High-Profile Sexual Abuse Epidemic

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

If he’s denying that what happened was assault, then I’d say he is correct.

By her own admission, he stopped his advance when he was asked to and took her home. She told people what happens and none of those people felt it was assault either. She also didn’t feel unsafe around him since she sought out t employment with him the next year. But now, five years later and on the eve on an election where he was the front runner, it’s an issue that she is comfortable enough to go to the media with, but not to file a police report.

This is the 2nd woman who worked for him, doesn't sound as bad as the teenager who he got drunk 10 years ago.

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

This is the 2nd woman who worked for him, doesn't sound as bad as the teenager who he got drunk 10 years ago.

You mean the one he met in a bar, went back to his place with him and performed oral sex on him? She never alleged he forced her or kept her there against her will, in fact, he apparently asked. She also never claimed that Brown got her drunk that night

If she felt “preyed upon” or like she couldn’t leave, you’d expect her to have gone to the police at some point in the last 10 years.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

You mean the one he met in a bar, went back to his place with him and performed oral sex on him? She never alleged he forced her or kept her there against her will, in fact, he apparently asked. She also never claimed that Brown got her drunk that night

If she felt “preyed upon” or like she couldn’t leave, you’d expect her to have gone to the police at some point in the last 10 years.

It's not that easy.

He "stopped his advance" after preying upon a teenager and telling her to perform oral sex in his home. and she did. This is sexual harassment, sexual assault and on a much more minor level, providing alcohol to a minor.

And he was an MP at the time, and it was a decade ago.

You should know from all of the reports that have been coming out of the Nassar trial and seemingly dozens of other recent cases, that victims don't always go to the cops. Think about it, this is a 17 or 18 year old high school student who was assaulted by an MP.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

As messed up as that is, it is neither sexual harassment nor sexual assault, at least as llwhiteoutll has described it. If she's 17 or 18, I'm pretty sure that's over the age of consent (correct me if I'm wrong). If he gave her alcohol and it was in Ontario, presumably that's illegal but it's a far cry from sexual assault, unless he intentionally got her too drunk to give consent.

Again, it depends on what the facts actually were. But obviously no politician wants to have that hanging over a campaign (unless you're a Republican candidate for President apparently), so it makes perfect sense that he'd drop out.

[Simanium]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

As messed up as that is, it is neither sexual harassment nor sexual assault, at least as llwhiteoutll has described it. If she's 17 or 18, I'm pretty sure that's over the age of consent (correct me if I'm wrong).

Yep, the age of consent in Canada is 16 and prior to 2008 it was only 14. Exceptions if you are an adult in a position of trust (eg. teacher) or power (eg. boss) or a family member, etc. There is also a close in age exception of 5 years for 14 and 15 year olds (ie. a 14 year old can consent to have sex with a 19 year old).

[afc wimbledon]

So he was 29 or 30 when he picked up a 17 year old at a bar, not illegal but I wouldn't want him representing me, my experience with guys that pick up much younger women is they are seriously shallow and pretty abysmal human beings, granted the age difference changes as you get older, if he was 50 and she 35 or 40 I probably wouldn't worry as much but 17 to 30 is out of order even if legal.

[GGG]

Did he know her age? The second victim the age is clearly known by him The first I think it's a fair assumption to make that if a person is in a bar they are of age. So a 29 year old picking up a 19 year old seems okay but a little creepy.

She also doesn't state how intoxicated she was, which in this case is important as if she was still in a position to give consent I don't see how this is misconduct. So he takes her home, they go to his room, she stops, then she goes home. I have a difficult time seeing the misconduct unless she disclosed her age or was really drunk.

The second incident as described is worthy of resignation.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

If he’s denying that what happened was assault, then I’d say he is correct.

By her own admission, he stopped his advance when he was asked to and took her home. She told people what happens and none of those people felt it was assault either. She also didn’t feel unsafe around him since she sought out t employment with him the next year. But now, five years later and on the eve on an election where he was the front runner, it’s an issue that she is comfortable enough to go to the media with, but not to file a police report.

It's at a minimum work place harassment. She despite not wanting to be around him felt the career opportunity was worth putting up with the harassment which continued the following year.

You can't get a subordinate drunk and try to sleep with him/her. That is not acceptable work place behaviour.

[81MC]

One thing I can't ####ing stand is this: 'provided drinks...too many to count'. Okay, so you're so mightily powerless you will drink up whatever someone puts in front of you? News flash, you don't need to get hammer smashed drunk because it's on someone else's tab. If a boss is taking employees out for drinks and paying the tab, is he automatically a sexual predator because one of his employees gets loaded?
I won't get into the sexual assault thing, because I think most of the allegations her are bordering on silly, but /rant.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by GGG

Did he know her age? The second victim the age is clearly known by him The first I think it's a fair assumption to make that if a person is in a bar they are of age. So a 29 year old picking up a 19 year old seems okay but a little creepy.

She also doesn't state how intoxicated she was, which in this case is important as if she was still in a position to give consent I don't see how this is misconduct. So he takes her home, they go to his room, she stops, then she goes home. I have a difficult time seeing the misconduct unless she disclosed her age or was really drunk.

