Tara Reade is a person who exists

[Jarhyn]

It's most certainly looking that way. But only one of them can be somewhat classified as a pedo!

Jesus Christ, your arguments are pathetic.

Yeah, never forget that Trump wanted to fuck his own daughter so bad he went to Epstein's private pedophilic sex island and raped a 14 year old girl he dressed up to look like her.

Then, I suspect that certain people who argue "that doesn't mean he was a pedophile, she was 14!" Only make this argument because they secretly envy him for getting to fuck a 14 year old. They are disgusting and pathetic, and I am betting they are the sort that think they need to pay women for sex rather than just working on themselves.

 

[ZiprHead]

I'm trying to understand why you brought up drinking at all.

No, you're not. You're cherry-picking and ignoring pertinent information to strawman Ford's testimony, and doing so blatantly.

 

[laughing dog]

You're really not grasping the difference, are you? I guess I have to dumb it way, way down...

If a woman comes up to you in a bar, flirts with you, sits on your lap and gives you a kiss...

Do you understand how that is different than a man twice her size cornering her by her car in a parking garage and trying to force her to kiss him?

Well, yes. The woman sexually assaulted you, and the man didn't.

It would help your arguments if you actually understood the terms used. Being kissed on the cheek is not sexual assault, otherwise daughters, mothers, grandmothers, sons, fathers and grandfathers would be charged. Furthermore, the contact must be against one's will.

I realize that your involuntary belief/animus against women is driving the incredible obtuseness in these responses, but it is embarrassing to read such dumbness on your part.

 

[laughing dog]

Finally, why would you apologise on behalf of all men? Did all men commit the crime, and did you get moral authority to represent them?

Did you get moral authority on behalf of all men for that presenting the babbling idiocy to the world?

 

[Metaphor]

You're really not grasping the difference, are you? I guess I have to dumb it way, way down...

If a woman comes up to you in a bar, flirts with you, sits on your lap and gives you a kiss...

Do you understand how that is different than a man twice her size cornering her by her car in a parking garage and trying to force her to kiss him?

Well, yes. The woman sexually assaulted you, and the man didn't.

Is that the only difference you see, or is that the only difference that matters to you?

There were differences in the two examples Ford chose. But it's odd to me that he chose an example where, as far as I can tell, two people made unwelcome sexual advances. The first example, the person who made the unwelcome advance was "successful" (the receptionist), and, to Ford, she is not a sexual assaulter and indeed is completely harmless. In the second example, the person was "unsuccessful", but Ford is quite sure it was an attempted sexual assault and not merely an unwelcome sexual advance.

It isn't clear to me why the "solid gold asshole" was unsuccessful in his attempted sexual assault. He was, after all, twice her size. Was it a deft physical maneuvering that got her out of it? Did she scream for help?

Or could it have been an unwelcome sexual advance that was not pursued any further, because she made it clear how unwelcome it was?

 

[Metaphor]

Finally, why would you apologise on behalf of all men? Did all men commit the crime, and did you get moral authority to represent them?

Did you get moral authority on behalf of all men for that presenting the babbling idiocy to the world?

No. I don't claim to speak for men or claim to have the moral authority to apologise for them.

 

[Metaphor]

You're really not grasping the difference, are you? I guess I have to dumb it way, way down...

If a woman comes up to you in a bar, flirts with you, sits on your lap and gives you a kiss...

Do you understand how that is different than a man twice her size cornering her by her car in a parking garage and trying to force her to kiss him?

Well, yes. The woman sexually assaulted you, and the man didn't.

It would help your arguments if you actually understood the terms used. Being kissed on the cheek is not sexual assault, otherwise daughters, mothers, grandmothers, sons, fathers and grandfathers would be charged. Furthermore, the contact must be against one's will.

Ford said the kiss was unwelcome. He also said the receptionist sat on his lap without invitation.

Do you often sit on people's laps without invitation, laughing dog? If you do, I can understand why you have difficulty understanding why it's wrong.

I realize that your involuntary belief/animus against women is driving the incredible obtuseness in these responses, but it is embarrassing to read such dumbness on your part.

I would think that you should be embarrassed to so obviously express your female-fragility double standards.

 

[laughing dog]

Finally, why would you apologise on behalf of all men? Did all men commit the crime, and did you get moral authority to represent them?

Did you get moral authority on behalf of all men for that presenting the babbling idiocy to the world?

No. I don't claim to speak for men or claim to have the moral authority to apologise for them.

Apparently you think you do, since your questions implied you did.

 

[Toni]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...sconduct-karen-johnson-how-many-a9149216.html

Yep. Looks like this election will be one for the books. We can call it "Battle of the Pussy Grabbers".

