@firefly,
Quote:This woman has a lot of public sympathy from people who believe she was sexually assaulted by DSK and who want to help her because she has found herself in the midst of a very high profile media blitz and she is going to be subjected to all sorts of attacks by DSK's defense team. She does need lawyers to represent her interests.
You are very naive ff or else you think we are very gullible.
It has become very obvious that you duck interesting questions and pretend you are contributing to the debate by repetitively rehearsing the same old pedantic legal niceties which we all know anyhow.
It has been a criminal act in the past to call into question the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. And not only for a long period of time but the penalty was a grisly death witnessed by men, women and children. Your focus on the legal niceties justifies that because that was the legal position in those centuries long periods of time.
Your constant reminders that what DSK is charged with are serious sexual assaults fails to consider how such things became characterised in that way in the first place and have not always been seen in that way. That's what I am discussing and what might be to come in the future if the direction we have seen in recent years continues unopposed.
Do you think that there is a Darwinian argument that rape should be institutionalised on the grounds that it will produce a higher standard of offspring in the next generation? And if you don't what evidence would you put forward to resist that sort of scientific approach. Ms Decter gets close to subtly hinting at that in the "Breeding" chapter of the book I advised you to read. As does the Dutch biologist hawk has quoted.
All your arguments are based on social factors and not on biological ones. And the social factors derive from Christian patriarchal values which feminists are militantly opposed to.
Every day we hear warnings about flashing lights in the item coming next on the News. That is because of them triggering certain biological, possibly hysterical, reactions in some viewers which the viewers affected are not responsible for. They are said to cause epilectic fits in some people. So do you think that there's a possibility that the highly eroticised atmosphere in hotels like the one in this case could trigger a reflex action in some guests and thus that they should be redesigned on more monastic lines. The change in the decor of pubs in the last few decades has been quite striking in this respect. So the eroticisation of these atmospheres has been allowed and encouraged to proceed and then when a person is affected by them there is a rush to distance those bringing into being these eroticised atmospheres from the actions of those most susceptible to them.
That's why you failed to answer my question relating to the rejection of Islamic segregation of the sexes, which I presume you approve of, being the actual cause of the vast majority of rapes and sexual assaults. Which opens up the possibility that you encourage such behaviour in order to be able to discuss it in the lascivious manner you so self-evidently do or find money making opportunities for your friends in Media and the legal profession who are, by this argument, the real cause of rape and sexual assault.
In view of all the sexual stimulation we see around us it is quite astounding that so few men react to it as the epilectic does to the flashing lights and leaves you having to make the most of the rare cases when your draconian laws fail to prevent the reaction occuring.
You conspire to stimulate men and when they are successfully stimulated you throw them in jail.
And you have failed, despite being asked, to define consent. That is because you know very well that full consent is not the same as being resigned to submit for economic, social and psychological reasons, about which matter there are so many jokes, the first sentence of Pride and Prejudice for example, and that these non-biological reasons are taken advantage of on a regular basis by most of the men persecuting DSK who think that their strenuous efforts absolve them from the guilt they must have felt when they read "All men are rapists".
It is obvious that full consent is not applicable in our bedrooms because no woman in her right mind would submit to the indignity of birth control, and the back-stop of abortion, in the service of male convenience, if it was.
You are in this tangle of half-truths and lies because you reject Christian teaching on sexual morality, as well as the Islamic, for selfish reasons and you are unable to deal with the chaos resulting from the rejections in any other way. And your hubris results from the simple fact that you are confident most people agree with you and are enthusiastic to embrace the half-truths and the lies on behalf of their own selfishness.
A jury of Mother Superiors would wipe the floor with the prosecution. They would declare the whole court complicit in rape and sexual assault for money and salacious entertainment.
