Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 201 to 300 of 322

Thread: Is this a case of Wrongful Dismissal

  1. #201

    Default

    ^^ The thousands of emails are a fully documented and irrefutable testimony of the events. The complainant's own actions and statements at that time totally contradict her claims.


    Until she pulled out an email and asked me to read it out loud. It was the email where I said: “You kicked my *** last night and that makes me want to **** your brains out.” And that’s when I knew it was over. My testimony had fallen apart.
    http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...tere-interview

    Now, to any reasonable person, does that sound like a rape victim or willing participant?

    She could have easily written instead, “You kicked my *** last night and that makes me want to **** shoot your brains out.” "I am contacting the police you BAST**D!"
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 26-03-2016 at 11:58 AM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  2. #202

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FamilyMan View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by FamilyMan View Post
    It is an irony of modern judicial system. We have, rightly, adopted an innocent-until-proven-guilty philosophy but in our minds the opposite still strongly lurks. A long struggle to achieve equality in treating men and women, may now have started fallen from the other side of the roof: active discrimination against men.

    My knowledge of Ghomesi and his trial is limited to 1-2 articles in Globe & Mail, but I was surprised by the strong majority here commenting against him. Phrases like "no doubt" about what happened and judge had "no choice" but to acquit him. Looking further back in the thread there were also discussions oh how 10s of smelly cases will be revealed soon. So he was assumed guilty even before a trial. And now after the verdict, Ghomesi will remain a tainted name in our collective memory. Maybe that's justice (or Karma or whatever) for him. Then again, maybe not.
    Outside of the possibility of collusion among witnesses, and based on a few media reports of what the witnesses experienced, I'd say he very likely acted with considerable aggression without advance consent. I don't know where the court draws the line on whether or not that would be assault or just a fun time. It seems that the witnesses behavior and the judge's perception of their behavior created enough doubt to force him to disregard their statements.
    That's my point. We easily brush aside the accusers's misbehavior. You talk like you have witnessed it all yourself. That's weird. I don't care about Ghomesi one way or another. Like I said all I know about him is, like most others, a few articles. My question is why most of us are not even willing to give the accused benefit of the doubt? His career likely ended, as a result of this trial. With such level of public conviction that he is guilty, no media outlet would in their right mind hire him. Maybe that's what he deserved, but I just say I don't have enough information to make that conclusion. So the judge was correct in my opinion, that spoof site notwithstanding.
    hmmm

    Ghomeshi was acquitted on charges in a legal framework of beyond reasonable doubt.

    But by information the assaults did occur if one classifies aggressive S & M like practice done without prior inform or consent. I don't know from testimony and agreed statements of fact that theres much doubt Ghomeshi engaged in some of the actions. (Although not to the extent previously implied by witnesses)

    Ghomeshi engaged in a nature of behaviors that he should not, and obviously had a lot to lose as a highly paid public figure engaging in certain activity. That much is on Ghomeshi himself.

    My own take is that the complainants, despite their protests, all engaged in some nature of consensual response to Ghomeshi's behavior in that they wanted it to continue, and wanted to continue to see him and thereby setting mixed messages. No more promounced than Lucy texting Ghomeshi that she like it and wanted more.

    I credit the judge, and Ghomeshi's legal team for the stalwart work they did and without which this case would have ceded the complainants real wish to simply take Ghomeshi down.

    In the end this wasn't really about assault, rape, it was about revenge.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  3. #203

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    ^^ The thousands of emails are a fully documented and irrefutable testimony of the events. The complainant's own actions and statements at that time totally contradict her claims.


    Until she pulled out an email and asked me to read it out loud. It was the email where I said: “You kicked my *** last night and that makes me want to **** your brains out.” And that’s when I knew it was over. My testimony had fallen apart.
    http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...tere-interview

    Now, to any reasonable person, does that sound like a rape victim or willing participant?

    She could have easily written instead, “You kicked my *** last night and that makes me want to **** shoot your brains out.” "I am contacting the police you BAST**D!"
    It will continue to amaze me that an inferred sentient person can possibly be unaware of that comment that she made in the email. (I thought it was a text)

    The funny thing is, I think Lucy actually DID forget that she sent that message. But which then leads me to think what is wrong with her memory. Its disturbing how much a person can lead themselves down the path of disrepute all the while not recognizing they're doing it or what has gone on before.

    In short Lucy Decouture ultimately involved herself as a witness against herself. How this played. But in this respect deserved as she attempted to utilize justice to "take someone down" which is of course a contravention of justice. In the end though ironic justice served nonetheless.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  4. #204

    Default

    Another interesting point is some of the emails sent back and forward between Ghomeshi and his accusers were 10 years old. Not sure if these emails had to be retrieved from his computer by a computer expert or if he had never deleted them after all this time. Did he know that maybe there would be complaints lodged against him?.
    Another thing, we all know of partners that stay in abusive relationships because they have kids or they and their partner have a long history together. None of these women had any real connection with Ghomeshi other than they were introduced to him at functions etc. There were no compelling reasons for them to hang around after the first assault. No kids keeping them together, no joint property, probably not even much chemistry going on between them either. Having said that, I do think Ghomeshi did what he did without warning but what those women did after did not help their case in any way.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  5. #205

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    In the end this wasn't really about assault, rape, it was about revenge.
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    In short Lucy Decouture ultimately involved herself as a witness against herself. How this played. But in this respect deserved as she attempted to utilize justice to "take someone down" which is of course a contravention of justice. In the end though ironic justice served nonetheless.
    One looks at this as a plot to a "Fatal Attraction" sequel.



    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatal_Attraction

    Also

    This may be a case of Erotomania.

    Erotomania is a type of delusional disorder where the affected person believes that another person is in love with him or her. This belief is usually applied to someone with higher status or a famous person
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erotomania
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 26-03-2016 at 12:39 PM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  6. #206
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Crawford Plains, Millwoods since 1985
    Posts
    2,737

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    In the end this wasn't really about assault, rape, it was about revenge.
    This happens all too frequently when relationships sour and usually men are on the losing end.

    In this case, Pussypass Denied.

  7. #207

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    Another interesting point is some of the emails sent back and forward between Ghomeshi and his accusers were 10 years old. Not sure if these emails had to be retrieved from his computer by a computer expert or if he had never deleted them after all this time. Did he know that maybe there would be complaints lodged against him?.
    Another thing, we all know of partners that stay in abusive relationships because they have kids or they and their partner have a long history together. None of these women had any real connection with Ghomeshi other than they were introduced to him at functions etc. There were no compelling reasons for them to hang around after the first assault. No kids keeping them together, no joint property, probably not even much chemistry going on between them either. Having said that, I do think Ghomeshi did what he did without warning but what those women did after did not help their case in any way.
    emails sent by anybody are there, somewhere, and retained, indefinitely, on servers.

    Anything we state here, in email, in most places online should probably best be considered as public record.

    Really everybody should know this. We're also reminded of it here by admins here on a regular basis.

    just saying
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  8. #208

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kitlope View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    In the end this wasn't really about assault, rape, it was about revenge.
    This happens all too frequently when relationships sour and usually men are on the losing end.

    In this case, Pussypass Denied.
    Countless custody battles that are so incredibly sordid.

    My advice is to have at least 3 condoms on at all times and bubblewrap just in case.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  9. #209

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    In the end this wasn't really about assault, rape, it was about revenge.
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    In short Lucy Decouture ultimately involved herself as a witness against herself. How this played. But in this respect deserved as she attempted to utilize justice to "take someone down" which is of course a contravention of justice. In the end though ironic justice served nonetheless.
    One looks at this as a plot to a "Fatal Attraction" sequel.



    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatal_Attraction

    Also

    This may be a case of Erotomania.

    Erotomania is a type of delusional disorder where the affected person believes that another person is in love with him or her. This belief is usually applied to someone with higher status or a famous person
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erotomania
    I don't even want to surmise. But man, its incredible the degree to which the complainant discredited herself.

    People talk about Ghomeshi's career being over..
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  10. #210

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    Another interesting point is some of the emails sent back and forward between Ghomeshi and his accusers were 10 years old. Not sure if these emails had to be retrieved from his computer by a computer expert or if he had never deleted them after all this time. Did he know that maybe there would be complaints lodged against him?.
    Another thing, we all know of partners that stay in abusive relationships because they have kids or they and their partner have a long history together. None of these women had any real connection with Ghomeshi other than they were introduced to him at functions etc. There were no compelling reasons for them to hang around after the first assault. No kids keeping them together, no joint property, probably not even much chemistry going on between them either. Having said that, I do think Ghomeshi did what he did without warning but what those women did after did not help their case in any way.
    emails sent by anybody are there, somewhere, and retained, indefinitely, on servers.

    Anything we state here, in email, in most places online should probably best be considered as public record.

    Really everybody should know this. We're also reminded of it here by admins here on a regular basis.

    just saying
    If you read my post I said I did not know if these emails had to be retrieved by a computer expert (re: servers) or if Ghomeshi never deleted them.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  11. #211
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Crawford Plains, Millwoods since 1985
    Posts
    2,737

    Default

    More than likely he just never deleted them from his email account... I got some that go back 12 or 13 years myself, accounts are allotted a ton of space these days (G Mail is 15 Gb) so "running out of room" is a thing of the past for the most part.

  12. #212

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    My advice is to have at least 3 condoms on at all times and bubblewrap just in case.
    If I ever have to get back into the dating game I will not only will have a prepared 30 page contract, 62 line item consent form, demand a DNA sample, proof of age and ID, criminal record check, doctor's certificate (both physical and psychological), Drug And/Or Alcohol Testing Consent Form, record the whole date, non-disclosure agreement, and all witnessed and approved with my lawyer present for the entire date including video of the action (if any).

    Sure is romantic and spontaneous ain't it.



    Fatal Attraction Movie Effects
    The film has also had an effect on men. Close was quoted in 2008 as saying, "Men still come up to me and say, 'You scared the **** out of me.' Sometimes they say, 'You saved my marriage.'
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 26-03-2016 at 01:22 PM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  13. #213

    Default

    @Gemini^^^ I was just clarifying that no access to Ghomeshi's computer, or him keeping such record, would be required.
    Last edited by Replacement; 26-03-2016 at 01:26 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  14. #214
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,588

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey View Post
    I'm no legal expert, so one thing I don't understand is why wasn't Ghomeshi himself called to testify? It was like the victims were on trail instead of the accused rapist.
    You can't be compelled to testify at your own trial. That's a pretty fundamental aspect of our justice system, and really any justice system worth a crap. The choice is up to him and his legal defense team. If he does choose to testify in his defense, only then can he be cross examined by the prosecution. There was basically no upside to him testifying given the circumstances and evidence, so it's easy to understand why he chose not to.