It's most certainly looking that way. But only one of them can be somewhat classified as a pedo!

View attachment 27478

Those two little Asian girls in the middle top of the image look very uncomfortable with Creepy all over them!

 

[Toni]

You're really not grasping the difference, are you? I guess I have to dumb it way, way down...

If a woman comes up to you in a bar, flirts with you, sits on your lap and gives you a kiss...

Do you understand how that is different than a man twice her size cornering her by her car in a parking garage and trying to force her to kiss him?

Well, yes. The woman sexually assaulted you, and the man didn't.

No, the woman didn't sexually assault Ford and the man certainly didn't. He did sexually assault or attempt to assault Ford's coworker.

 

[Metaphor]

I'm trying to understand why you brought up drinking at all.

No, you're not. You're cherry-picking and ignoring pertinent information to strawman Ford's testimony, and doing so blatantly.

No. Ford presented incomplete information. His account of the receptionist seemed straightforward. She made an unwanted sexual advance on him by sitting on his lap and kissing him on the cheek.

His account of the 'solid gold asshole', initially, was only that he tried to 'corner' the receptionist and 'tried' to kiss her. Now either he can't tell us any more, because he wasn't witness to that event, or he simply took it for granted that everybody would understand his account to be one of 'attempted sexual assault'. But nothing in his account distinguishes attempted sexual assault from an unwelcome sexual advance.

He also appears to further excuse his receptionist's behaviour by appealing to the fact that she was tipsy. This seemed astonishing to me, because he also said that being tipsy would have made the solid gold asshole's actions even worse.

I'm asking Ford to help me understand why he appears to have a double standard: one for men and one for women. Or perhaps he does not, and he has not adequately explained the moral difference between the two events.

 

[laughing dog]

It would help your arguments if you actually understood the terms used. Being kissed on the cheek is not sexual assault, otherwise daughters, mothers, grandmothers, sons, fathers and grandfathers would be charged. Furthermore, the contact must be against one's will.

Ford said the kiss was unwelcome. He also said the receptionist sat on his lap without invitation.

No, he did not. He said it was unwanted.

Do you often sit on people's laps without invitation, laughing dog? If you do, I can understand why you have difficulty understanding why it's wrong.

So, if you were standing on a bus and lost your balance and ended up sitting on someone's lap, that would both wrong and sexual assault? Your response belies a true misunderstanding of the English language. Sitting on a lap uninvited is not necessarily sexual assault. Moreover, even if it is wrong to sit on a lap uninvited, it does not make it necessarily sexual assault.

I would think that you should be embarrassed to so obviously express your female-fragility double standards.

Maybe, if I knew what you were babbling about, But your male fragility persecution complex is frighteningly embarrassing.

 

[Metaphor]

No. I don't claim to speak for men or claim to have the moral authority to apologise for them.

Apparently you think you do, since your questions implied you did.

Really? How? Connect the dots for me.

 

[Metaphor]

So, if you were standing on a bus and lost your balance and ended up sitting on someone's lap, that would both wrong and sexual assault?

No, accidents are not sexual assault. Is ZiprHead here to accuse you of dishonestly ignoring context? No, I guess not. Well then: I'll make that accusation.

Your response belies a true misunderstanding of the English language. Sitting on a lap uninvited is not necessarily sexual assault. Moreover, even if it is wrong to sit on a lap uninvited, it does not make it necessarily sexual assault.

I see. So if a man who was sexually interested in you sat on your lap and kissed you on the cheek, all without your permission, it isn't sexual assault, though hopefully you might be able to concede that he's made an unwelcome sexual advance, yes?

And his being tipsy doesn't make it any less an unwelcome sexual advance.

Now, we've established that an unwelcome sexual advance isn't necessarily sexual assault.

What in Ford's original account distinguished his 'example' of attempted sexual assault with an example of an unwelcome sexual advance?

 

[southernhybrid]

I read Maureen Dowd's opinion column yesterday and she made some excellent points. I will post a link for those who would like to see exactly what she said, but basically she said that while the #metoo movement started out as a good thing, we've taken it to crazy land. When a Republican is accused of sexual assault, Democrats usually jump on the man and immediately decide that he's guilty. When a Democrat is accused, the Republicans tend to do the exact same thing.

