Is the Head of the IMF a Sex Criminal?

The Jollies. Rumpy-pumpy. Squelching. There is a host of terms.
The male completes the biological act. The female does not. She has a reproductive system which is rendered inoperative by contraception. Her biological system is frustrated by it. Disappointed. Her body knows nothing about the matter. Her body does not even know of the male fructifying element.

Her body is geared to a two year long event. Conception to weaning. Even longer if it starts at courtship. A male is geared to a few moments. Contraception is a social category and not a biological one.

It's a delicate subject Rebecca. If you want to discuss the social aspects as having priority I don't think you would be long before you arrived at state managed conceptions. Eugenics.

The illegitimacy rate represents, as Veblen said, the triumph of the hormones over the proprietaries. The same might be said for the unwanted pregnancy rate. In both cases the real thing took place.

DNA testing and tracking is hardly a factor in the life of humanity. Maybe judges now take what you say into account after hearing all the evidence in the particular cases.

In both instances you are talking about minority situations real though they are. How does one legislate for exceptions? We can only do our best.

CI is coitus interruptus.

I had wondering what was keeping this thread going, given the general forgetfulness of DSK's past frolicks. Now I see what's going on.

Glad to note that you've still got them outnumbered Spendi.

The DSK case George was about money. Titivating the prurience of sexually frustrated woman in Media and in wider society.

The alleged event was as trivial as trivial gets. The affront to female dignity is the explanation. Plus constant references to "DNA evidence" (aka splattered jism) and ripped bodices. It sells.

Bringing down the rich, famous and powerful is popular too.

And everybody gets to display their virtue. Monte Python did a sketch about it once. A bunch of elderly women, faked, sat knitting were discussing in lurid detail, knitting faster and faster, how awful and disgusting the latest sex scandal was.

Undoubtedly true. However I don't think Panzade will forgive you for making real, but in keeping with his silly theorizing, politically incorrect, (gasp!) distinctions.

spendius theory of what constitutes rape was utter nonsense george.
I calls 'em like I sees 'em.

If you think this thread is about DSK's guilt or innocence, think again.

No you don't because you disdain offering any reasons for why what I said you assert was utter nonsense.

Your conflation of two completly separate events belittles, traduces and liquidates the female reproductive function and subsumes it under some category of your own devising which, by the general tone of it, is misogynistic.

I don't see any difference between what you call male rape and assault. And the same applies when what is ordinarily called rape takes place without a possibility of conception.

I have no view on what sentences should be handed out in either case but where conception is risked it is self-evidently much the more serious and by easily enough distance to render your conflation utterly ridiculous. There is no comparison.

If your "male rape" victim is to be compared with a female rape victim who is fertilised, or who is at risk of it, you are being more subjective than you ought to be. You are uncomfortably close to seeing the male sexual function as equal to the female function. Which is serious utter nonsense.

Sexual assault/attempted rape is not "an affront to female dignity"--it is a physical assault--and it is criminal, whether the victim is male or female. That you choose to trivialize such types of assault, reflects your clearly expressed negative feelings toward women, and your attitude that men, like DSK, are somehow entitled to make such assaults on women.

As a matter of fact, it was Hawkeye, BillRM, and you who were more concerned with the lurid details of this assault throughout this thread, reiterating them, or referring to them, in often vulgar terms.

There is nothing titillating about a news report of sexual assault except in the mind of someone who is aroused by the association of sex and violence with an unwilling partner--which is generally a male rape fantasy of conquest and domination of an unwilling female. If you think most women would be titillated by the thought of a naked, 62 year old, overweight, unattractive man suddenly sexually assaulting a much younger strange woman who has just entered his hotel suite, you are out of your mind. An encounter with a man Tristane Banon described as being like "a rutting chimpanzee" is not exactly the stuff of romance novels, or of most women's sexual fantasies. That DSK feels he is so irresistible that such an assaultive encounter can be construed to seem consensual is just plain absurd.

You confuse normal consenting sexual relations with criminal sexual assaults, and you further promote a rather parochial view of sexual contact, defining it only as acts which can result in fertilization/procreation. The range of normal sexual expression goes considerably beyond what you, and the Pope, might deem appropriate, and, for most people, sexual behaviors, in various manifestations, are engaged in for pleasurable reasons unrelated to "fertilization". But, when these acts are not mutually consensual, they become criminal assaults.

