Is the Head of the IMF a Sex Criminal?

@izzythepush,

Quote:

Nobody is being arrested for looking at images of consenting adults. I don't know where you get these ideas from, but you're wrong.

oh? That what the law is as it now placed extreme sex videos in the same kind of class as having child porn and I do remember reading about people being charge under this new law.

To google I will go.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Quote:

Certain forms of behaviour are unacceptable, that's why we have laws.

Neither BillRM nor Hawkeye are willing to accept that. Their position advocates a notion of personal "freedom" unfettered by laws, even if the behavioral expression of that "freedom" is injurious to others.

Given that line of thinking, their right to possess even the most violent forms of porn, including torture, eclipses any potential harm the distribution of such materials might cause. Rather than considering the harmful effects of such extreme and violent pornography by objective standards, such as the body of scientific research on the subject, they simply, and quite ignorantly, dismiss any objections to it as being "anti-sex" or "puritanical".

BillRM also appears to confuse private consensual sexual behaviors with commercially produced materials which are manufactured and distributed to a very wide viewing audience. What consenting adults choose to do in the privacy of their bedrooms is one matter, the production, and distribution, and possession, of such commercial pornography is quite another matter. And the ability to own and possess such materials is what promotes their manufacture and distribution.

By the standards BillRM is trying to impose, we shouldn't even have speed limits on our roads. He should be free to decide how fast he wants to drive on a public road, even if the speed he chooses could be potentially injurious to others.

If he had any knowledge of the body of research on violent pornography, and the effects of such pornography, he'd realize what a fool he is to dismiss such materials as being essentially harmless in their effects on behavior..

You are right--society can, and does, deem certain behaviors unacceptable, that is how the moral fiber of the society is expressed, and that is how the general welfare of that society is protected.

I wonder if BillRM has even thought about why someone would want to connect sexuality with extreme violence, or why anyone would want to promote the desensitization of seeing sexuality coupled with violence?

1 Reply

@firefly,

Where's your definition of "consent" ff? You used the word and it's a very big word in this context. And you claimed to choose your words carefully.

Diving into this obscene digression is not the way to answer the post I directed your way.

2 Replies

@spendius,

"Consent", pertaining to sexual behaviors, refers to freely willing agreement. It's not how I define the term that's important, it's how the state defines the term, since we are discussing legal matters.

However, I was discussing extremely violent pornography, in response to izzythepush, not private sexual behaviors. BillRM seems to be confusing the two.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Quote:

Warren Buffett invested $5 billion into BofA which indicates to me that Buffett believes saving the US bank is a necessary evil to save our economy. BofA is also one of the largest five banks in the world

The British assault on porn should be kept in mind when reading the commentary on France and DSK....it used to be that America was in a class by ourselves when it comes to erotic repression, but we have now seen Australia and Britain move aggressively in that direction over these lest years. It comes as no surprise that the Brits are appalled when looking upon an admitted libertine.

2 Replies

@spendius,

Let me ask you a question Spendi. Do you think our pornography laws are too draconian, in terms of what is available in sex shops?

I think the laws regarding what pay per view television channels can show may be a touch too harsh. If you can buy a dvd in a sex shop legally there is no reason why you should not be legally able to watch the same stuff on a pay per view channel. The problem here is inconsistency.

1 Reply

@firefly,

Quote:

"Consent", pertaining to sexual behaviors, refers to freely willing agreement. It's not how I define the term that's important, it's how the state defines the term, since we are discussing legal matters.

No 1 --it is important how you define the term. Free willing under a misapprehension or social pressure is not free willing. It only looks like it.

No 2--as we are discussing legal matters DSK is as innocent legally as he was when he woke up on the morning of the incident and any references, innuendos and implications to the contrary are illegal here, I think, and they ought to be where you are because those references etc are based on untested evidence and thus inadmissible.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Quote:

. The problem here is inconsistency.

As well as your geographic proximity to nations that are far less erotically repressed...Western Europe and even more so Eastern Europe.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

It comes as no surprise that the Brits are appalled when looking upon an admitted libertine.

Oh **** off you muppet. Nobody is concerned about libertine behaviour. He's been accused of rape and got off on a technicality. If he'd been exonerated it would have been a different matter.

This is nothing to do with British attitudes at all. You threw that red herring into the mix in response to the Guardian editorial. Anything to avoid what the article was saying, namely DSK's political career is finished. I think he's smart enough to see that even if you can't.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

No it's not.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

The British assault on porn should be kept in mind when reading the commentary on France and DSK....it used to be that America was in a class by ourselves when it comes to erotic repression, but we have now seen Australia and Britain move aggressively in that direction over these lest years. It comes as no surprise that the Brits are appalled when looking upon an admitted libertine.