  15. #215

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    @Gemini^^^ I was just clarifying that no access to Ghomeshi's computer, or him keeping such record, would be required.
    Now I don't think any of us know if these emails were sent to his home email or his work email. If they were sent to either and he did not delete them he sure does hold onto things. As for being on a server, well I am not sure how long they keep emails on servers before purging them. That would have to be one gigantic data base to keep emails on for infinity and beyond.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  16. #216
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,588

    Default

    I don't see why you find it surprising that he might have kept copies or backups of his old emails. Coincidentally, I've got all of my personal emails dating back to 2003 as well. There might be a couple gaps here or there when I goofed on a backup or Outlook migration, but otherwise I probably have 90%+ of all the personal emails I've ever sent or received. And same goes for my work emails. I've got multiple PST files in Outlook with pretty much every email sent or received. Not sure how far those go back offhand, but probably 10+ years as well.

    Some people are more meticulous about this kind of thing than others. That doesn't mean anything regarding their personal behavior, criminal or otherwise. You should see my MP3 archive of every piece of music I've ever owned. It's majestic. Same goes with my digital picture archive.
    Last edited by Marcel Petrin; 26-03-2016 at 06:00 PM.

  17. #217
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Grandin 2014--, Garneau 2012-2014, North Downtown 2006-2012
    Posts
    3,223

    Default

    My email goes back to 1994 and includes correspondence with my first internet provider at a time he was a fellow working out of his basement. I'm text-oriented so it doesn't take all that much room. Sometimes, I use it as a reality check on when I was involved in some past activity.

  18. #218

    Default

    They said it, not me. I wish I had my emails and Wordstar docs back to the dawn of creation.

    Digital Hoarding


    Digital hoarding can create an unhealthy attachment to digital content and foster a sort of “media addiction.”[1] It is often good for one’s mental health to let go of useless clutter, and decluttering digital devices can help with decluttering the mind.[13]

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_hoarding

  19. #219

    Default

    ^Yeah, after reading some of these posts I'm beginning to think there is some form of hoarding going on. Usually my emails are deleted after I read them. It has to be something real important for me to keep it. There are only so many emails one can keep of links to cats playing the piano, dogs dressed in clothes or doofuses doing half baked things. I suppose work related emails can and should be kept longer but only as long as whatever is in them is resolved. After that it should be classed as computer clutter.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  20. #220
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Grandin 2014--, Garneau 2012-2014, North Downtown 2006-2012
    Posts
    3,223

    Default

    I'm not sure what people think the cost is. I'm reducing the size of my library because when I move the books are half the labour and expense. But my emails just sit there. And occasionally provide value.

  21. #221

    Default

    Each to there own I guess.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  22. #222

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    ^Yeah, after reading some of these posts I'm beginning to think there is some form of hoarding going on. Usually my emails are deleted after I read them. It has to be something real important for me to keep it. There are only so many emails one can keep of links to cats playing the piano, dogs dressed in clothes or doofuses doing half baked things. I suppose work related emails can and should be kept longer but only as long as whatever is in them is resolved. After that it should be classed as computer clutter.
    Delete emails?

    Sorry, but who does that anymore and why?

    The cache is so large now you simply don't have to delete anything. Waste of time on home computing to do that imo. At work though IT's will tell you to delete.

    Many times where its been beneficial for me to have a timed stamp record of something I never thought I would need again.

    Its kind of old fashioned to delete things. Todays hard drives just don't require you doing that. Todays computer hard drive capacity and server capacities is like having a home office that's the size of a gymnasium. you could clean up papers and shred I guess, or just move it off to the side...
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  23. #223

    Default

    Delete emails?

    Sorry, but who does that anymore and why?
    ^

    I do, I delete them all the time, every day. It has to be real important, real funny or real personal for me to keep. In fact I just checked my keepers email folder and I have the grand total of twelve emails I have kept. At first glance I could see at least half of them could be deleted. There should be a term for people who keep old emails that no longer have any use or value. Hoarding does not quite sound right. It needs to be something in keeping with the electronic age.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  24. #224
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Crawford Plains, Millwoods since 1985
    Posts
    2,737

    Default

    I'll admit I'm a bit of a digital hoarder, not so much with emails but media. A few hard drives with 12 Tb of stuff... all in the physical size equivalent of less than a shoebox.

    I have no problem with this. That's the beauty of the digital age.

  25. #225

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kitlope View Post
    I'll admit I'm a bit of a digital hoarder, not so much with emails but media. A few hard drives with 12 Tb of stuff... all in the physical size equivalent of less than a shoebox.

    I have no problem with this. That's the beauty of the digital age.

    Like all, of history, if enough people toss their records, what remains to tell the story or reveal the past defines it but most of it wont survive one generation because it won't mean anything to the very next gen.

    Who's ever going to look back at it? At some point anyone that inherits it will toss it all because they can't separate the treasure from all the trash, so it all goes in the trash. Worse with digital because it will be unreadable. However, it will be a true historical archive compared to all that is online and so, is subject to editing and deletion for nefarious purposes. The future of history is bleak.

    Old hard drives though are like old photo negatives in shoeboxes. Never look at them even though I know they are more valuable that the prints themselves. I also have a large number of old super-8 and older movies and thousands of slides. I also however have shelves and boxes of inherited photo albums and 'stuff'. Most of it will end up in the trash. Who would want more stuff?


    https://www.amazon.ca/Honore-Jaxon-V...=1&*entries*=0


    http://nuvomagazine.com/wp-content/u...01-816x532.jpg


    SCALAWAGS: HONORÉ JAXON
    The rebel William Henry Jackson.
    Writer Jim Christy

    On his deathbed, he told Baronian he had to get well in order to take all his papers and books back to Saskatchewan, to build a library for Native peoples. Jaxon died on January 10, 1952.

    http://nuvomagazine.com/magazine/sum...s-honore-jaxon
    Last edited by KC; 27-03-2016 at 07:49 AM.

  26. #226
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Crawford Plains, Millwoods since 1985
    Posts
    2,737

    Default

    My neighbor came over with a copy of the Edmonton Sun and showed me Lorne Gunter's column since the two of us have been having conversation about this whole Ghomeshi affair and modern day "rape culture" in general. Great column IMO

    Justice system prevailed in Ghomeshi case

    The outcome of the Jian Ghomeshi case (he was acquitted Thursday of all the charges against him for sexual assault and choking) will probably not surprise anyone who followed the testimony during February’s trial.

    One after the other, Ghomeshi’s accusers were shown in court to be have been, um, sparing with the truth.

    The three women who claimed the former CBC Radio star had sexually assaulted them were revealed under cross-examination by Ghomeshi’s two (female) defence lawyers to have misled police about their relationships with the former broadcaster and – worse yet – to have withheld evidence from Crown prosecutors and the courts.

    As lead defence counsel Marie Henein pointed out in her closing arguments last month, only when she and her colleague Danielle Robitaille produced evidence that Ghomeshi’s accusers had, for instance, maintained relationships with him long after he allegedly assaulted them (despite claiming otherwise to prosecutors) and that at least two of them had exchanged upwards of 5,000 messages about how to handle their accusations against him, did the trio divulge the full truth.

    “The truth was not going to be told at trial,” Henein said. “Were it not discoverable independently, we were not going to hear the truth.”

    Whatever one thinks personally about Ghomeshi’s taste for rough sex, there is no question the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Ghomeshi’s actions rose to the level of sexual assault, that he “hate-sexed” his three accusers without their consent.

    As tough as it may be for some people (particularly radical feminists) to believe, there are some women who appear to enjoy rough sex as much as some men do, who crave domination in sexual roleplay. And that is not part of a “rape culture” foisted on society by some shadowy patriarchy.

    So whatever one thinks personally about Ghomeshi’s innocence, the justice system has prevailed. The courts have done their job. We all have the right to the presumption of innocence until the Crown can prove us guilty (onus on the Crown), even men accused of rape.

    Having said that, expect the Trudeau government to come under tremendous pressure to change Canada’s sexual assault laws and court rules to make it very much harder for men accused of sexual assault to offer a defence in court in the future.

    And given the way Justin Trudeau rushed to judgement over sexual harassment allegations against two of his MPs while in opposition – Scott Andrews and Massimo Pacetti were frogmarched out of caucus in an eye-blink – expect radical lobbyists to find a sympathetic ear with our new prime minister.

    Canada's rape shield laws – laws that shield a woman’s past sexual behaviour from disclosure in the courts and make it harder for an accused man to claim she consented to sex – are already among the most strident in the world. But the fact that a prominent man accused of rape has been allowed to go free will only renew feminists’ calls to make those laws tougher still.

    The presumption among feminists is that women simply don’t lie about sexual assault. Add to that the feminist notion that a woman should have the power to withdraw her consent or express remorse after the fact, and you can see where this is going: The courts must be instructed to treat consent as a one-sided concept.

    Protestors stood outside the court on Thursday insisting “we believe survivors” and demanding the courts “stop blaming victims.” Such thinkers – and they are dominant on campuses and in legal literature – will not be satisfied until every accused male is sentenced without trial.
    Bolding mine

    http://www.torontosun.com/2016/03/24...-ghomeshi-case
    Last edited by Kitlope; 30-03-2016 at 02:35 PM.

  27. #227
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    4,020

    Default

    Top_Dawg cracked up when he read The Edmonton Sun's front page headline on Good Friday: ' JIAN BEATS RAPS '



    They come up with some real gems.

  28. #228

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kitlope View Post
    My neighbor came over with a copy of the Edmonton Sun and showed me Lorne Gunter's column since the two of us have been having conversation about this whole Ghomeshi affair and modern day "rape culture" in general. Great column IMO
    Maybe, but the second case may turn out very different, as it doesn't involve someone he was already in a relationship with.

  29. #229
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Crawford Plains, Millwoods since 1985
    Posts
    2,737

    Default

    If justice prevails, then justice prevails.

    What a concept!

  30. #230

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kitlope View Post
    My neighbor came over with a copy of the Edmonton Sun and showed me Lorne Gunter's column since the two of us have been having conversation about this whole Ghomeshi affair and modern day "rape culture" in general. Great column IMO

    Justice system prevailed in Ghomeshi case

    The outcome of the Jian Ghomeshi case (he was acquitted Thursday of all the charges against him for sexual assault and choking) will probably not surprise anyone who followed the testimony during February’s trial.

    One after the other, Ghomeshi’s accusers were shown in court to be have been, um, sparing with the truth.

    The three women who claimed the former CBC Radio star had sexually assaulted them were revealed under cross-examination by Ghomeshi’s two (female) defence lawyers to have misled police about their relationships with the former broadcaster and – worse yet – to have withheld evidence from Crown prosecutors and the courts.