DSK was not charged with sexual assault merely so the NY Post and NY Daily News could sell a lot of papers. He was accused of violating criminal laws of New York State, and, when those charges were dropped, the D.A. made it quite clear that this did not mean the man was innocent of those charges, it simply meant they were not going forward with the criminal prosecution and a trial. They didn't exonerate him. They didn't say that they had inadequate reasons to have arrested and charged him. They didn't say he had not assaulted Diallo.

In your life and mine perhaps, but obviously not in the lives of DSK and Diallo.

Anyone interested in whether or not a sexual assault took place in that hotel suite should welcome the fact that an upcoming civil trial will attempt to examine that issue. A courtroom is where such matters belong so fact can be sorted out from fiction and from the sensationalism of tabloid newspapers.

DSK brought himself down, and he's admitted to doing that. Even by his own admission, what he did in that hotel suite was "stupid" and it opened the can of worms about his other past questionable behaviors. He did all this to himself, he brought himself down.

Bullshit maybe in your sick world view someone deserve to have false charges of rape level again him but not in my world view.

Women who press false charges of rape should end up sitting in prison for a number of years not only for the harm they do to innocent men but for the harm they do to real rape victims in the future and their creditability.

Your fantasy that what took place in that hotel suite was consensual does not substitute for fact. There is no evidence that Diallo made a false allegation about being sexually assaulted. On the other hand, we know that DSK initially lied when he claimed he had no contact, at all, with Diallo.

You obviously find DSK very sexually attractive, which is apparently why you can believe his story that Diallo was suddenly overcome with sudden lust for this total stranger after a single glance upon his unattractive naked body. He might turn you on, but that's your problem. I guess you would have willingly provided him with oral sex.

You should welcome the civil trial as an opportunity for the facts to be examined in a court. I hope it doesn't crush your fantasies about him.

He did say that Diallo is not credible in court, thus he can not go forwards. Vance's statement that in his heart he feels like DSK is a bad guy was gratuitous, and irrelavant. It does not matter what Vance believes, it only matters what he can prove, and by his own admission he can not prove that DSK assaulted Ophelia.

LOL given her contently lying about almost everything that can be check such as her actions right after the hotel room events and her not only lying about a past rape but putting on a great emotional show concerning that rape that never happen there can and should be a good case that beyond a reasonable doubt that she did indeed lied about being assaulted in that hotel room.

Men had been convicted of rape with far less evidence that they are rapists then that she had lied concerning being rape in that hotel room as
we do have solid proof that she lied about her actions right afterward.

But then unlike other country such as the UK even when there is solid beyond question proof of false charges we do not normally punish women for doing so.

Hell if the Duke dancer/hooker had been punish to the same degree as she would had in such countries as the UK maybe the boyfriend she later went on to murder would still be alive today.

I also find it interesting that inspite of it being shown that she had any number of banks accounts with over a 100,000 dollars in them but none above the reporting limit of 10,000 around the country that was being used by known drug dealers that the DEA and the IRS was not on her for such crimes as money laundering.

All you are saying is that you would willingly give DSK oral sex under similar circumstances. That's why you can't understand that she might not want to do the same.

There is no evidence she made a false allegation of sexual assault.

The thread appears to be about many diverse things, depending on the poster involved. DSK's supposed guilt or innocence and the truthfulness (or lask of it) of the victim are among them. It is a strange & implausible story, and many elements of it remain unclear. Certainly many of the often contradictory elements of human nature are visible in it. I don't think that any of us are able to really know even the legal truth here, much less the moral one.

But, Diallo's civil attorneys do feel they can convince a jury in civil court, which is why they are moving toward that end.

We dont know that, all we know is that they at least think that they have a good enough shot at a payday to move forwards.

OJ Simpson's life wasn't exactly put back on track by a not guilty verdict.

I realize that you get a hard-on when ever you fantasize about DSK getting hurt. I keep my sadomasochism to my sex life, my interest in DSK is justice and economics mostly, though I am interested in what keeps his wife coming back for more.

You really are a sick bastard, it's clear DSK is a sexual preditor if nothing else, I think such people should be put on trial, but the rich and powerful have ways of evading justice. It's gratifying to see that society is less forgiving than you or Bill.

It is not clear to me, in fact given the way DSK has acted for so long that so few women will step forwards to make the claim that he is abusive bleaches DSK as far as I am concerned.

Wake me if some prosecutor somewhere in the world thinks that he can make a case against DSK, because I doubt that it will happen.

see, if the authorities had listened to me , and simple executed him on the spot for being an international banker, none of these stupid arguments would be ongoing