That was more or less what Edmundus was saying. He was saying that women need to give an automatic pass to any guy who attempts to kiss them.
I buy that in the case where there’s a jealous boyfriend or dad has just walked in on something–but in other cases?
Here’s a paradox:
That was not the impression I got, though I will let him clarify if he wishes. For me, I think there should be a pass for one with whom one has some sort of relationship that might be interpreted as romantic. Than a pass should be given and a little charity to ease the embarrassment of the male or female that misunderstood. Callousness can take more than one form.
This is the core of why I think the MeToo movement is a service to society. Most of the time, a rape victim will not get, nor should she expect, a conviction. The rule of law makes it better to let the guilty go free rather than convict the innocent. There is virtually no way to convict someone of rape if it is not immediately reported. Even then, the lack of other witnesses may make it dicey. The word of the victim alone must not ever be enough for a conviction.
It’s called “filing a defamation lawsuit.”
Defamation and perjury would be the way to go.
As I’ve said several times before, most of the women in the #MeToo movement aren’t naming names or taking men to court.
Then your answer here makes no sense to me.pnewton:
As I’ve said several times before, most of the women in the #MeToo movement aren’t naming names or taking men to court.
If the women posting to the MeToo movement is okay, which I agree it is, then it should be equally acceptable for men to post when a woman has falsely accused them of similar acts with the same amount of evidence, which is zero. One cannot be wrong and the other right.
The vast majority of MeToo activity didn’t consist of accusations, but of women simply saying “I got raped, I got molested, I got harassed, etc.” They weren’t specifically saying who did these things: just that they happened.
I believe that. Statistics are so fuzzy. A conviction is going to requires some sort of collaborating evidence, and have to convince a jury beyond reasonable doubt it was not consensual, a daunting task, especially for a single case. In the case of a person with multiple victims, the task becomes easier, by allowing the evidence of a pattern, and by allowing the prosecutor to present the most winnable case, while allowing the others to go untried. For this reason, I would think it better to measure the number of sexual assault perpetrators convicted (by person), than it would be the number of sexual assaults resulting in a conviction (by case).
It doesn’t surprise me that much. I know what public sentiment is when women report bad behavior by famous men. They are accused of being publicity hounds, of trying to take down someone’s reputation…well, the list goes on. They are mostly not believed, even if they are famous themselves.
I don’t think it’s about protecting the public, though. It’s about salacious dirt digging.
In other words, “I can do anything I want. If you accuse me of assaulting you, I will accuse you of lying, because people will automatically assume your motives for telling the whole world you were sexually assaulted and my possible motives for denying it carry the exactly the same weight because people think the two scenarios have the same likelihood.”
Is that the same standard you have with regards to other crimes? If someone is accused of embezzlement or falsifying documents, is it necessarily salacious to report that they’ve been accused of that? Remember that someone who wants to hire someone to handle their money can call previous employers to find out about impropieties that were discretely kept from public view. Who is a woman supposed to contact to know if a fellow with a good reputation with women actually deserves to have it?
Because salacious dirt-digging is just what sexual abuse victims do. Can’t possibly have any other motives.
I would think the poster was referring to other people who repeat the report in an irresponsible way. It is not wrong to repeat an accusation, provided one has made some effort to confirm that the accusastion is credible, but those who do need to be ready to do the work of retraction if later evidence emerges that things were not as the accuser said.