Bolding mine.
Even worse.
Question for iiandyiiii (and others of the same viewpoint): who do you support in the Minnesota AG race?
He could have been just trying to feel her up. A lot of guys like naked girls even if they don’t intend to have any sex at all. That’s how strip joints do business, so I hear. And again, if the guy was so drunk as she describes, he may not have had a coherent intention.
Again, the point is not that forcibly removing women’s clothing is A-OK, but if she’s saying something that has little or no basis, that suggests that her imagination is filling in some blanks, which has broader application. Of course, her claim might be that he said something about his intentions. Something that could come up in her testimony, anyway.
This whole line of thought is cartoonishly evil. Is this satire?
If the Republicans pursue the avenue of “maybe he did what you say, but he wasn’t trying to rape you”, they will surely lose. Does anyone really think that’s a good course of action?
Improperly persuade? What does that even mean?
I thought it could come up as part of asking to describe the scene without explicitly making that implication. But you may be right.
This is an example of how the deck is unfairly stacked in these situations. I’m sure no one is worried about saying anything that might offend Kavanaugh …
Please cite to where anyone said that it was just fine. The only point is that such actions are not necessarily an attempted rape. Please note, again for clarity because that seems to be necessary in these threads, that such conduct is not acceptable at all even if it did not rise to the level of attempted rape.
Don’t be sure of that last sentence. “How many other women have you raped?” or “Were you so drunk you couldn’t get it up?” isn’t going to score any points for the Democrats. Those are about on the same level, or maybe not even nearly as bad.
Aw hell, I guess I have to paint a picture: Get her naked, kiss, rub up against her so she gets turned on and consents to sex. Maybe not the most effective strategy, but we are talking about a drunk 17 year old boy.
Again, improper, bad, evil, etc., but not an attempted rape. I wish I could stop making the disclaimer, but I’m sure there will be a follow up post that says that I said that such actions are okay.
No, I mean, we get what you’re saying. You don’t need to keep clarifying it.
Still feels like it belongs in a dark comedy.
This is one of the most disgusting things I’ve read on the internet. Do you honestly believe he was checking her for cancerous moles?
Of course then I read this.
Holy crap. I want to warn every woman within 100 miles of UltraVires that he believes isolating a woman in a bedroom, playing loud music so she can’t be heard, pinning her to a bed, covering her mouth as she tries to scream, and trying to take her clothes off against her will might be a viable way to get her consent to sex, although, as he so reasonably concedes, these means might be “improper.” Someone who thinks this way is a terrifying person and the people who have to interact with such a person should be warned.
Was her screaming and fighting with him not a strenuous enough objection? Perhaps it was her fault she was almost raped because she didn’t have a big enough gun on her to shoot his pecker off? If she tried to shoot his pecker off but missed, would that indicate that deep down inside she probably really wanted it? Is there any course of conduct a target of rape can engage in that makes her a pure enough person that we can comfortably assert that she, in fact, did not deserve to get raped? How high can we raise the bar on targets of rape before we can be sure that it’s not their fault?
I can no longer participate on this board. I’m taking a few months off. Chances are my behavior will change and I will never come back. If there are any reasonable Republicans left here, think about the company you keep. They all seem like worthless shit-stains to me.
The modern GOP, ladies and gentlemen.
And the need for the disclaimer continues. Please read above where I said that this was very, very, very bad.
So you’re saying that pointless taunting is “on the same level, or maybe not even nearly as bad” as asking someone how they knew what was in someone else’s mind. OK.
I understand that your sentiments are pretty widely shared. But that’s just because of the current wave of extreme oversensitivity towards women making these types of accusations.
No, I’m saying that the original question was “pointless taunting”, at best. I can’t help you to see that clearly if you don’t already.
Do you really believe that the senate committee is going to come back with some sort of explicit opinion on how this occurred?
They are going to listen to testimony and say that it will be considered as a part of their confirmation proceedings.
There will be no opinions written or delivered. I’m sure that many of the democratic members of the committee will provide interviews to the press where they individually share their opinions.
Someone upthread said they wanted the Republicans to ask that question. I was responding to that suggestion. My post had nothing to do with what I thought the committee was going to do, but with the wisdom of asking the question.
You realize that you’re asking a woman if the man who:
- shoved her into a room
- held her down
- covered her mouth, and
- forcibly removed her clothes
REALLY meant to rape her, or was he just clumsily coming on to her?
It appears that all of this “line of questioning” discussion may be moot. It doesn’t appear that Ford will be testifying on Monday.
No, I don’t realize that.
In fact, I myself suggested his intention could have been neither of these choices, so it’s a bit odd that you would just ask if I “realize” that I’m suggesting one of these two options.