    As lead defence counsel Marie Henein pointed out in her closing arguments last month, only when she and her colleague Danielle Robitaille produced evidence that Ghomeshi’s accusers had, for instance, maintained relationships with him long after he allegedly assaulted them (despite claiming otherwise to prosecutors) and that at least two of them had exchanged upwards of 5,000 messages about how to handle their accusations against him, did the trio divulge the full truth.

    “The truth was not going to be told at trial,” Henein said. “Were it not discoverable independently, we were not going to hear the truth.”

    Whatever one thinks personally about Ghomeshi’s taste for rough sex, there is no question the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Ghomeshi’s actions rose to the level of sexual assault, that he “hate-sexed” his three accusers without their consent.

    As tough as it may be for some people (particularly radical feminists) to believe, there are some women who appear to enjoy rough sex as much as some men do, who crave domination in sexual roleplay. And that is not part of a “rape culture” foisted on society by some shadowy patriarchy.

    So whatever one thinks personally about Ghomeshi’s innocence, the justice system has prevailed. The courts have done their job. We all have the right to the presumption of innocence until the Crown can prove us guilty (onus on the Crown), even men accused of rape.

    Having said that, expect the Trudeau government to come under tremendous pressure to change Canada’s sexual assault laws and court rules to make it very much harder for men accused of sexual assault to offer a defence in court in the future.

    And given the way Justin Trudeau rushed to judgement over sexual harassment allegations against two of his MPs while in opposition – Scott Andrews and Massimo Pacetti were frogmarched out of caucus in an eye-blink – expect radical lobbyists to find a sympathetic ear with our new prime minister.

    Canada's rape shield laws – laws that shield a woman’s past sexual behaviour from disclosure in the courts and make it harder for an accused man to claim she consented to sex – are already among the most strident in the world. But the fact that a prominent man accused of rape has been allowed to go free will only renew feminists’ calls to make those laws tougher still.

    The presumption among feminists is that women simply don’t lie about sexual assault. Add to that the feminist notion that a woman should have the power to withdraw her consent or express remorse after the fact, and you can see where this is going: The courts must be instructed to treat consent as a one-sided concept.

    Protestors stood outside the court on Thursday insisting “we believe survivors” and demanding the courts “stop blaming victims.” Such thinkers – and they are dominant on campuses and in legal literature – will not be satisfied until every accused male is sentenced without trial.
    Bolding mine

    http://www.torontosun.com/2016/03/24...-ghomeshi-case
    Another thing about some feminists is they think all women think like them and that's just not true. There is also a lunatic fringe in most groups. I think there is some truth in what Ghomeshi was accused of but what those women did after the fact makes it look like it was no big deal to them. If it had of been they would have stayed away from him. It does not always follow that women who have been sexually assaulted always go to the police but I should imagine they would want to stay as far away as possible from the person that assaulted them. The sad fact about this case is that these women have muddy the waters so bad for the accused and the accusers in these types of cases. Unfortunately radical feminists will have tunnel vision when it comes to this case.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  31. #231

  32. #232

    Default

    It is as unreasonable an argument by feminists that the female lawyer betrayed women for defending him and not supporting women as police officers expecting their rank and file to follow the blue line regardless of the facts and the justice system.

    Justice was served and our Courts system proved to remain true to the evidence presented.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  33. #233

    Default

    An interesting component of the Scottish justice system: guilty, not guilty, and not proven. Not proven has no formal conviction; however, the accused is often seen as morally guilty.

    The social media and public perception of Ghomeshi have sentenced him long ago, interesting to see the dynamics: courts of public opinion compared to the justice system and the ruling. It’s possible to applaud the judgment and also believe Ghomeshi did it.

  34. #234
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Crawford Plains, Millwoods since 1985
    Posts
    2,737

    Default

    Trailer Park Boys actor Mike Smith, who plays Bubbles, arrested in L.A.

    Mike Smith, the actor who plays Bubbles on the Trailer Park Boys, is disputing allegations against him related to a misdemeanour domestic battery charge.

    Smith, 43, was arrested in Los Angeles early Friday morning at 1:15 a.m. local time in the 7,000 block of Hollywood Boulevard, Los Angeles Police Department Officer Matthew Ludwig said Friday night.

    He was released on $20,000 bail four hours later, according to the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department.

    In a statement released by the Trailer Park Boys Saturday afternoon, Smith and Georgia Ling, the alleged victim, said they are friends who had an argument.

    "Georgia is a friend of mine and we had a loud and heated dispute," Smith said in the statement. "That is all. At no time did I assault her. I am not guilty of the misdemeanour charged against me."

    Ling, the woman who the statement identifies as the victim, said someone who overheard the argument called police.

    "Mike and I did indeed have a heavy argument but it saddens me the way things are being reported and the way it was handled by the police," Ling said in the statement.

    "At no point did I feel I was in danger, otherwise I would've called the police myself, which I did not. The police were called by others not present in the room who mistakenly perceived the argument to be something other than what it was. When the officers arrived, I tried to assure them there was no real issue, but they proceeded to arrest Mike."

    The other Trailer Park Boys members and staff stand behind Smith, the statement said.

    Smith is scheduled to appear in court on April 29.
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-s...rest-1.3518081

    So let me get this straight. Bubbles and his friend who is a female have a heated argument. She admits there was no assault, just some raised voices. Bubbles, being the male, get's charged. Bubbles friend, Ling, is actually disappointed how the police have reacted to this, she never called the police and she felt like she was in no danger. I'm sure she was yelling as well... but of course being the women she's the victim.

    This FUCK1NG bullsh1t and this war on men needs to FUCK1NG stop. And yes, I am livid at the double standards.

  35. #235

    Default

    ^ hmmm. I think* the ratio of transgressions of men against women over transgressions of women against men is maybe 10 or even 100 to 1. The guy gets arrested because 9 out of 10 times it's the men that the cops have to legitimately arrest. Women might be equally nasty in their thinking but men are the ones that typically go to far and become physically violent (aka having emotional breakdowns).


    * picking numbers out of my _ _ _,

  36. #236

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kitlope View Post
    Trailer Park Boys actor Mike Smith, who plays Bubbles, arrested in L.A.

    Mike Smith, the actor who plays Bubbles on the Trailer Park Boys, is disputing allegations against him related to a misdemeanour domestic battery charge.

    Smith, 43, was arrested in Los Angeles early Friday morning at 1:15 a.m. local time in the 7,000 block of Hollywood Boulevard, Los Angeles Police Department Officer Matthew Ludwig said Friday night.

    He was released on $20,000 bail four hours later, according to the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department.

    In a statement released by the Trailer Park Boys Saturday afternoon, Smith and Georgia Ling, the alleged victim, said they are friends who had an argument.

    "Georgia is a friend of mine and we had a loud and heated dispute," Smith said in the statement. "That is all. At no time did I assault her. I am not guilty of the misdemeanour charged against me."

    Ling, the woman who the statement identifies as the victim, said someone who overheard the argument called police.

    "Mike and I did indeed have a heavy argument but it saddens me the way things are being reported and the way it was handled by the police," Ling said in the statement.

    "At no point did I feel I was in danger, otherwise I would've called the police myself, which I did not. The police were called by others not present in the room who mistakenly perceived the argument to be something other than what it was. When the officers arrived, I tried to assure them there was no real issue, but they proceeded to arrest Mike."

    The other Trailer Park Boys members and staff stand behind Smith, the statement said.

    Smith is scheduled to appear in court on April 29.
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-s...rest-1.3518081

    So let me get this straight. Bubbles and his friend who is a female have a heated argument. She admits there was no assault, just some raised voices. Bubbles, being the male, get's charged. Bubbles friend, Ling, is actually disappointed how the police have reacted to this, she never called the police and she felt like she was in no danger. I'm sure she was yelling as well... but of course being the women she's the victim.

    This FUCK1NG bullsh1t and this war on men needs to FUCK1NG stop. And yes, I am livid at the double standards.
    The “war on men” - probably only by women with lots of money and influence, otherwise:
    (And in the article below note the women engaged in the ‘war on women’)



    Harvey Weinstein’s Army of Spies | The New Yorker


    Harvey Weinstein’s Army of Spies
    The film executive hired private investigators, including ex-Mossad agents, to track actresses and journalists.
    By Ronan Farrow November 6, 2017

    https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-...-army-of-spies
    Last edited by KC; 08-11-2017 at 08:22 PM.

  37. #237

    Default

    So when is the disgusting DB Gene Simmons going to be taken down? I would cheer for that one, not that I wouldn't in anycase but it so often seems like the worst examples are never brought to justice.

    Is Rock life immune to this. Jimmy Page was notorious for bedding down with underage girls and doesn't deny any of it. Gene Simmons at every concert would point at the women he wanted back stage and his lackies would go procure them. Gene has also acknowledged propensity to bed with underage females. At the Famous "Cadillac Kiss Day" his manager had to stay with Gene all day to stop him screwing teenage girls in the high school. "Leave em alone Gene"

    Why the selective double standard? Do groupies never come out?
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  38. #238

    Default

    It's pretty tough to categorize that as "abuse", when groupies are having a fantasy of theirs fulfilled.

  39. #239

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    It's pretty tough to categorize that as "abuse", when groupies are having a fantasy of theirs fulfilled.
    Underage groupies cannot give legal or other consent. Its a clear double standard. Both Page and Simmons and many others in the Rock pantheon have admitted to the behaviors in tell all sordid autobiographies. Page had a spouse that was 14yrs old when he was near 30. So why not an investigation into the music industry and artists that perpetrate this?

    Plus, bands would take groupies on all expenses paid tours. That wasn't even the exception, more the rule. So not only do the artists have authority and control within that relationship they exert power within it. Girsl that didn't "put out" were often told not only that they would get kicked off that tour they were blacklisted for other bands to ignore. For a groupie that was being cut out of a whole lifestyle, peer association, etc.

    The music industry OUGHT to be confronted on all this because it wasn't just actresses and actors being molested on hollwood casting couches, in the case of the music industry it was a case of lock up your daughters tour in every city. During the 70's every week. Which impacted many more people and wherein countless girls, women were abused, raped, sometimes drug raped etc. only to be tossed out like used condoms.
    Last edited by Replacement; 09-11-2017 at 01:05 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  40. #240
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Crawford Plains, Millwoods since 1985
    Posts
    2,737

    Default

    How about all the female teachers that sexually abuse male underage students that you never hear about? Mainstream media absolutely refuses to report on this subject.

    It happens all the time. But you have been trained to believe that because they're male, they simply can't be sexually abused by a female because "gettin' laid and all that", even if it is a unacceptable young age.