In my fast research the UK had placed a number of gay men who were into SM in prison charging the crime of assault and in order to do so the judge needed to declared that is did not matter due to public policy if all the parties was consenting adults or not and consent in this case was no defend to the assault charges.

A similar SM case that came before the UK courts dealing with a married couple and in that case the judge throw it out as an invasion of the married relationship.

I did not save links as I was looking for cases under the new extreme porn laws but it does show that being consenting adults is not a 100 percent protection if you are doing sexual actions that people like izzy does not approve of.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Quote:

If he'd been exonerated it would have been a different matter.

As Firefly has explained at several points the American system does not exonerate, you are presumed innocent unless a court finds otherwise.

Quote:

This is nothing to do with British attitudes at all. You threw that red herring into the mix in response to the Guardian editorial. Anything to avoid what the article was saying, namely DSK's political career is finished. I think he's smart enough to see that even if you can't

And I have explained why this opinion coming from the Brits is both predictable and worthless.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

as we are discussing legal matters DSK is as innocent legally as he was when he woke up on the morning

He is legally not guilty because the charges against him were dropped. The charges were neither proved nor disproved, and the matter of whether he was innocent of those charges is open to question since he was not exonerated. People here are quite free to speculate and offer opinions, just as they were before the charges were dropped.

On the other hand, DSK's lawyers have been publicly saying that he was the victim of "false accusations" which is blatantly untrue, and that implies that both law enforcement, as well as the claimant, deliberately lied about the charges against him. The charges were dropped, but not because they were determined to be unfounded or false. The claimant was not found guilty of having filed deliberately false accusations, just as DSK is not legally guilty of the things he was charged with. It is quite inaccurate, and actually slanderous, to say DSK was falsely accused.
His lawyers are deliberately distorting the facts in order to try to rehabilitate his image--they want DSK to be seen as innocent, as though he was exonerated, and that is not the case.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Quote:

He's been accused of rape and got off on a technicality

You mean that it is a technicality that the person charging him with rape is a proven constant lair including lying about a past rape that never happen?

You have a very odd idea of what is a technicality at least in my opinion.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

No matter what you say, he got off on a technicality. The witness was unreliable, he wasn't exonerated.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

As Firefly has explained at several points the American system does not exonerate

The American system does most certainly exonerate when charges are proved to be unfounded, baseless, or based on deliberate lies. And that's exactly what happened in the case of the Duke Lacrosse players.

That is not what happened with DSK--charges against him were dropped, but not because they were determined to be untrue or baseless. The charges were dropped for other reasons. Whether he actually committed the criminal acts he was charged with was never determined.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

In my fast research the UK had placed a number of gay men who were into SM in prison charging the crime of assault and in order to do so the judge needed to declared that is did not matter due to public policy if all the parties was consenting adults or not and consent in this case was no defend to the assault charges.

A similar SM case that came before the UK courts dealing with a married couple and in that case the judge throw it out as an invasion of the married relationship.

I did not save links as I was looking for cases under the new extreme porn laws but it does show that being consenting adults is not a 100 percent protection if you are doing sexual actions that people like izzy does not approve of.

I remember the gay case years ago, late eighties early nineties. In the end common sense prevailed. You're quite right what goes on between consenting adults is nobody else's business. So you've not had a lot of joy trying to prove your ridiculous allegations about our pornography laws then?

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

No matter what you say, he got off on a technicality. The witness was unreliable, he wasn't exonerated.

Are you thinking of the Scottish jury's verdict option "not proven"? You don't have that option in the rest of the UK, we don't have it in the States, but either way your point is irrelevant as NO jury handed down a verdict. The accuser was exposed as a lying fraud and "we the people" dropped the prosecution.

1 Reply

@firefly,

Quote:

The claimant was not found guilty of having filed deliberately false accusations, just as DSK is not legally guilty of the things he was charged with. It is quite inaccurate, and actually slanderous, to say DSK was falsely accused

The claimant is a proven lair both under oath and to the investigators. she constant lie and there is no question on the subject as she confessed to those lies.

She also had change her story any number of times over the events she had claimed happen between her and DSK in that room.

There is zero repeat zero reason to give any word that come out of her mouth any credit concerning this matter or any other matter.

Can we prove that he was falsely accused no but we can show that his accuser would not know the truth if it bit her on her rear end.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

No proof that is worth anything at all that he did anything wrong is not a technicality and except in very rare cases the US legal system does not declare anyone exonerated.

He is however presumed to be innocent.

1 Reply

Is the Head of the IMF a Sex Criminal?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know