Re: Seriously ?

Quote
Rams43

Quote
waterfield
"Had they been intimate in the past? Geez, I would feel okay with taking liberties with such a person ..."

If taking "liberties" with someone means what I think you mean that to me is just plain wrong and presumably ("taking liberties" is non consensual and criminal behavior. Pure and simple. I really hope your choice of "taking liberties" was done without thinking and you don't mean what it sounds like. If a person hasn't consented to your "liberties" there IS A REASON ! They don't want your "liberties". Its no different than the wife who doesn't consent to her husband's rape.

Allow me to try to clarify by way of illustration, waterfield..

Couple has had a relationship, including intimacy.

The taking of certain “liberties” was consensual on a given Tuesday. But on Wednesday the woman decides that it is now not acceptable.

And it is a pure “he said, she said” scenario.

My common sense leads me to believe that it is not nearly worth publicly destroying a man’s life over.

Call it context, call it nuance, or whatever.

Geez...

Well that's all hypothetical anyway in this case, 43.

First place, there is no claim they were ever intimate. So it's a completely moot point.

Second place, regardless of the status of a relationship, consent is always required. A sleeping person cannot give consent.

And on top of it...since when is a man violating the law now turned into a woman ruining a man's career? How about, the law (AND ordinary everyday common sense) dictates you don't do this. That's why there's a law.

Considerations like that ("she should not ruin his career" ) are why the vast majority of sexual assault cases are not reported. NOT because there is a worry that the man's career will be ruined. But because the victims know they face sentiments like that along with indifference and disbelief and other forms of negative pressure.




...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/07/2019 12:03PM by zn.