    See the double standard? Nobody gives a f*ck. Because their just boys and it doesn't fit the standard feminist victim narrative.

    Open up your freaking eyes. You cucks are making me ill.
    Time spent in the Rockies is never deducted from the rest of your life

  41. #241
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    31,020

    Default

    ^ Not all of us are misogynists
    “You have to dream big. If we want to be a little city, we dream small. If we want to be a big city, we dream big, and this is a big idea.” - Mayor Stephen Mandel, 02/22/2012

  42. #242
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,136

    Default

    ^^What? Those cases of females sexually assaulting their male students get reported all the time. And the people that think it's okay because they're male tend to be the male misogynists not the feminists.

  43. #243

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    So when is the disgusting DB Gene Simmons going to be taken down? I would cheer for that one, not that I wouldn't in anycase but it so often seems like the worst examples are never brought to justice.

    Is Rock life immune to this. Jimmy Page was notorious for bedding down with underage girls and doesn't deny any of it. Gene Simmons at every concert would point at the women he wanted back stage and his lackies would go procure them. Gene has also acknowledged propensity to bed with underage females. At the Famous "Cadillac Kiss Day" his manager had to stay with Gene all day to stop him screwing teenage girls in the high school. "Leave em alone Gene"

    Why the selective double standard? Do groupies never come out?
    If they were underage, I agree with you, its a problem. But, the rest of your post reads like jealously - I'm sorry, but that's rock n roll, the performers are basically gods to women. Heck, if Rihanna pointed at me and pulled me back stage, I'd have a tough time saying no.

    Have to keep in mind times have changed though. How many songs are there about sweet 16's, and similar? The Beatles sing, "she was just 17, you know what I mean". Dancing Queen - is all about a 17year old girl at a disco. Attitudes are different now, they are better.
    Last edited by moahunter; 09-11-2017 at 02:30 PM.

  44. #244

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    So when is the disgusting DB Gene Simmons going to be taken down? I would cheer for that one, not that I wouldn't in anycase but it so often seems like the worst examples are never brought to justice.

    Is Rock life immune to this. Jimmy Page was notorious for bedding down with underage girls and doesn't deny any of it. Gene Simmons at every concert would point at the women he wanted back stage and his lackies would go procure them. Gene has also acknowledged propensity to bed with underage females. At the Famous "Cadillac Kiss Day" his manager had to stay with Gene all day to stop him screwing teenage girls in the high school. "Leave em alone Gene"

    Why the selective double standard? Do groupies never come out?
    If they were underage, I agree with you, its a problem. But, the rest of your post reads like jealously - I'm sorry, but that's rock n roll, the performers are basically gods to women. Heck, if Rihanna pointed at me and pulled me back stage, I'd have a tough time saying no.

    Have to keep in mind times have changed though. How many songs are there about sweet 16's, and similar? The Beatles sing, "she was just 17, you know what I mean". Dancing Queen - is all about a 17year old girl at a disco. Attitudes are different now, they are better.
    God of Thunder...heh

    I was listening to some KISS the other day and its odd how it strikes you that every song Gene (or his dick) ever wrote is about sex. I think way back in the day when I was a tweener I didn't pick up on all of it..

    What do you mean, jealous of Rock stars!
    Last edited by Replacement; 09-11-2017 at 02:50 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  45. #245

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    Those cases of females sexually assaulting their male students get reported all the time.
    I have noticed that the hot ones don't receive sentences as harsh as the ugly/fat ones do.

  46. #246
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,136

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    Those cases of females sexually assaulting their male students get reported all the time.
    I have noticed that the hot ones don't receive sentences as harsh as the ugly/fat ones do.
    citation needed.

  47. #247
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    4,020

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    Those cases of females sexually assaulting their male students get reported all the time.
    I have noticed that the hot ones don't receive sentences as harsh as the ugly/fat ones do.



    Of course.

    No trauma to the victim.

  48. #248
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Crawford Plains, Millwoods since 1985
    Posts
    2,737

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey View Post
    ^ Not all of us are misogynists
    This is the best you can do? I point out a blatant double standard and you go to the standard feminist "you're such a misogynist". Your post isn't gonna get you laid, buddy.

    You useless Cuck.
    Time spent in the Rockies is never deducted from the rest of your life

  49. #249

    Default

    ^Have to agree that it is a double standard when it comes to female teachers going after their male pupils. When you think about it do these female teachers stalk then groom these young guys. Are they targets for this type of women. They should look into the motives or reasons these women do this type of thing. Is it immaturity, lust, low self esteem?. When it's reversed (male teacher/young female student) the guy gets called pedo, pervert, sicko etc. If it was a male teacher/young male student relationship the doo doo would hit the fan for all kinds of innuendo. Female teacher praying on young male students seems to get a pass when it comes to sentencing and condemnation. Then there are the cases where female teachers have prayed on young female students. That seems to provoke more of a reaction for the victim.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  50. #250
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Crawford Plains, Millwoods since 1985
    Posts
    2,737

    Default

    Nice to see a woman understand the double standard, some of the mangina cucks around here refuse to admit that there's some serious dirty pool being played.

    When a male teacher takes advantage of an underage female student he's pretty much done for. Media states he's a pedo, he's charged, usually a conviction, jailtime, job loss and his name on the sex registry list.

    When a woman teacher takes advantage of an underage male student the media headline usually states akin "an afterschool romp", sometimes not even any charges, less chance of a conviction, usually does NOT lose her job and usually is NOT put on the sex registry list.

    But remember mangina SDM, according to you feminists we males are the ones that are priviledged. The best part we can be ruined just on an accusation... something a female never has to worry about.
    Time spent in the Rockies is never deducted from the rest of your life

  51. #251
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    31,020
    “You have to dream big. If we want to be a little city, we dream small. If we want to be a big city, we dream big, and this is a big idea.” - Mayor Stephen Mandel, 02/22/2012

  52. #252

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kitlope View Post
    Nice to see a woman understand the double standard, some of the mangina cucks around here refuse to admit that there's some serious dirty pool being played.

    When a male teacher takes advantage of an underage female student he's pretty much done for. Media states he's a pedo, he's charged, usually a conviction, jailtime, job loss and his name on the sex registry list.

    When a woman teacher takes advantage of an underage male student the media headline usually states akin "an afterschool romp", sometimes not even any charges, less chance of a conviction, usually does NOT lose her job and usually is NOT put on the sex registry list.

    But remember mangina SDM, according to you feminists we males are the ones that are priviledged. The best part we can be ruined just on an accusation... something a female never has to worry about.
    Awards were given out for the movie American Beauty which I saw as just a big promotion of a pediophile and Colbert is probably right!


    Colbert: These Accusations Against Roy Moore Are So Damning, Voters Will ‘Make Him President!’


    https://www.mediaite.com/tv/colbert-...him-president/


    BS from the IMDB Review on American Beauty:

    “To start off with Lester Burnham, to all you stupids, he is not a pedophile! What are you thinking? “

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0169547/...5?mode=desktop

    Yeah right. This is total BS. They even gave Spacey and the movie several awards for “promoting” this characterization of a 40 yr old geezer and a young girl. Pedophile!

    Soooo.... now in light of all the sexual abuse, rape, molestation and other crap coming out about directors, actors, politicians, etc, one would naturally wonder about the authors and directors of such “cutting edge” movies.


    The point is, there’s loads of double standards. Plus there’s a lot of apologists and enablers for such abusive and opportunistic behaviour.
    Last edited by KC; 10-11-2017 at 09:50 AM.

  53. #253
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,448

    Default

    It has been a while since I have seen that movie, but I don't remember the "young girl" (who was 16 or 17 IIRC, not 12) being coerced into doing anything she did not want to do.

  54. #254
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Crawford Plains, Millwoods since 1985
    Posts
    2,737

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey View Post
    Read it a long time ago, old news.

    All I'm asking of you is to grow a pair of balls and quit enabling the double standard that ruins men's lives.
    Time spent in the Rockies is never deducted from the rest of your life

  55. #255

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Titanium48 View Post
    It has been a while since I have seen that movie, but I don't remember the "young girl" (who was 16 or 17 IIRC, not 12) being coerced into doing anything she did not want to do.
    Coercion? Interesting.

  56. #256
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    31,020

    Default

    So what do mangina cucks have to do to grow up to be a real man like Kitlope? Continue to reassert masculine dominance over women?
    “You have to dream big. If we want to be a little city, we dream small. If we want to be a big city, we dream big, and this is a big idea.” - Mayor Stephen Mandel, 02/22/2012

  57. #257
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Crawford Plains, Millwoods since 1985
    Posts
    2,737

    Default

    Where does masculine dominance come into the conversation? This is about the double standards at play with men being on a harsh receiving end.

    Enlighten yourself.

    "Jeremy Piven on Hollywood sex scandal: 'Careers are being destroyed based on mere allegations"


    http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-en...-a8048511.html
    Time spent in the Rockies is never deducted from the rest of your life

  58. #258
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Crawford Plains, Millwoods since 1985
    Posts
    2,737

    Default

    Time spent in the Rockies is never deducted from the rest of your life

  59. #259

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Titanium48 View Post
    It has been a while since I have seen that movie, but I don't remember the "young girl" (who was 16 or 17 IIRC, not 12) being coerced into doing anything she did not want to do.
    Just to add that Mena Suvari was actually 21 during the filming of American Beauty... I think I must have checked that at the time just in wonder..

    As to others comments about the movie it is a morality tale. American Beauty, and even the title, is intentionally sarcastic. Its a portrayal of what is wrong with current day life devoid of any morality or grounding. Its not telling you to live your lives like that the message is that these people are all broken, pretenders, imposters, and with depravity hidden underneath the surface. Its the whole gist of the film. Lester Burnham dies before the end. Something dies in him before the start of the film. This is a character that gives up on life. Gives up his job, his marriage, his family and just stops caring about any of it. This is a broken man. He is not depicted as something to aspire to. None of the characters are.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  60. #260

    Default

    One of the things that hasn't been mentioned in the Male-Female tale of the sexes is that in present day women get to define what rape, seduction, foreplay, assault, arousal, offensive, good sex is. Its actually become increasingly vague. The same actions, identical actions can get described or perceived a multitude of ways even though they are the same actions. So that one women might find something arousing and might find the very same action offensive at another time. Even with the same partner.

    Men are generally easy. Physiologically we are preprogrammed for sex. This being true of most of the mammal kingdom. When a female is sensed to have acquiesced the male of the species is pretty immediately ready to perform copulation.