Down points out that both genders lie and it's crazy to automatically believe every woman that claims she was attacked by a particular man. Maureen is a feminist, as well as a liberal. I consider myself a feminist and I also hold liberal values, so it's wrong to think that all feminists think that all women are telling the truth when they make claims about being assaulted by a particular man. I ams a strong feminist female finally came out and said what a lot of us have been thinking.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/02/opinion/sunday/joe-says-it-aint-so.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

Even 20 years after that era, when I worked in Midtown Manhattan at a newsmagazine, the remnants of that sexist world existed. The idea of women writing about world events was still novel. And when I had been interviewed for that job, my future boss asked me to come up to his hotel room, spurring me to go out onto the street and scream in frustration and fear that the job was gone.
So I could not have been more thrilled when #MeToo ripped away the curtain on the murky transgressions and diminishments that women had endured in the droit du seigneur era.
But as with any revolution, there was some overcorrection.

When liberals heralded the idea that all women must be believed, it made me wince. Al Franken was pressured to pack up without a hearing, given a push by Kirsten Gillibrand, who told The New Yorker’s Jane Mayer that while she had not talked to any of her colleague’s accusers: “The women who came forward felt it was sexual harassment. So it was.”

To suggest that every woman who alleges a sexual assault is as credible as the next is absurd. The idea that no woman can ever be wrong just hurts women. Half the human race is female. Who has never been lied to by people of both genders? Who has never seen the mesmerizing female psychopaths of film noir?
Democrats always set standards that come back and bite them. They have created a cage of their own making.
In the case of Anita Hill and Blasey, these poised, professorial women were yanked into the public arena and turned into pawns; the women were making charges against conservative Supreme Court nominees whom Democrats and feminists were eager to derail. So it became a pre-emptory matter of, all women must be believed — when it’s convenient for my side.

I’ve covered Biden my entire political career, and he is known for being sometimes warmly, sometimes inappropriately, hands-on with men and women. What Reade accuses him of is a crime and seems completely out of character.
But that is how my brother, who coached Kavanaugh in basketball at Georgetown Prep and stayed friends with him after, felt about Blasey’s allegations.
In the end, these moments highlight the hypocrisy of both parties. Each case has to stand or fall on its own facts, patterns, corroborations, investigations — not on viewing it only through partisan goggles.
You could ask if hypocrisy in the age of Trump is antiquated. Why should the Democrats hold themselves to some higher standard of conduct when Trump, a serial assaulter of women according to his accusers and own “Access Hollywood” confession, is wallowing in amorality and refusing to release a scrap of paper about personal finances or conduct?

It's about time that those of us who consider ourselves feminists stop automatically believing every single woman when she says that she's been sexually assaulted. And, whether or not we believe any of these women should not be based on our political views. It should be based on evidence, how consistent the woman's claims seems to be etc.

Imo, Reade's claim sounds very inconsistent and unbelievable. Plus, it's very hard to really know what might have happened nearly 30 years ago, especially when the man who has been charged has no other history of assaulting women. And, please can we stop comparing an affectionate man with a man who has a long history of sexual assault? For fuck sakes, this is hurting us as women. Obviously, I think that Dowd makes a great case for this.

I don't know what Reade's motivations were to make this claim about Biden. It could be political. She could be delusional. She might just be looking for attention. We will probably never know. Btw, she just decided not to appear on Fox News, and while MSNBC has offered to have her as a guest, MSNBC has claimed that she hasn't even gotten back to them. Some women are liars. Can we women admit that?

 

[laughing dog]

No, accidents are not sexual assault. Is ZiprHead here to accuse you of dishonestly ignoring context? No, I guess not. Well then: I'll make that accusation.

Look, you are the one who constantly nitpicks what people write. You wrote what you wrote. Simply holding you up to your own standards.

I see. So if a man who was sexually interested in you sat on your lap and kissed you on the cheek, all without your permission, it isn't sexual assault, though hopefully you might be able to concede that he's made an unwelcome sexual advance, yes?

It would be sexual assault, because 1) he intended it as a sexual come on, and 2) it would be unwanted.

In Ford's case, 1) and 2) were established. Ergo, it was not sexual assault. This is not difficult for any disinterested thinker who understands the English language.

 

[Metaphor]

Look, you are the one who constantly nitpicks what people write. You wrote what you wrote. Simply holding you up to your own standards.

I asked Ford only to clarify.

It was obvious -- apparently to people who already agreed with Ford -- that his first example was not sexual assault (and apparently not even an unwelcome sexual advance!), but that his second example apparently was an (attempted) sexual assault.

I asked questions about what difference he saw and why. This then caused Ford to get very angry. But I was able to get some additional details, but still not enough to be able to distinguish his second example from an unwanted sexual advance.

It would be sexual assault, because 1) he intended it as a sexual come on, and 2) it would be unwanted.

In Ford's case, 1) and 2) were established. Ergo, it was not sexual assault. This is not difficult for any disinterested thinker who understands the English language.

Do you mean, "were not established"?

