This and That
Indeed.
And since we're splitting hairs, a judge can vacate a jury verdict, or a defendant can plead guilty and skip the whole jury thing altogether.
It could be that he let personal sentiment get in the way of enforcing the law. He wouldn't be the first, and certainly wouldn't be the last.
That he has attitudes toward women similar to yours, and didn't want to prosecute a young man for taking what he thought was rightfully his.
This isn't a particularly difficult issue to see. A prosecutor has a suspect admitting to violating the law, and chooses not to go forward. Whatever reasons he offers are, for quite obvious reasons—e.g., having a confession—suspect.
Says you.
Like I said: attitudes toward women.
That will be a long search.
And if I'm in her home, as with Mr. Buck's refusal to prosecute?
However, for me sexual gratification is not a deal-breaker for whether or not a woman is welcome in my home.
Sometimes, "Not tonight, dear," just isn't bullshit.
Congratulations, sir. You are capable of leaving me speechless.
No, really, there is absolutely nothing I can say to that it doesn't say for itself alrady.
To the one, that's a risk one chooses to take. To the other, I'm not sure it's applicable in this particular circumstance.
For me it's not a matter of incredulity. But maybe it's a broader outlook on sex, too. I can find comfort in a woman that doesn't involve piledriving her loins; her human mystery extends well beyond sexual intercourse.
This is part of what I don't understand: How is it that a woman is measured in terms of the sexual gratification she gives?
"Psycho prick tease," as such, is a comfort a man invents for his own sake. In other words, it can't be that there is value in other forms of contact, but that she must necessarily be out to torture us.
It's not that there aren't psycho prick teases out there, but as a general measure, it assesses a woman according to whether or not she puts out.
No, that's the thing. Sure, we had some strange adventures together, but why does her on that particular occasion behavior mean she wants to have sex? It's so removed from my outlook that I'm grasping at straws and falling back to basic psychology. We can leave it as a rhetorical question—indeed, we'd probably be better off if we did—but isn't there anything polymorphously sexual that gives you a thrill? There are sides of me that I enjoy that don't involve sexual intercourse, and I'm probably better off not sharing with anyone else. The idea that someone might take sexual comfort in me without sexual intercourse just doesn't seem so bizarre to me. I'd even go so far as to say that, in a Freudian context, it would be healthier for people if they actually found more of those outlets for themselves.
If sexual intercourse is the standard against which we measure a person or a situation, we are binding ourselves as well.
Adoucette said:
Semantics.
Indeed.
Those articles are using the term "Enforce" to mean for the DA to take it to a jury.
But the reality is, it is the Jury that determines if a defendent is guilty and thus enforces the law.
And since we're splitting hairs, a judge can vacate a jury verdict, or a defendant can plead guilty and skip the whole jury thing altogether.
I'm not a lawyer, but that DA was well aware of that Police report of the supposed confession and that clearly didn't seal the deal for him.
Why do you think that is?
It could be that he let personal sentiment get in the way of enforcing the law. He wouldn't be the first, and certainly wouldn't be the last.
Both you and Bells insist that this was a SLAM DUNK, but yet the DA obviously didn't agree with that and wouldn't proceed.
Can you offer ANY reason why he wouldn't, besides what he said, that he didn't think he could get a conviction?
That he has attitudes toward women similar to yours, and didn't want to prosecute a young man for taking what he thought was rightfully his.
Are YOU more knowledgeable of the case and facts than he is?
This isn't a particularly difficult issue to see. A prosecutor has a suspect admitting to violating the law, and chooses not to go forward. Whatever reasons he offers are, for quite obvious reasons—e.g., having a confession—suspect.
So one way or another, you are going to cum before you get to sleep and any normal red blooded woman, after kissing and undressing in front of you and curling up next to you in bed, wouldn't make that just your problem.
Says you.
But if I was told to not only not touch her but to handle it myself, I'd probably just call her a cab.
Like I said: attitudes toward women.
• • •
Madanthonywayne said:
I recall seeing something to that effect as part of the university code of conduct, but is that an actual law anywhere? Furthermore, has anyone ever been charged and/or convicted of rape in such a situation? First she says no, then she says yes? I don't mean under duress like at the point of a gun. But rather that she first said no and then she later clearly and definitively changed it to a yes.
What man hasn't tried to turn a no into a yes?
That will be a long search.
Is she your prisoner? She's free to go home if you're "pestering" her and interfering with her sleep. Or to tell you to get the hell out if you're at her place. "Pestering" is not rape. If she finds your sexual advances so off putting, perhaps you shouldn't be together in the first place.
And if I'm in her home, as with Mr. Buck's refusal to prosecute?
However, for me sexual gratification is not a deal-breaker for whether or not a woman is welcome in my home.
Sometimes, "Not tonight, dear," just isn't bullshit.
Look, everyone knows there's no and there's no. Woman can go around at rallies saying "NO MEANS NO!", but that's not how they act in real life. There's a different tone of voice to a real no. A different body language. It's like at the end of a concert when the band steps off the stage and says, "Thank you, goodnight!", you know they don't mean it. Not until the lights go on in the theater.
Congratulations, sir. You are capable of leaving me speechless.
No, really, there is absolutely nothing I can say to that it doesn't say for itself alrady.
Your wife/girlfriend says no, playfully, and you start to massage her. She doesn't object to this. In the process, she gets excited too and no becomes yes. That's rape?
On the other hand, you try to intiate sex and she firmly says no. You wait for her to fall asleep and jerk off.
When you've been with someone a while, you can tell the difference between a real no and a "I might be convinced" no.
To the one, that's a risk one chooses to take. To the other, I'm not sure it's applicable in this particular circumstance.
We're drunk. We've kissed. She comes to my place. Refuses the guest bedroom, undresses in front of me, rubs up against me and then objects when I finally touch her?
I'd be pretty incredulous, but if she made if clear she really wasn't interested in sex, fine.
For me it's not a matter of incredulity. But maybe it's a broader outlook on sex, too. I can find comfort in a woman that doesn't involve piledriving her loins; her human mystery extends well beyond sexual intercourse.
I'd be coldly polite but not pursue any further relationship with her. Given the scenario you've presented, I'd consider her to be some kind of psycho prick tease.
This is part of what I don't understand: How is it that a woman is measured in terms of the sexual gratification she gives?
"Psycho prick tease," as such, is a comfort a man invents for his own sake. In other words, it can't be that there is value in other forms of contact, but that she must necessarily be out to torture us.
It's not that there aren't psycho prick teases out there, but as a general measure, it assesses a woman according to whether or not she puts out.
Sure, I agree. But a drunken woman you don't know very well who comes back to your place and wants to spend the night in your bed? But refuses to have sex? Are there some extenuating circumstances you're not mentioning? It just seems very weird.
No, that's the thing. Sure, we had some strange adventures together, but why does her on that particular occasion behavior mean she wants to have sex? It's so removed from my outlook that I'm grasping at straws and falling back to basic psychology. We can leave it as a rhetorical question—indeed, we'd probably be better off if we did—but isn't there anything polymorphously sexual that gives you a thrill? There are sides of me that I enjoy that don't involve sexual intercourse, and I'm probably better off not sharing with anyone else. The idea that someone might take sexual comfort in me without sexual intercourse just doesn't seem so bizarre to me. I'd even go so far as to say that, in a Freudian context, it would be healthier for people if they actually found more of those outlets for themselves.
If sexual intercourse is the standard against which we measure a person or a situation, we are binding ourselves as well.