    The hardwiring of female sexuality is MUCH different and involves intricacy that males don't experience, or necessarily comprehend. I'm required to attend Sexual assault workshops. (part of certification requirements of employment) and one thing that always gets stated in these is that males need to detect what the female is feeling or thinking. That even though you've both taken your clothes off it isn't necessarily yes, even though you are in passionate foreplay it isn't yes. even though you have started intercourse consensually this is not a yes to finish. (this has actually been stated) A man is actually supposed to realize during the height of coitus that a female has suddenly changed her mind. She doesn't even need to verbalize it. But what I've raised in these sessions is that this entirely ignores, and misunderstands male sexual action. Which would perhaps be better understood observing a male preying mantis having its head chewed off while it is intent on finishing coitus..

    In short a male is not very cognizant of every female nuance or action/inaction during coitus. The male at that point is more typically at a state of arousal that sees one culmination.

    The very danger is that the rewriting of definitions of assault, rape, coercion, by females, is ignoring some primary difference in sex anatomy, profile, and the sexual response of males and females. Clearly its easier for females to say no at any point in sex whereas male sexual response is less clear during heightened arousal and especially in the actual act of sexual intercourse. Yet if a female shifts herself or coughs or something and doesn't say no or anything like that the male is being expected to comprehend no even if it is not communicated.

    Last word, and this should preclude sexual contact for males is that Sexual Assault presenters in this city have gone as far to say that a Women can change her mind after sex, the next day, a week later. She can change her mind about consensual sex being non consensual. She can alter the event based on post cognition to term and label the sexual dalliance as an assault.

    If you don't believe me go to a Sexual Assault Center Edmonton presentation. Its absolutely whacked. I feel sorry for young males that do not yet have life partners.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  61. #261
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Crawford Plains, Millwoods since 1985
    Posts
    2,737

    Default

    Last word, and this should preclude sexual contact for males is that Sexual Assault presenters in this city have gone as far to say that a Women can change her mind after sex, the next day, a week later. She can change her mind about consensual sex being non consensual. She can alter the event based on post cognition to term and label the sexual dalliance as an assault.

    If you don't believe me go to a Sexual Assault Center Edmonton presentation. Its absolutely whacked. I feel sorry for young males that do not yet have life partners.
    Decades later even. Look no further than Ghomeshi trial, what this thread is about. Talk about moving the goal posts! One days' rough sex is a future days' sexual assault. Must be nice to be able to move the goal posts like that, playing victim while ruining an innocent man.

    I feel bad for the young men of today as well. And a lot of them are simply checking out of the dating/marriage game, smoking pot and playing video games. Not the healthiest thing in the world to do but hey - No worries about getting trapped, divorce raped, raising someone' else's thug spawn, being financially f*cked for decades. Can't blame them either. I wish I would have done the same when I was younger... but at least I did learn when I was young. The hostile anti-male climate of todays (and I'm gonna call it what it is, 4th wave radical feminism) has NOTHING to do with equality and EVERYTHING to do with destroying men. And there's a lot of that going on right now.

    Just think about how much power she holds when she cries rape or abuse. You're f#cked. We men do NOT have that kind of power. I cannot at will get someone thrown in jail and charged just on my word, for anything. But she has that privilege. And unfortunately it's becoming all too common as a tactic for vengeful women. And when caught in lies or admitted false... nothing happens. Usually zero consequences.

    And the best part is, when you talk about it, mangina's like SDM call you a misogynist, so the pattern just repeats itself. Dog keeps chasing its tail so to speak, so nothing gets accomplished, no discussions are had and laws get rewritten, making it more difficult for a man to prove his innocence. Yup, even that's occurring and the Ghomeshi trial started it, even though he was acquitted.

    Male privilege indeed.
    Last edited by Kitlope; 12-11-2017 at 10:45 AM.
    Time spent in the Rockies is never deducted from the rest of your life

  62. #262

    Default

    In the case of Harvey Weinstein it seems he had been getting away with a lot of nefarious things. It seems like his actions were Hollywoods' worst kept secret. I'm sure he could have (and should have been) outed years ago as enough people were effected by what he did. Is fame and fortune worth selling your soul to people sexually exploiting you to reach that gaol.
    It's very annoying to watch shows with people like Gordon Ramsey (who is a chef) where his protégé are calling him 'sir' etc. and running around him like he is some kind of important person. He's a cook for cripes sake not the head of National Defence. This is what the Hollywood industry does to people. Once they are famous it's as if they become powerful and important. Weinstein used all that to exploit people. Sick man.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  63. #263

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey View Post
    So what do mangina cucks have to do to grow up to be a real man like Kitlope? Continue to reassert masculine dominance
    over women?
    After years of posting I find Kitlope is about the only guy on here who does see things from a woman's point of view. You don't seem to have a clue. Of course there is a double standard in a lot of things and it goes both ways. Some of them are being addressed others are not even close yet. I am all for equality but men and women have being doing many things for thousands of years. We are not going to sort it in one lifetime.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  64. #264

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey View Post
    So what do mangina cucks have to do to grow up to be a real man like Kitlope? Continue to reassert masculine dominance
    over women?
    After years of posting I find Kitlope is about the only guy on here who does see things from a woman's point of view. You don't seem to have a clue. Of course there is a double standard in a lot of things and it goes both ways. Some of them are being addressed others are not even close yet. I am all for equality but men and women have being doing many things for thousands of years. We are not going to sort it in one lifetime.
    Accurate? I don’t know. Do all women have the same point of view?

    However, some people don’t want anything sorted out in their lifetimes. It will be progress if we can just get to a point of treating more people as individuals and not always as just a mindless, thoughtless clone as defined by some idiots seeing themselves as defined by some or other group.
    Last edited by KC; 12-11-2017 at 04:27 PM.

  65. #265
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,448

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Awards were given out for the movie American Beauty which I saw as just a big promotion of a pediophile and Colbert is probably right!


    Colbert: These Accusations Against Roy Moore Are So Damning, Voters Will ‘Make Him President!’


    https://www.mediaite.com/tv/colbert-...him-president/


    BS from the IMDB Review on American Beauty:

    “To start off with Lester Burnham, to all you stupids, he is not a pedophile! What are you thinking? “

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0169547/...5?mode=desktop

    Yeah right. This is total BS. They even gave Spacey and the movie several awards for “promoting” this characterization of a 40 yr old geezer and a young girl. Pedophile!

    Soooo.... now in light of all the sexual abuse, rape, molestation and other crap coming out about directors, actors, politicians, etc, one would naturally wonder about the authors and directors of such “cutting edge” movies.


    The point is, there’s loads of double standards. Plus there’s a lot of apologists and enablers for such abusive and opportunistic behaviour.
    So, I found American Beauty on Netflix and watched it again. I don't entirely agree with the review above, but it is a lot closer to the mark than calling the movie a promotion of pedophilia. Pedophilia is an attraction to pre-pubescent children, not sexually mature teenagers.

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    As to others comments about the movie it is a morality tale. American Beauty, and even the title, is intentionally sarcastic. Its a portrayal of what is wrong with current day life devoid of any morality or grounding. Its not telling you to live your lives like that the message is that these people are all broken, pretenders, imposters, and with depravity hidden underneath the surface. Its the whole gist of the film. Lester Burnham dies before the end. Something dies in him before the start of the film. This is a character that gives up on life. Gives up his job, his marriage, his family and just stops caring about any of it. This is a broken man. He is not depicted as something to aspire to. None of the characters are.
    That makes a lot more sense, though I got the impression that his death was supposed to be a bit ironic, occurring just after he finally shows some maturity and decides not to take things any further with the still willing young woman.

  66. #266

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Titanium48 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Awards were given out for the movie American Beauty which I saw as just a big promotion of a pediophile and Colbert is probably right!


    Colbert: These Accusations Against Roy Moore Are So Damning, Voters Will ‘Make Him President!’


    https://www.mediaite.com/tv/colbert-...him-president/


    BS from the IMDB Review on American Beauty:

    “To start off with Lester Burnham, to all you stupids, he is not a pedophile! What are you thinking? “

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0169547/...5?mode=desktop

    Yeah right. This is total BS. They even gave Spacey and the movie several awards for “promoting” this characterization of a 40 yr old geezer and a young girl. Pedophile!

    Soooo.... now in light of all the sexual abuse, rape, molestation and other crap coming out about directors, actors, politicians, etc, one would naturally wonder about the authors and directors of such “cutting edge” movies.


    The point is, there’s loads of double standards. Plus there’s a lot of apologists and enablers for such abusive and opportunistic behaviour.
    So, I found American Beauty on Netflix and watched it again. I don't entirely agree with the review above, but it is a lot closer to the mark than calling the movie a promotion of pedophilia. Pedophilia is an attraction to pre-pubescent children, not sexually mature teenagers.

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    As to others comments about the movie it is a morality tale. American Beauty, and even the title, is intentionally sarcastic. Its a portrayal of what is wrong with current day life devoid of any morality or grounding. Its not telling you to live your lives like that the message is that these people are all broken, pretenders, imposters, and with depravity hidden underneath the surface. Its the whole gist of the film. Lester Burnham dies before the end. Something dies in him before the start of the film. This is a character that gives up on life. Gives up his job, his marriage, his family and just stops caring about any of it. This is a broken man. He is not depicted as something to aspire to. None of the characters are.
    That makes a lot more sense, though I got the impression that his death was supposed to be a bit ironic, occurring just after he finally shows some maturity and decides not to take things any further with the still willing young woman.
    Good response. I’ll buy that as my thinking was only based on my impression in watching it one time, long ago. Nonetheless, an old guy lusting for a teenager ‘creeped’ me out - and I’m not prude by any measure - except clearly on old guys vs young girls.



    Im not alone in this thinking:

    #MeAt14: Raising awareness around the age of consent - BBC News

    http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-41967461
    Last edited by KC; 13-11-2017 at 08:16 AM.

  67. #267

    Default

    Again you'll feel better about it when you realize Mena Suvari was 21 during filming and a knockout beauty.

    I have to admit the eyes being caught by the bath of rose petals scene as well, if I'm being honest and everything..

    Nor is this imagery isolated in anyway. America is a nation of Guns and cheerleaders and hard to know which it loves more. The movie was good in that it captures the broken dreams of America in sartorial splendor as few films do. So many of the concepts and conceits of America are so thoroughly lampooned in the film and starting with the notion of beauty and what that is. Is it some replaceable tart wrapped up in spandex and a skirt with pom poms or the wonder of a disposable plastic bag dancing in the breeze. Or is beauty fleeting and found much at all in America in a lost nation?
    Last edited by Replacement; 13-11-2017 at 11:54 AM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  68. #268

    Default

    Sixth Accuser: Woman Claims George H.W. Bush Groped Her When 'I Was a Child' - Breitbart

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...-groped-child/

  69. #269
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Crawford Plains, Millwoods since 1985
    Posts
    2,737

    Default

    Oh this is just too good to not post.