Ford wrote:

For example, the receptionist at work that was very flirty with me and then at a company function sat on my lap and kissed me on the cheek (even though I was married then)? Wrong on her part, but not assault.

Is Ford saying the lap sitting and cheek kissing were wanted? His sentence hardly reads that way to me. But perhaps he did mean to say it was wanted. Perhaps he meant to say "I did not obviously resist", which we are meant to contrast with the unwelcome sexual advance related in the second scenario?

To Ford, and to you and to Toni, the second example was attempted sexual assault and you accepted that without question. Ford has said it was but can't explain to me why it was not an unwanted sexual advance that was, apparently, successfully rebuffed. Indeed, the solid gold asshole seems to have had a number of sexual advances that were not rebuffed, according to Ford's own narrative.

It could be my "anti-woman animus" -- that thing that I have that you, and Toni, and Emily, have each accused me of but without providing anything as noisome as evidence -- that causes me to ask questions. But asking questions, I hope, is not yet out of bounds.

 

[laughing dog]

I asked Ford only to clarify.

It was obvious -- apparently to people who already agreed with Ford -- that his first example was not sexual assault (and apparently not even an unwelcome sexual advance!), but that his second example apparently was an (attempted) sexual assault.

I asked questions about what difference he saw and why. This then caused Ford to get very angry. But I was able to get some additional details, but still not enough to be able to distinguish his second example from an unwanted sexual advance.

Obtuseness does tend to frustrate people.

Is Ford saying the lap sitting and cheek kissing were wanted? His sentence hardly reads that way to me. But perhaps he did mean to say it was wanted. Perhaps he meant to say "I did not obviously resist", which we are meant to contrast with the unwelcome sexual advance related in the second scenario?

He said nothing of the sort.

To Ford, and to you and to Toni, the second example was attempted sexual assault and you accepted that without question. Ford has said it was but can't explain to me why it was not an unwanted sexual advance that was, apparently, successfully rebuffed.

Because if it was rebuffed it was unwanted. Duh.

It could be my "anti-woman animus" -- that thing that I have that you, and Toni, and Emily, have each accused me of but without providing anything as noisome as evidence -- that causes me to ask questions. But asking questions, I hope, is not yet out of bounds.

No one said asking questions was out of bounds. If you wish to embarrass yourself, go ahead.

The evidence of your belief of anti-woman animus is in your OPS that concentrate on nitpicking statements made by women, and your obsession with whinging about feminism. But, as we all know, beliefs are irrational and cannot be willed away - even with education or evidence.

 

[Metaphor]

Because if it was rebuffed it was unwanted. Duh.

I'm afraid you don't understand. I can tell it was an unwanted sexual advance. What I can't tell is why it was also classified as an attempted sexual assault. It can't be because it was an unwanted sexual advance, because the first example was an unwanted sexual advance but not a sexual assault.

The evidence of your belief of anti-woman animus is in your OPS that concentrate on nitpicking statements made by women, and your obsession with whinging about feminism.

Of course, you conflate criticising feminism -- and feminists -- with "anti-woman animus". I suppose this is sufficient for you: anti-feminist means anti-woman. Of course, it is the exact opposite. I believe feminism harms men and women.

But, as we all know, beliefs are irrational and cannot be willed away - even with education or evidence.

I never said all beliefs were irrational nor did I say education or evidence can't change people's beliefs. It simply does not follow from what I've said about beliefs.

 

[laughing dog]

I'm afraid you don't understand. I can tell it was an unwanted sexual advance. What I can't tell is why it was also classified as an attempted sexual assault. It can't be because it was an unwanted sexual advance, because the first example was an unwanted sexual advance but not a sexual assault.

I understand. You cannot distinguish between "unwanted" and "unwelcome". The first was an unwelcome advance (and it is debatable whether it was sexual or affectionate) and the second was clearly unwanted.

Of course, you conflate criticising feminism -- and feminists -- with "anti-woman animus". I suppose this is sufficient for you: anti-feminist means anti-woman.

Not to me. I conflated nothing. Your OPs are example of nitpicking statement made by women. Your bete noire are "feminists" as if feminist all think and belief the same thing.

Of course, it is the exact opposite. I believe feminism harms men and women.

Of course you do. I would say that your comicbook view of the world and feminism leads you to that belief, but that would imply you willed your belief, which is not possible.

I never said all beliefs were irrational nor did I say education or evidence can't change people's beliefs. It simply does not follow from what I've said about beliefs.

If a belief cannot be willed, then that belief is irrational. In order for education or evidence to change a belief, the person must choose to entertain the evidence or obtain the education and then choose to change the belief - all of which require some will.