4 ms·
I don't think anyone is suggesting that she was asking for it. However, from the report it is ambiguous whether she clearly stated "no" at any point (reminding
by swombat 13y ago
I don't think anyone is suggesting that she was asking for it. However, from the report it is ambiguous whether she clearly stated "no" at any point (reminding him he's married may have been a clear no statement, but we don't know for sure). Unfortunately this ambiguity is giving rise to the arguments above.
I am civilised. I think that your attitude (suggesting that someone whose opinion differs from yours should be killed by throwing them out of a window) is far less suitable to civilised society than pearjuice's, who is arguing a contentious and sensitive point, and may be wrong, but is at least willing to do so without calling people names or threatening to harm them physically.
Your behaviour, however, is completely unacceptable. What's your excuse for it? Do you also beat up things and people around you physically when you get upset, or does your violence remain verbal only?
- mst 13y agoThe sort of victim blaming attitude shown by their comments helps to perpetuate social constructs that enable a substantial amount of physical harm. Additionally, "they hadn't said no" is not a justification for putting your hand inside somebody's trousers. Trying to paint an obvious failure of basic consent as ambiguous is, to my mind, at the very least "maybe she was asking for it", which I find no less unpleasant. As such, I think perhaps our definitions of "civilised" differ.
- swombat 13y agoIt's easy to be civil with those you agree with. A gentleman is a gentleman even in the gutter. It's when faced with those whose opinion is abhorrent to you that you get to show that you're civilised.