    8-year sportswriting vet Ryan Schultz turns out to have been teen girl.

    ID revealed after women accuse him of harassment

    Sportswriter Ryan Schultz had been blogging about baseball on major sports sites for eight years when some women came forward alleging he harassed them online. Then it was revealed that Schultz, who claimed to have a wife and two children, was not a man at all, but rather a young Missouri woman who had written under the false identity since she was 13.

    A Deadpsin report revealed the identity of Ryan Schultz to be 21-year-old Becca Schultz, who took on the identity to freely write for sites like SB Nation and Baseball Prospectus. As the years went by, Becca couldn't figure out how to disentangle herself from the fabricated persona. The young woman's story started to fall apart over the weekend, Deadspin reports, when the Twitter account @rschultzy20, which supposedly belonged to Ryan Schultz, tweeted a misogynistic joke that ruffled some online feathers. According to Uproxx, the account was deleted, reactivated and deleted again.

    Then the stories started pouring in. Some women on Twitter claimed Schultz had harassed them.

    Two revealed they had sent the writer nude photos. Deadspin contacted the women, who said they had formed "serial relationships" with Ryan Schultz and used Twitter to chat about baseball and hockey.

    The Deadspin report goes on to reveal that some of the women claimed Ryan would "get drunk and berate them" or would "imply that he'd hurt himself" if the women cut off the correspondence.

    Becca Schultz told the media site that she "wanted to be a sportswriter" and figured the only way to get noticed was to act like a "stereotypical guy."


    "I was young and had no idea what to do," she said, "so I just acted like I thought a man would."


    http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/articl...photo-12347157


    I'll let the forum members here come to their own conclusions about this one.

    Last edited by Kitlope; 14-11-2017 at 03:42 AM.
    Time spent in the Rockies is never deducted from the rest of your life

  70. #270

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kitlope View Post
    Oh this is just too good to not post.

    8-year sportswriting vet Ryan Schultz turns out to have been teen girl.

    ID revealed after women accuse him of harassment

    Sportswriter Ryan Schultz had been blogging about baseball on major sports sites for eight years when some women came forward alleging he harassed them online. Then it was revealed that Schultz, who claimed to have a wife and two children, was not a man at all, but rather a young Missouri woman who had written under the false identity since she was 13.

    A Deadpsin report revealed the identity of Ryan Schultz to be 21-year-old Becca Schultz, who took on the identity to freely write for sites like SB Nation and Baseball Prospectus. As the years went by, Becca couldn't figure out how to disentangle herself from the fabricated persona. The young woman's story started to fall apart over the weekend, Deadspin reports, when the Twitter account @rschultzy20, which supposedly belonged to Ryan Schultz, tweeted a misogynistic joke that ruffled some online feathers. According to Uproxx, the account was deleted, reactivated and deleted again.

    Then the stories started pouring in. Some women on Twitter claimed Schultz had harassed them.

    Two revealed they had sent the writer nude photos. Deadspin contacted the women, who said they had formed "serial relationships" with Ryan Schultz and used Twitter to chat about baseball and hockey.

    The Deadspin report goes on to reveal that some of the women claimed Ryan would "get drunk and berate them" or would "imply that he'd hurt himself" if the women cut off the correspondence.

    Becca Schultz told the media site that she "wanted to be a sportswriter" and figured the only way to get noticed was to act like a "stereotypical guy."


    "I was young and had no idea what to do," she said, "so I just acted like I thought a man would."


    http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/articl...photo-12347157


    I'll let the forum members here come to their own conclusions about this one.

    “Crazy lady”?

    Kit, I’m starting to wonder if you’re actually a guy - or a gal acting like a stereotypical...

  71. #271

    Default

    To be fair, trying to act "just like a typical guy" is a factor in bad behaviour for a lot of actual guys too, and it's not a valid excuse for them either.
    There can only be one.

  72. #272
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,448

    Default

    ^ The quote was "stereotypical guy", not "typical guy". While there is generally kernel of truth in stereotypes, they certainly don't describe everyone, or even a majority, of the group they refer to.

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    “Crazy lady”?
    Or a talented actor working with a bad script?

  73. #273

    Default

    Takei, from Star Trek, who is doing a speaking engagement benefit here this month that is nearly sold out is now in the crosshairs for allegedly grabbing some younger guys butt or something.

    In anycase I'm not a huge fan of the retro standardizing of what went on decades ago. As I recall the 70's and 80's a lot of people did coke, grabbed asses, made passes and they were kind of really depraved times in general. I'm not a drug or disco fans so I really didn't partake but theres a real problem in pulling retroactive jurisprudence on things that happened, and were common insitu decades ago.

    In essence you could take Mad Men era as well and just lock em all up. Or sue everybody or some such thing.


    The net effect of taking todays PC definitions or what constitutes rape or assault or inappropriate conduct is that it applies new definitions of appropriate behavior retroactively and fault finds what were right or wrong fairly standard and modeled behaviors of the time or say in a type activity. For instance Nudist colonies, bath houses. Anybody that's ever attended any of these could make a false accusation about anybody.

    Other things as well. I think its changed now but hugging people at say Xmas parties, or even a peck on a cheek at one time were fairly standard and most everybody would do It. You would be considered stand offish or a prude if you didn't partake. Now you'd be run into court if somebody so much as wants to make any random allegation about anybodies decades ago conduct. This not even getting into cultural mores where still today people kiss on the cheek and hug and stuff as part of their learned culture.

    Finally, a lot of the lawsuits are based on after perception. Decades after perception. So that defendants don't have any context in which to defend actions they likely don't even closely remember or to gather character witnesses decades later.
    I really thing there should be some kind of timed statute on latent abuse allegations and lawsuits. With guided therapy where patients "remember" things that never occurred as such in the first place we really are entering into dangerous and choppy waters.
    Last edited by Replacement; 16-11-2017 at 10:30 AM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  74. #274

    Default

    Outside of possible changing attitudes concerning “office socials” (Christmas parties, business-home parties, business conferences and of course “training” trips) I don’t think I’m engaging in any historical revisionism when I say that throughout my working career, in the actual day to day office place / shop / site, I’ve pretty much known that much if not all of what has been happening in the “workplace” was very unprofessional and inappropriate. However, then and now, coworkers socializing with booze and drugs is a recipe for disaster.

    Outside of work, I don’t know what if anything had changed.


    Charlie Rose suspended following sexual harassment allegations - BBC News
    Excerpt:
    “They span from the 1990s to 2011 and include groping, lewd telephone calls and unwanted advances.“

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42060961
    Last edited by KC; 20-11-2017 at 07:16 PM.

  75. #275

    Default

    Pam Anderson doubles down on controversial Weinstein victim comments | Page Six

    https://pagesix.com/2017/12/01/pam-a...ctim-comments/




    Pamela Anderson Won’t Apologize For Suggesting Harvey Weinstein’s Accusers Should Have Known ‘What You’re Getting Into If You’re Going Into A Hotel Room Alone’ | ETCanada.com

    http://etcanada.com/news/276444/pame...el-room-alone/

  76. #276

    Default

    Late Night With Seth Meyers: How to apologize like a man accused of sexual harassment - Vox

    https://www.vox.com/culture/2017/12/...t-amber-ruffin


    Saturday Night Live: Watch Sexual Harassment Charlie Sketch - Thrillist

    https://www.thrillist.com/entertainm...charlie-sketch
    Last edited by KC; 10-12-2017 at 01:50 PM.

  77. #277

    Default

    I wonder if in today's climate if Jian Chomeshi would have been found guilty rather than not guilty. If the testimony of his accusers would have be more credible to the jury than his. He's never heard of anymore so I guess he is paying the price one way or another.


    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toront...ling-1.3505446
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  78. #278
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    4,020

    Default





    What jury ?

  79. #279

    Default

    ^I stand corrected. The trial was by judge alone.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  80. #280
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,136

    Default

    The Aziz Ansari story is ordinary. That’s why we have to talk about it.

    Unlike many reports that have emerged in the wake of revelations about Harvey Weinstein, Grace’s story is not one of workplace harassment. But what she describes — a man repeatedly pushing sex without noticing (or without caring about) what she wants — is something many, many women have experienced in encounters with men. And while few men have committed the litany of misdeeds of which Weinstein has been accused, countless men have likelybehaved as Grace says Ansari did — focusing on their own desires without recognizing what their partner wants. It is the sheer commonness of Grace’s experience that makes it so important to talk about.

  81. #281

    Default

    Not to minimize the article or citation at all but certain passages stands out for me. This wording;


    "The idea that men have more sexual desire than women still goes unchallenged"

    The author Anna North, seemingly, is claiming in this that sexual desire is equal between male and female and that there would be no difference. It would be interesting to question her on this as that seems to be her clear inference, i.e. her expressed notion that differential sexual desire should be challenged, presumably as a falsehood.

    However the male/female sexual response is different, is not the same. To wit;

    https://www.webmd.com/sex/features/s...omen-compare#1

    I'm not sure what possesses anybody to make up a PR notion of the human sex drive and to making reference it to be equal and think that it will not be disputed at all. In the search of literature I've also come across numerous studies that sought to equate the sex drives and while engaging in confirmation bias that the sex drive is equal.

    The differential sex drive of males and females is more likely a reality that could be understood, rather than dispelled as if no such difference exists.

    So there, I talked about it, but you probably don't like what I state.


    I'm a little confused as well. The story recounts this part "after we put our clothes back on" meaning that the clothes were not on. So we're at a mans apartment, on a date, after dinner, clothing off, and we're wondering why a male might be at all aroused? seriously?

    Could it be suggested that going to his apartment after a consensual dinner, date, and taking your clothes off in his apartment may have possible connotations? Gee, is he supposed to be thinking whether the Blue Jays won? What color to paint the walls? Now I'm just stating this from a male pov, because the article curiously lacks that, but if I'm a young male and a female date is in my apartment having coalesced to clothes off its probably sex I'm thinking about. With sexual response and/or arousal fully activated. But the women states; "Ansari kept trying to initiate sex, despite her physical and verbal indications that she wasn’t interested" while her undressed behavior was potentially sending a mixed message.

    Then finally this weird wording; "Eventually, she stood up and said she would call herself a car. “I cried the whole ride home,” she told Babe. “At that point I felt violated. That last hour was so out of my hand.”

    Well, could I counter having read it that arguably, it was within her hand and that all it took was getting up and leaving? I dunno, seems plausible, given that's what transpired.

    Maybe I'm confused about the text or the citation or what it is actually meant to portray in entirety. Is this being perceived as some kind of date rape? I don't have the broader context on how this is being used to browbeat the male of the species to animal status.