The second incident as described is worthy of resignation.

That's the point for me though, it is creepy and I wouldn't want to be his friend, let alone vote for him.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by 81MC

One thing I can't ####ing stand is this: 'provided drinks...too many to count'. Okay, so you're so mightily powerless you will drink up whatever someone puts in front of you? News flash, you don't need to get hammer smashed drunk because it's on someone else's tab. If a boss is taking employees out for drinks and paying the tab, is he automatically a sexual predator because one of his employees gets loaded?
I won't get into the sexual assault thing, because I think most of the allegations her are bordering on silly, but /rant.

No it's when he doesn't drink, takes her home, and tries to #### her in his room that he crosses a line.

[snootchiebootchies]

Good article. I have a feeling most people were like me and was surprised at the judge's behavior but wasn't too concerned with it because of the defendant's crimes.

Judging Larry Nassar - Why Rosemarie Aquilina’s handling of a serial sex abuser’s case was so problematic

If Judge Aquilina wants to lead a victims’ rights movement focusing on sexual abuse of women she has every right to do so. If she wants to argue for more stringent accountability for men, for doctors, for sexual predators, then I wish her well. But that cannot happen until the day after she resigns from the bench in Michigan. You can be a crusader for sexual assault victims and a tribune for those who are struggling to find their voice. Or you can be a judge who has sworn to uphold the Constitution, including the part that guarantees that even the most heinous defendants among us are entitled to a fair trial before an impartial judge. You can’t have it both ways.

To criticize the judge’s work here, to call her out for so relentlessly expressing her bias, is not to give aid and comfort to Nassar or to diminish the courage of the women who stepped forward and shared their stories. It is possible to see Nassar as a despicable man who did despicable things, a man who deserves the sentence he has received, and see his judge as someone who abdicated her responsibility to him. These are not inconsistent beliefs. My point is that no defendant in America, no matter his crime, deserves to have his sentencing judge encourage or suggest that he ought to be killed or raped in prison. Such vitriol turns the proceeding from the reasoned expression of community values as expressed in law to little more than a lynch mob.

https://newrepublic.com/article/1467...g-larry-nassar

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

^It's a problem borne of the politicization of the bench down there, I'll wager. If you didn't have elected judges, you wouldn't see this sort of thing.

[CliffFletcher]

Pretty much. Playing to the crowd and talking tough is part of their justice system. This may be an especially egregious case (Aquilina has a new thriller coming out which should get a big boost from this publicity), but it's part and parcel of the screwy, populist approach to law and order they have down there.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

So he was 29 or 30 when he picked up a 17 year old at a bar, not illegal but I wouldn't want him representing me, my experience with guys that pick up much younger women is they are seriously shallow and pretty abysmal human beings, granted the age difference changes as you get older, if he was 50 and she 35 or 40 I probably wouldn't worry as much but 17 to 30 is out of order even if legal.

Half your age plus seven. Violates rule, no matter how you look at it. Political career over.

[Itse]

To get back on the "culture of abuse" trail, here's something that popped up in my FB:

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/01/...of-conductors/

The most serious case I know of is the soloist in her late teens who was summoned to the conductor’s room in one of Europe’s most famous halls an hour or so before a concert to discuss a few points in the score. She emerged a while later, sobbing uncontrollably. She had been raped, and she still had to go on stage, perform a concerto, and take a bow with her rapist. I have tried to persuade her to speak out, but she — understandably — wants to get on with her life and is probably still more than a little afraid that the man who raped her can, after all these years, still damage her career. Several music insiders saw her come out of that green room. Nobody confronted the aggressor.

Because sex is taken for granted as a conductor’s prerogative. Never an act of love, it is a raw and explicit expression of power. The deal is: sleep with the maestro, or you’ll never work again.

And the threat is very real.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Steve Wynn's turn.



https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/doz...ynn-1516985953

[the_only_turek_fan]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

My fear, while not fear, that's the wrong word selection, but my concern is that this has the possibility of being an inverse Salem Witch hunt.

In Salem, if somebody wronged someone, of if they wanted your land, or your husband, or anything else it was as simple as "She's a witch, I saw her singing and two days later I got sick". So over the cliff she goes, if she floats up and flies away she's a witch and must report back for a proper beheading and immolation.

However if she falls to her death, she's either an innocent, or a particularly incompetent witch.

The worry as the #Metoo movement moves along is that there are going to be innocent people that are caught in the net with very little to no recourse, and denials will be treated as lying. Lives will be destroyed that didn't need to be, but we as a society are going to have to answer the question, are we ok with collateral damage here.

We can't encourage or force people to go to the police or file charges. We also can't encourage woman to video tape every date or meeting that we have with a man, or a man with a man or whatever.

But at some point doesn't there need to be some process or some burden of proof?

No because you get accused of not believing the women. It's a lose lose situation.

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by Bunk

Half your age plus seven. Violates rule, no matter how you look at it. Political career over.

lol. I remember that rule from when I was younger and single.

[81MC]

Is it (age+7)/2 or age/2 + 7?