially when you dont have access to all the evidence. -
cockbeard wrote:Seems I'm just as confused as Gonzo here, could somebody please add some context. It sounds like Rose is a female (yes I'm assuming gender there) and she's just said that if a bunch of guys are coming over it's for sex, so I wonder why she invited them if that's the case. I'm sure if some context was added it would make more sense, also I'm not being a rape apologist here, just I seem to only have 3% of a story
Rose is a surname, first name Derrick. -
I mean, you could also have clicked the link for context...
-
cockbeard wrote:Seems I'm just as confused as Gonzo here, could somebody please add some context. It sounds like Rose is a female (yes I'm assuming gender there) and she's just said that if a bunch of guys are coming over it's for sex, so I wonder why she invited them if that's the case. I'm sure if some context was added it would make more sense, also I'm not being a rape apologist here, just I seem to only have 3% of a story
Rose is a basketball player. He got in a relationship but wanted FFM kink. Or MMF. Or both. She didn't. Only she came over to his with a friend and everyone seemed to think it might be on.
It wasn't on. Friend left with her. But then she texts Rose and says, her friend is weak, bring my fuckbelt, no don't send for me you bring it.
She says, I'm guessing, I wanted sex with Rose only, he brought a train on me and I was totally passed out. She couldn't explain how he got into the flat with his friends, he must have broken in.
He says she knew this was about running a train on her and her friend, and he thought she was saying ok let's go with just me. She let him into the flat
The jury believed him. That's a civil lawsuit by the way, balance of probabilities.
Don't wank. Zinc in your sperms -
Right OK, I was confused as I assumed the Rose was Rose Magowan and this was progress in the Weinstein stuff"I spent years thinking Yorke was legit Downs-ish disabled and could only achieve lucidity through song" - Mr B
-
This I established after about 10 minutes of googling. Because I have this vague sense that juries don't acquit obviously guilty men, which is what that guardian article suggests about Rose. That he got off wrongly.
Don't wank. Zinc in your sperms -
pantyfire wrote:Not really, because at any time after he arrived she might have consented.
By the same token she could have withdrawn consent at any time"I spent years thinking Yorke was legit Downs-ish disabled and could only achieve lucidity through song" - Mr B -
Armitage_Shankburn wrote:
Is that your understanding of the case, that he had no indication from the person he had sex with wanted to have sex with him? Can I ask you, is this an indication?Diluted Dante wrote:"I had no indication the person I had sex with wanted to have sex with me". Kind of cuts to the heart of consent does it not?You don't seem to understand the case, like you haven't looked into it but decided this was A FUCKING OUTRAGE WTFSpoiler:
You know you can reply without being a complete and total dickhead right?
I read the article that was linked, which contained the portion I quoted. You have then responded there with something not contained in the article.
You're once again engaging with an assumption of someones position, rather than their actual position. It's tiresome as fuck. -
What position of yours have I assumed? In what way have I been a dickhead?Don't wank. Zinc in your sperms
-
Armitage_Shankburn wrote:cockbeard wrote:Seems I'm just as confused as Gonzo here, could somebody please add some context. It sounds like Rose is a female (yes I'm assuming gender there) and she's just said that if a bunch of guys are coming over it's for sex, so I wonder why she invited them if that's the case. I'm sure if some context was added it would make more sense, also I'm not being a rape apologist here, just I seem to only have 3% of a story
Rose is a basketball player. He got in a relationship but wanted FFM kink. Or MMF. Or both. She didn't. Only she came over to his with a friend and everyone seemed to think it might be on.
It wasn't on. Friend left with her. But then she texts Rose and says, her friend is weak, bring my fuckbelt, no don't send for me you bring it.
She says, I'm guessing, I wanted sex with Rose only, he brought a train on me and I was totally passed out. She couldn't explain how he got into the flat with his friends, he must have broken in.
He says she knew this was about running a train on her and her friend, and he thought she was saying ok let's go with just me. She let him into the flat
The jury believed him. That's a civil lawsuit by the way, balance of probabilities.
Apologies to all, I could have done a bit more explaining. Or yes, you could have clicked.
1. That quote, as gonz says, doesn't prove rape, especially in the broader context, but it does say something bout some shitty attitudes about both men and women, IMO.
2. Was aware of the other comms around the situation between the girl and Rose, and it's a fucking mess.
3. I would only question your comment about juries having also seen, amongst others, that r Kelly got off when there was vid of him pissing on a girl. (and yes, if you google that, you could argue on technicalities etc, but damn).
4. Of the cases I'm aware of from nba players, and there are a number, this is the least clear cut.
(mentioned Bernard King earlier, he is the proper worst of the ones I know. Clear cut. And got a way light sentence. Kobe is the biggest name. And he settled out of court. Reading up on witness statements in that one is depressing though.)I'm still great and you still love it.
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Discussions2,715
- Games1,879
- Off topic836