    At worst I see an aroused persistent male in a contextual situation that would be male arousing, and that would suggest possible implications involving sex, and that responded within that paradigm and that even sought consent, albeit relentlessly. yet all that was required to escape such amorous intent was leaving, or as a judge might indicate (I'll be attacked for this for sure) just keeping your clothes on.

    Finally, as is invariably the case we're always hearing the female wording and take on what constitutes sexual action or context. We're getting the one side. What would the males account of the evening be. Does it match, has it been asked, explored, etc. Would be interesting to look at the two sides of what was a disagreeable, and yet not illegal encounter. Next, was this potentially damaging and private information released consensually? What implications to the male are involved as has been debated? I don't see that a crime was committed, yet the male is named and will suffer consequence, to any unknown extent.
    Last edited by Replacement; 16-01-2018 at 08:04 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  82. #282
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,136

    Default

    ^Not to minimise this thing, but here I'll minimise it by pointing out a flaw (even if I agree with you in part, although that webmd article is terrible). Oh and now the conversation has changed.

    No.

    edit: You added a lot more after I posted this. (Last edited by Replacement; Today at 09:54 PM. I posted at 9:46) I responded to it when you stopped at "So there, I talked about it, but you probably don't like what I state"

    second edit: After reading the rest of what you wrote, I'm not sure you understand consent. If someone gives you verbal and physical indications they're not interested in sex, there are no mixed messages. That's a no. She may have been into it before (hence clothes removed) and changed her mind before things went further.

    Aziz didn't cross a legal line. He just kept bumping against it constantly. That's what the article is about.

    third edit: Just to be clear

    Listening to Grace doesn’t mean deciding all men should go to prison, or should lose their jobs. It does mean admitting that many men behave in exactly the ways their culture tells them to behave. It means asking men to recognize that and do better, and it means changing the culture so that badgering and pressuring women into sex is deplored, not endorsed. None of this will happen if we refuse to reckon with stories like Grace’s.

    Last edited by Channing; 16-01-2018 at 08:08 PM.

  83. #283

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    ^Not to minimise this thing, but here I'll minimise it by pointing out a flaw (even if I agree with you in part, although that webmd article is terrible). Oh and now the conversation has changed.

    No.
    So what I thought then. Talking at points rather than actual discussion. You introduce this one take as complete understanding to "talk about" while resisting any other counter, or contextual view. Sure...sounds the way the species sex discussion is going on at least here in present day. Albeit all reactions to this "babe" piece have been occurring since.

    edit to edit.

    I comprehend todays written definitions of consent. Still, within these definitions problematic gray area issues arise. You do know for instance that "no" can be implied non verbally, and supposedly understood, albeit not clear that it always is. It is not necessary for a women to state no to determine non consent. There are cases wherein arguments have been made that consent was confused within the encounter, the sexual act, and that the consent was later removed.

    So that we're left with somewhat tattered explanation of what clear consent is, isn't. To be clear if I ever heard no in my life it mean't no and I stopped. That's my behavior. However I do admit that in University or High School years while young I could probably be more confused if a female who wanted the date, who expressed enthusiasm about dating me, being with me, and had her clothes off was conveying no to sex. I would probably have asked. "Well what are we doing then because could you please put your clothes back on because I can't think about anything else"....something like that.

    Finally, "she may have been into it but changed her mind" is harder to process, for a male, while in fullblown sexual arousal.'' The latest interpretations of which is that the male of the species should entirely comprehend a non verbal no, even ifnot even clearly conveyed, during the actual act of sexual coitus. This being what For instance the Sexual Assault Center of Edmonton go to the extent of stating in presentations and media.


    At what point are we just talking pretty normal male, normal sex drive, and acting in response to a male sex drive? I don't see Ansari as a perp in this, I see him as more of a victim in how this has played out in the media.

    Now finally I'm in absolute agreement that mores should change, Hollywood depictions should change, male female behaviors should change etc. What I disagree with is that people should be put on trial in media for behaviors like that portrayed in the article that were arguably consensual in part in anycase. You are aware of the disclosure that Grace was the recipient of oral sex during the same date? (with Ansari allegedly having performed it on Grace) Now of course reciprocity is no guarantee, and even the immediate expectation of is not reasonable, but the pointing at one's dick as if to indicate "my turn" is not completely out of the context of what occurred that night between two adults that seemingly had a subsequent revisiting of the encounter, and how much it was consensual, or not.
    Last edited by Replacement; 16-01-2018 at 08:46 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  84. #284

    Default

    Next I reckon Graces story fine. A subtext to this is she pursued the relationship, she even pursued it cross city or cross country. She was fairly relentless about obtaining the date, She was enthusiastic and passionate about the date. She could even (it could be construed in the encounter) stalked and was relentless pursuing the hook up, even refusing to acknowledge a no... She finally procured the date, with seeming want to partner with an individual that was famous and who she respected and seemingly wanted a further relationship with, she wanted all that, and even acquiesced to him performing cunnilingus on her in his apartment in the same hook up in which she claims was non consensual. Even though she was the pursuant of all to that night and who knows, maybe even during that night. But a recanting, as sometimes occurs, is possibly when the person wanting a relationship feels somewhat rebuked, and later reflecting that the other only wanted the sex. Which from my take is more the indication here. That's what I think actually occurred.

    I do find it interesting that some analyses of this date reflect on all the "game playing" by the male, while completely discounting that there might have been any vested interest by the female.

    I'd want instead to see more informed and sex inclusive (all sexes) recounting of human sexual behavior and interaction and I don' think this instance is that.

    I'll recant as well that you are actually making an attempt at discussing this and more than I thought you might. That is appreciated.

    Now this is the counter statement, brief, that Ansari has offered;

    https://babe.net/2018/01/15/aziz-ansari-statement-28407

    Some of the comments are humorous;
    "Whenever I don't want a physical relationship with someone, I always communicate this by giving them oral sex. Sometimes twice, just to drive the point home how uncomfortable I am."

    This one is unintendedly disturbing;

    "Seriously. Seriously?!? Do you know how many women are forced to do this when they don't want to? Go **** yourself. Also, sucking a dick and being ok with it does NOT mean you want a dick inside you.."
    Last edited by Replacement; 16-01-2018 at 09:36 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  85. #285

    Default

    @Channing.

    I've read quite a lot more on this by now. Not sure why you consider it a must read. It is if one wants to diminish the metoo movement. What we have here in the cited instance is a widely critiqued example of assault. I am curious why you stated the WebMD article is "terrible" and yet you link a story originating from babe is must read.

    The case is a classic example of retroactive sex assault claim. Grace feels ambivalent during the encounter, follows through with getting naked, getting fingered and accepting cunnilingus, then gives 2 blowjobs, at one point going right up to Ansari (him on the couch) and sitting by him on the floor(while both are naked). Kind of suggestive no? Nor is being naked in a mans apartment and engaging in extended foreplay and sexual acts probably the best way to "chill out" what was clearly a sexual encounter. She even uses the term "hooking up" in description of what transpired. She states in her initial long description of the event that she did not clearly say no verbally until just before she left. Up to that her protestations were non verbal and even by her account Ansari did not detect them and did behave as if it was consensual sex. An agreed statement by both parties.

    It wasn't until she gossiped the latest Hollywood conquest with friends(speaking of game playing) that she and they determined that what transpired was not consensual but that considered it a sexual attack. The difficulty with this is that in the moment she was confused, ambivalent, and quite clearly sending mixed messages. This being the reaction Ansari was realtime involved with. Next, the moment she did finally say no he initiated calling a cab and let her leave. Given that he called her the next day to say hi while she was gossiping about the evening with every friend she could, and then fomenting the online attack means that his perception of the exchange was much different. Both agree that he was very surprised by her reaction. Which again took place later after discussing the evening at length with friends.

    Anyway rather than cases like this being powerful examples of male perpetrated assault (that's the attempt used by Grace to frame this) they come off being instead classic examples of miscommunication, unclear communication, and acquiescing in the moment if not fully participating.

    Perhaps the real message here is that going to a mans apartment on a first date while both are intoxicated, taking clothes off, participating in multiple sexual acts while there is perhaps not the best, or most effective way to communicate no during the acts of sex.

    In the aftermath we have the public shaming of a known and identified individual, which will almost certainly be career damaging, and through no illegal act on his part,
    maybe just being a bad date, and this all perpetrated subsequent to Grace feeling used and assumedly spurned in the exchange, which for Ansari, and her, was in words about hooking up, which is what transpired. Grace was upset with the encounter, it did not go as she would have wished. She was not sexually assaulted though.

    All that said either of these people would be nightmare dates that should come complete with X's on their foreheads to warn others of impending bad experience. She herself met Ansari while flirting with him extendedly while she was on a date at the awards event, a date she fairly abandoned while flirting with Ansari and giving him his number so they could hook up. This being a classic example of trading up on a date when the chance presents itself. Presumably the date left, I know I would. He in turn is an arrogant *** that expects first date sex, that uses fame to acquire it, and that displayed a rudimentary sexual routine indicative of past exploits. All this while feigning being a feminist supporter which he is not. Both individuals are shamed through the online outing of this. But much more silly for Grace to do all this to herself.
    Last edited by Replacement; 17-01-2018 at 02:08 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  86. #286
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,136

    Default

    I'm in the airport and on a phone and don't have the time to actually reply, but the title of the article is what I posted, not that I think this article was a must read.

  87. #287

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    I'm in the airport and on a phone and don't have the time to actually reply, but the title of the article is what I posted, not that I think this article was a must read.
    Yes, but you decided to quote the story, the article, the title, and connected with your other comment, and past comments on the board I would think you agreed with the general premise that it was an assault.

    However this has really backfired, the Babe writer Katy Way, who initially wrote the story is receiving intense criticism and backlash and has also outed herself now as an immature person attacking other female media. Read this;

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/writer...leigh-banfield

    The must take from this is to always consider source, always consider root article, who's writing it, what their agenda and what "caliber" of reporting and objectivity do they bring to a story. This was a self serving article by Katy Way, attempting to get into the news, get the site more hits, and she basically trolled this out there regardless of whether there was a story. That so many people bought that this was assault, and that the metoo movement initially got behind the story should be shocking, but isn't, at all.

    So that I am still wondering somewhat why you chose to link such a story. Seemingly you didn't really examine it at all before doing so.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  88. #288

    Default

    In the video, the lady’s reaction to being called a racist was interesting. I’ve only seen a couple seconds of the video but she appeared a bit ‘taken aback’ by the accusation so if I read that reaction correctly, whatever the preceding issue was it may not have fit with her notion of racism.

