We can save ourselves a lot of time and just acknowledge that Moore is a scumbag because (R), and Clinton needs more context because (D)
Printable View
We can save ourselves a lot of time and just acknowledge that Moore is a scumbag because (R), and Clinton needs more context because (D)
What's that? What Bill calls his dick?Quote:
Originally Posted by 57Brave
your knowledge of the 90's ---- as Larry David would say
" ah hh not so much"
that's not even the discussion taking place. but in your simple world where there is no nuance and context doesn't matter, sure. you do you. meanwhile, your boy rand paul hasn't un-endorsed the pedophile and a former ron paul staffer said he'd be "fine" with a child predator over a dem in the senate.Quote:
Originally Posted by sturg33
I think most of us have agreed that Bill Clinton is a scumbag?Quote:
Originally Posted by sturg33
OH NO!Quote:
Originally Posted by Super
1. I couldn't give a **** about Roy Moore. If I was in Alabama, I wouldn't vote for him
2. I don't support Rand paul. I did not vote for him in the 2016 primary
3. I don't care about Ron Paul staffers.
4. I think it's dangerous to auto-assume everyone is guilty at the first allegation
But we can't agree on the simple fact that he is a rapist.Quote:
Originally Posted by mqt
57 would need to know who he was running against before saying whether he'd vote for him (kind of sounds like Roy Moore supporters, no?)Quote:
Originally Posted by mqt
All I'm saying is that your point about liberal hypocrisy would be better received if you didn't cherry pick the one person in this thread supporting the claim.Quote:
Originally Posted by sturg33
I don't care about how much of a deviant Bill was. Moore is disgusting and it would take a special kind of candidate running against him for me to give him my support.
as do i. but this isn't the case for anyone being discussed.Quote:
Originally Posted by sturg33
You can't a see clarity between sexual assault and sexual harassment? Have you even watched your HR videos at work?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawk
I never said there was a clear disinction between sexual assault and rape, although sexaul isn't necessarily rape in all situations.
I can see a very fine line between sexual assault and sexual harassment, although - to be clear - I find it trifling in this instance. I'd like to see whatever HR videos you watched that have led you to believe that sexual harassment is a kind of lesser act.Quote:
Originally Posted by Carp
In your first post you said "sexual assault/sexual harassment" ... now you are just clinging on to sexual harassment.
I still would like to know where Lewinsky typed "sexual assault/sexual harassment" and why you feel so comfortable inferring that she's now only talking about sexual harassment, although I have a feeling that I'm never going to find out.
Philosophically, I don't disagree that the "penetrative qualifier" is problematic and risks obscuring other forms of sexual violence behind the "king crime" of rape. But out society does understand "to **** someone" without consent (whether vaginal, anal, or oral) to be the contingent part of "to rape", and we're not talking about my definition or yours, but the collective definition.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawk
This is from the Department of Justice website, clarifying the definition of rape (which had been unchanged from 1927 to 2012):
This is from the website of a rape crisis center:Quote:
“The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”
Clearly, the overriding working definition of "rape" is a kind of sexual assault that includes penetration—both for groups whose job it is to support victims, and for federal entities tasked with investigating and prosecuting abusers (FBI, Department of Justice). Statutory definitions vary wildly amongst states, but Montana likewise makes a codified distinction between "sexual assault" (defined in Montana Code section 45-5-502 as "knowingly subject[ing] another person to any sexual contact without consent") and "rape" (defined in Montana Code section 45-5-503 as "knowingly [having] sexual intercourse without consent with another person"); the former carries with it a first time sentence of "a fine of up to $500, and/or imprisonment for up to six months", while the latter carries "imprisonment for between four and 100 years and a fine of up to $50,000". (Bizarrely, there are even differing consent ages defined between the two in Montana—14 versus 16—so apparently it's legal for an adult to sexually contact a 14-year-old, but they'd have to wait two more birthdays for intercourse.) Likewise, the Title IX training I just had to go through certainly made a big point of drawing this distinction—another federal perspective on these two formulations of abuse.Quote:
Rape is defined as unwanted penetration, whether that is oral, anal, or vaginal. Sexual assault refers to any unwanted sexual contact, including fondling and molestation.
So that's where I'm getting my information from, and it doesn't really seem off-base at all. Like I said, I don't necessarily disagree with you about how we should look at sexual violence, but I'm talking about how we are defining it as a society right now; and, in that context, "rape" is penetration and "sexual assault" is all other unwanted/non-consensual sexual touching.
Because of the power dynamics?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawk
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawk
I admit to it being late and glancing over the tweet. I still feel like stating "sexual assault and sexual harassment" most certainly implies a difference between the two (in her case anyways).
And again, I'm not defending Clinton in this instance or stating she wasn't a victim of rape. Nor, would I have an issue believing her if in fact she claimed she was. However, I absolutely do not believe that tweet is evidence (as you claim) that she was raped.
[MENTION=108]jpx7[/MENTION] My comments about penetration were an aside. You claimed that sexual assault and rape were not legally synonymous, and that's specifically what I referred to as being off base and what my entire post was predicated on. I conceded that the overriding social 'working' definition of rape included penetration right off the bat.
Although it is ironic that our construct of what intercourse/penetration actually is metamorphosed in a major way as a result of the Clinton controversy.
I have never claimed that the tweet (which is literally just "#metoo" - she never states "sexual assault and sexual harassment", that is text from a message she retweeted) is evidence that she was raped. I have asserted that it is likely an admission of sexual malfeasance in relation to Clinton. Malfeasance that I believe is tantamount to rape.Quote:
Originally Posted by Carp
While we're here, it's worth mentioning that Montana had some of the most ****ed up sexual assault laws in the country until they were essentially forced to rewrite the statues involving consent a few months ago.
Forgive me on the retweeted part. I do not tweet myself. That may be where at least part of the confusion lays.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawk
Still, it seems flimsy at best, to associate that as some of admittance by ML that she was raped (which you initially responded with to the question of "Did Monica ever call it rape?")
Maybe "synonymous" confused the issue, insofar as many jurisdictions consider "rape" to be a more severe form of "sexual assault" that includes penetration—but I thought that was obvious, considering unwanted penetration requires unwanted touching as a precondition of its physical reality. But even that form of synonymy is jurisdictional: in Montana, as I cited, "sexual assault" and "rape" are legally codified separately.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawk
As for redefining or re-understanding "what intercourse/penetration actually is", I wonder how much of that rests of the fact that, for a long time, non-vaginal penetration was criminal even if consensual, thanks to sodomy laws.