    All the other participants involved seemed to keep their cool but no one seemed to de-escalate the situation. I hear that some other lady there, did ‘ step up’ and tried to stop it.

    Anyway, she’s been canned from her job.

    Woman who was caught on video telling group of men they’re ‘not Canadian’ at an Alberta Denny’s loses her job | The Star


    EDMONTON—The woman who was caught on video shouting xenophobic comments at a Southern Alberta restaurant was fired from her job after the video went viral on social media Wednesday.

    Dave Girling, owner of Cranbrook Dodge, an auto dealership in Cranbrook, B.C., identified the woman in the video as former employee Kelly Pocha.

    A statement posted to the Cranbrook Dodge Facebook page said the dealership is an inclusive company that has no room for hate or intolerance.

    “We have recently become aware of a disturbing video that involves one of our employees,” the statement read. “We are deeply concerned about the content of this video and want all of our friends, families, colleagues and customers to know that this behaviour does not reflect the values of Cranbrook Dodge in any way.

    “The employee in question has been terminated and we deeply apologize for her actions.”


    https://www.thestar.com/edmonton/201...oes-viral.html


    Im back.

    I watched a longer version of the video. Apparently she was mad because the way the guy looked at her (maybe the whole sexual , sexual harassment thing? But the guys at the table appears bewildered). Then she also seemed ramped up further when they called her racist.

    Near the end she said something about women and their “racist BS”. Plus stuff about her being born here and them not. Hard to hear when the media alters the material by filling it with beeps.)

    She might be anti-immigrant and so being racist against the immigrant race which she may not see as a single unified race. Everyone has different ideas of what a race is.


    Witness details what she saw of racist rant in Alberta eatery caught on video | Globalnews.ca

    https://globalnews.ca/news/4199857/l...-video-tirade/
    Last edited by KC; 11-05-2018 at 06:43 AM.

  89. #289
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,588

    Default

    She was by all appearances and her own admission, drunk. I won't armchair psychologize about whether booze makes you say things you do or don't truly feel deep down, but it's probably safe to say she'd never have behaved that way if she were sober. Pretty deplorable behavior regardless.

    As to whether or not someone should be fired for this kind of thing, that's a tough one. I can understand why her employer would let her go, as they don't want to be associated with such behavior both from a customer relations and company morale perspective. But that begs the question of what should happen to her going forward. Is she to be banished entirely from the job market or society in general and left destitute? Or can she rejoin civilized society after a sincere enough apology and perhaps some rehabilitation of some sort? Her public comments since seem to indicate that she's not truly apologetic and doesn't "get" why what she did was so unacceptable, as she attempts to justify it by claiming the men were making fun of her and staring at her. Which makes little logical sense, given that her back was facing them in a booth, and she would have had to turn around to look at them, as the witness in the Global article mentions. She'd have been better off either saying nothing, or simply saying "what I did was wrong, and there are no excuses." As it is, she just looks worse for it.

    I've wondered to myself how my brother and I would handle a situation like this, if one of our otherwise valued employees got caught doing something so terrible and it went viral. I'm not so sure that the right approach is to succumb to the shaming mob and send them packing. But that being said, if our company and name, which are one and the same, started getting dragged through the mud by association, maybe we'd have no choice. I would hope that none of our employees would ever behave like this, as we have a pretty diverse work force, but you never know what people are capable of in the wrong situation with too much booze in them.

    A book was written on this very topic a few years ago (among others I'm sure), but I confess I haven't had a chance to read it. But it's an interesting topic, and the phenomenon seems to have only accelerated since it was published: https://www.amazon.ca/So-Youve-Been-.../dp/1594487138

  90. #290

    Default

    I worked in a bar for seven years and I must disagree. Booze does not make you say things you don't really feel deep down. Instead, it reveals the things that you usually keep hidden by lowering your inhibitions. A so called "happy drunk" is usually a good person deep down. A melancholy drunk is usually more of an introvert and/or lonely. A loud, racist drunk is usually exactly what they appear to be, they've just been good a hiding that aspect of their personality.

    Apparently, they were speaking in a language she didn't understand and decided that they must be talking about her.

    Target of racist rant at Denny's restaurant says B.C. woman went off 'for no reason'

    “Shut your (expletive) mouth,” her rant begins. “‘Cause you know what? You’re dealing with a Canadian woman now, and I will leap across this table and punch you right in the (expletive) mouth.”


    Pocha doubles down on her tirade when the men try to shrug off the verbal assault with laughter.


    “Go back to your (expletive) country,” she continues.

    ---

    The exchange continues for almost two minutes as the woman hurls questions and insults, telling the men not to “talk down” to her while she attempts to stand on the booth as her male companion tries to restrain her.

    ---

    Pocha, who described herself as a hard-working mother of three, says she was drinking on the night of the incident.


    She said the men were looking at her and laughing, while saying things in a language she didn’t understand.


    Pocha admitted to Lethbridge News Now that what she said was racist, adding the comments don’t reflect who she is.

    http://calgarysun.com/news/crime/tar...on-for-insults

    I would imagine that if we hear from her again, it'll be because she's complaining about foreigners getting her fired from her job. I hope that she's learned something but. based on my experiences, she's more likely to double down rather than realizing that she was the source of her firing and nobody else.

  91. #291
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,588

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz
    I worked in a bar for seven years and I must disagree.


    Thank you for once again proving the point Ken and I made by disagreeing with something I did not say. I specifically said I "wont armchair psychologize", and did not take a position either way on whether she truly is an ignorant racist. I merely said that she'd almost certainly have not behaved as she did if she were sober, because as you said, her inhibitions were lowered. Slow down and read what people are actually saying, instead of leaping to conclusions.

  92. #292

    Default

    As an aside (no job loss issue) here’s a video from last August. Elderly couple speaking another language verbally attacked. I think the lady says she’s not racist however she clearly is intolerant of non-conformity. Not sure why she feels the need to be able to eavesdrop on the conversation of others.


    Racist outburst on SkyTrain goes viral | Watch News Videos Online

    https://globalnews.ca/video/3692464/...ain-goes-viral

  93. #293

    Default

    Interesting article but the comment below that immigrants to the US shared a European background seems to leave out a whole lot of other immigrants that were long going to the US m, being taken to the US, or already on lands being taken over by the US. Moreover, Europeans have major cultural, religious and language differences too.

    I know here in Canada at times people of a German background had problems when they talked in german.


    Why Immigration Is Not About Making 'Them' More Like 'Us' - The Atlantic
    Every year, unique people—each with their own cultural history—become new citizens of the United States. Must they leave their own heritage behind?


    COD Newsroom / Flickr
    TOM GJELTEN
    OCT 3, 2015

    “The question of what it should actually mean to become American had been debated for decades. The term “assimilation” was resisted by some immigrant advocates because it suggested that people arriving from other lands were obliged to give up their distinctive histories and embrace the dominant culture in their new homeland. When almost all newcomers to America shared a European background, the question was less pressing, but that changed with the arrival of a much more diverse immigrant population after 1965. ”

    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...lation/406759/
    Last edited by KC; 11-05-2018 at 12:00 PM.

  94. #294

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz
    I worked in a bar for seven years and I must disagree.


    Thank you for once again proving the point Ken and I made by disagreeing with something I did not say. I specifically said I "wont armchair psychologize", and did not take a position either way on whether she truly is an ignorant racist. I merely said that she'd almost certainly have not behaved as she did if she were sober, because as you said, her inhibitions were lowered. Slow down and read what people are actually saying, instead of leaping to conclusions.
    And yet you feel confident enough to assume that she wouldn't have spoken as she did if she were sober. Evidence for that?

  95. #295
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,588

    Default

    I said "almost certainly", which allows for a small chance that maybe she's a raging racist when sober too. Reading sure is hard, hey?

  96. #296

    Default

    Continue to pick nits.

    I simply disagreed with your assertion that you can't tell if booze makes you act one way or the other. I used my experience to say that I thought her actions were likely expressing her true feelings. Some or even may people may say something that considered racist, sexist or otherwise offensive but when someone get's red in the face angry about something, like this woman did, that was usually a pretty good indication that that was their true feelings being expressed.

  97. #297

    Default

    Comments from a witness.

    Witness details what she saw of racist rant in Alberta eatery caught on video

    Pocha has said she got angry because she believes the group of men began glaring at her and making fun of her while speaking another language.


    “It started with a look,” Pocha said. “I turned around and I looked at the one gentleman and he was staring at me and I said, ‘Is there a problem?’ And he said, ‘No, no problem.'”

    But Bonare said that isn’t what she witnessed.


    “She was sitting with the back of her head facing them, so she would have to be glaring over her shoulder to even see them looking at her, and they were speaking in their own language so she couldn’t understand what they were saying anyway.”

    https://globalnews.ca/news/4199857/l...-video-tirade/

  98. #298

    Default

    And from the waitress who served both tables.

    Video told the story, says witness

    Alex Smith was the waitress who was serving both tables involved in the altercation. She has since quit her job at Denny’s due to what she described as management issues.


    Smith seated Pocha and her husband at a table and then later sat four men, including Monir Omerzai and Mutjab Abdul Gahafar, at the table next to them.


    Smith said she noted Pocha appeared to be intoxicated before the incident began, and it was only a short time later that an argument broke out between the two tables.
    “I got my manager and asked what to do,” she said, adding her role in these situations is not to get directly involved but to allow management to deal with it.


    “My manager just called the cops like we were supposed to do,” she said. “They came in and talked with my manager, then I think they both decided it would be best for both parties to leave.”
    Pocha has publicly stated the videos do not show the whole story of what happened, and that she was responding to the behaviour of the men at the next table.
    But Smith disputes that version of the story.


    “From my perspective, I knew who started it, and we should have just asked (Pocha) to leave,” Smith said.
    “It all started because she heard them talking in a different language. She turned around, saw one of the guys looking at her, and that’s what (set her off).”


    Smith’s description of the incident seems to corroborate the events as they unfolded in the video.
    “The video is completely correct,” said Smith. “That’s exactly what happened.”

    http://lethbridgeherald.com/news/let...-says-witness/

  99. #299

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Continue to pick nits.

    I simply disagreed with your assertion that you can't tell if booze makes you act one way or the other. I used my experience to say that I thought her actions were likely expressing her true feelings. Some or even may people may say something that considered racist, sexist or otherwise offensive but when someone get's red in the face angry about something, like this woman did, that was usually a pretty good indication that that was their true feelings being expressed.
    I rarely find that you “simply” disagree. Note your choice of words in your own prior post: “And you feel confident enough...”

  100. #300

    Default

    Deleted duplicate post with reference to latest aggressive short people study
    Last edited by KC; 11-05-2018 at 03:50 PM.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •