So, did he or didn't he?

[Hazir]

Nice try, but you are equating inaccurate recollection with a person giving an entirely false account, then another false account of the same event.

Anyway you have been indoctrinated well; accused of rape means you are guilty and there is nothing that will change that. İt' really ugly what this toxic mixture of middle class puritanism and feminism has made of American justice.

Straight guys have my sympathy, İ am happy İ will never have to deal with the idiocy that surrounds the straght mating rituals these days.

[Enoch the Red]

Nice try, but you are equating inaccurate recollection with a person giving an entirely false account, then another false account of the same event.

Anyway you have been indoctrinated well; accused of rape means you are guilty and there is nothing that will change that. İt' really ugly what this toxic mixture of middle class puritanism and feminism has made of American justice.

Straight guys have my sympathy, İ am happy İ will never have to deal with the idiocy that surrounds the straght mating rituals these days.

Because I don't claim to have complete understanding of an event I was not a witness to, and have acknowledged that it's possible for someone to be raped without tell-tale signs of physical trauma, (it's very possible for someone to have consensual sex with tell-tale signs of physical trauma) I have been indoctrinated?

I've been very careful in how I've talked about this case precisely because I don't believe that being accused of a crime automatically makes you guilty of it.

[Hazir]

Because I don't claim to have complete understanding of an event I was not a witness to, and have acknowledged that it's possible for someone to be raped without tell-tale signs of physical trauma, (it's very possible for someone to have consensual sex with tell-tale signs of physical trauma) I have been indoctrinated?

I've been very careful in how I've talked about this case precisely because I don't believe that being accused of a crime automatically makes you guilty of it.

REALLY? Ok, now try to imagine yourself forcing your penis into an unwilling mouth. Pray tell me how you do that without:

1. a gun against the head that mouth belongs to

2. any marks anywhere

[EyeKhan]

Unfortunate. Unfortunate.

[Aimless]

I wonder, is rape a problem among gay men?

[LittleFuzzy]

I wonder, is rape a problem among gay men?

Can we please not take the discussion in this direction? It has been well demonstrated at this point that no one is going to be able to get through that Lewkowskian sense of victory Hazir's feeling.

[Hazir]

I wonder, is rape a problem among gay men?

That would be a subject for a different topic in which I will have nothing to post.

This topic is not about rape though, it's about a particular woman lying about a blow job she gave to a man who she thought could pay more for oral gratification. We also call this type of women 'lying whores'.

[CitizenCain]

We also call this type of women 'lying whores'.

No, that is a factual descriptor of a woman who exchanges sexual favors for money, and then lies about it. What we call these women is usually a great deal "sharper" than just the two factually applicable pejoratives that apply.

[Hazir]

You don't take this whole situation to be a case of seller's remorse ?

[CitizenCain]

Of course I do. But I object to you saying that we call her a "lying whore." By definition, she is a lying whore. She whored herself out, and then lied. Therefore, she's a lying whore. This is fact, not "name calling." When we get around to "calling" her something, we use sharper pejoratives, not just a factual description. Include words like "cunt" and "bitch" and so on in whatever we "call" her.

[Enoch the Red]

REALLY? Ok, now try to imagine yourself forcing your penis into an unwilling mouth. Pray tell me how you do that without:

1. a gun against the head that mouth belongs to

2. any marks anywhere

I guess I don't know what to say to this, other than I think you have a very skewed notion of what rape has to be, and how a victim has to act.

[Hazir]

I guess I don't know what to say to this, other than I think you have a very skewed notion of what rape has to be, and how a victim has to act.

Actually I have a rather clear notion of what rape is. It does not include consentual sex for money. Not even if the prostitute who provided it has second thoughts about pricing.

[Hazir]

Of course I do. But I object to you saying that we call her a "lying whore." By definition, she is a lying whore. She whored herself out, and then lied. Therefore, she's a lying whore. This is fact, not "name calling." When we get around to "calling" her something, we use sharper pejoratives, not just a factual description. Include words like "cunt" and "bitch" and so on in whatever we "call" her.

Oh, I see, i meant lying whore as descriptive not pejorative.

[Dreadnaught]

Okay, this is the Telegraph and not related to DSK. But I find it tangentially related because it seems another weird example of semi-psychotic French machismo.

Frenchman ordered to pay wife damages for lack of sex

By Our Foreign Staff
12:41PM BST 05 Sep 2011

The 51-year-old man was fined under article 215 of France’s civil code, which states married couples must agree to a “shared communal life”.

A judge has now ruled that this law implies that “sexual relations must form part of a marriage”.

The rare legal decision came after the wife filed for divorce two years ago, blaming the break-up on her husband’s lack of activity in the bedroom.

A judge in Nice, southern France, then granted the divorce and ruled the husband named only as Jean-Louis B. was solely responsible for the split.

But the 47-year-old ex-wife then took him back to court demanding 10,000 euros in compensation for “lack of sex over 21 years of marriage”.

The ex-husband claimed “tiredness and health problems” had prevented him from being more attentive between the sheets.

But a judge in the south of France’s highest court in Aix-en-Provence ruled: “A sexual relationship between husband and wife is the expression of affection they have for each other, and in this case it was absent.

“By getting married, couples agree to sharing their life and this clearly implies they will have sex with each other.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ck-of-sex.html

I mean, is there nothing more pathetic than a French judge hauling a man before court two years after a divorce and saying, "I think you're not really a man and you didn't use your dick enough to be a husband, so pay your ex-wife a bunch of money"?

[CitizenCain]

Enh. Two years isn't that long, in legal terms, particularly for what seems like a contested divorce... could be that the case is just wrapping up. And the judge is right about sex being an integral part of marriage, but I'm thinking the [British] "paper" is playing up the lack of sex angle, being all sensationalistic and misleading, when the 10,000 Euros is probably part of the divorce settlement, not damages for lack of sex.

Although, I wouldn't mind being able to sue for lack of sex... "Hey baby, nice shoes. Wanna fuck... or get served?"

[RandBlade]

Evil American Conspiracy Strikes Again: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17110618
How horrendous that Evil Prejudicious American Journalists were surrounding the car he was taken to the Police cell in [see video in link]

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha

[Flixy]

"I challenge you to distinguish a naked prostitute from any other naked woman," his lawyer Henri Leclerc has told French television.

Hehe

[CitizenCain]

What the fuck is this, the middle ages? Men having sex with women not their wives?!?!? Someone must inform the Church elders at once.

[earthJoker]

How horrendous that Evil Prejudicious American Journalists were surrounding the car he was taken to the Police cell in [see video in link]

Wait a moment, they can just drive by the journalist by car? I mean how? You have to handcuff him, take him outside and let him walk through the pack.

[Hazir]

Wait a moment, they can just drive by the journalist by car? I mean how? You have to handcuff him, take him outside and let him walk through the pack.

Yeah, you know, it's quite the same; journalists doing their job or the authorities using them to shame the suspect into submission. We Europeans wouldn't understand that, with all our silly deference to outdated concepts like privacy and not being presumed guilty untill convicted.

[wiggin]

Wait a moment, they can just drive by the journalist by car? I mean how? You have to handcuff him, take him outside and let him walk through the pack.

You do realize that in France it's actually illegal to publish photos of a perp walk irrespective of whether you were given an opportunity to take said photos. In fact, during the DSK case in NYC, French authorities reminded journalists of this law and were largely ignored.

Also, as I understand it if DSK had been arrested in France rather than brought in for questioning, he would have been given more protections from the press, including special arrangements for his transport that avoided reporters. Just sayin'.

[earthJoker]

You do realize that in France it's actually illegal to publish photos of a perp walk irrespective of whether you were given an opportunity to take said photos. In fact, during the DSK case in NYC, French authorities reminded journalists of this law and were largely ignored.

Well, not the first time in history where a law is not enforced.

Also, as I understand it if DSK had been arrested in France rather than brought in for questioning, he would have been given more protections from the press, including special arrangements for his transport that avoided reporters. Just sayin'.

So? Should I be shocked now? I don't agree that a someone that is being arrested should have more rights, but he shouldn't have less rights either. Actually he should have the same personal rights as any person who hasn't been proved to be guilty with the exception of free movement and communication.

Free movement can be limited because of the risk that the person can hide from justice. Communication can be limited because of the danger of collusion. Other than that the government should try to treat the person with the same care as if he was innocent (as long not proven guilty).

[CitizenCain]

Free movement can be limited because of the risk that the person can hide from justice. Communication can be limited because of the danger of collusion.

Seems to me like those two risks can be largely eliminated with advances in technology, and keeping those assorted restrictions in place (bail, for example) is a testament to how archaic and fucking backwards law has become in the face of accelerating technological process.

[earthJoker]

I disagree, both risk have increased by advantage of technology. Especially collusion with the improvements in telecommunication.

[CitizenCain]

I disagree, both risk have increased by advantage of technology. Especially collusion with the improvements in telecommunication.

GPS ankle bracelet + telecommunications will be monitored as a condition of RoR. Problem solved, no?

[earthJoker]

You could use encryption for communication.

And with your GPS ankle bracelet you can move wherever you want? Leave the country?

[CitizenCain]

You could use encryption for communication.

And with your GPS ankle bracelet you can move wherever you want? Leave the country?

While out on bail, you could rape 17 babies.

Point being?

[RandBlade]

Point being?

Prison works?

[earthJoker]

While out on bail, you could rape 17 babies.

Are you trying to prove my point?

Point being?

Scary, you know what I was thinking while reading your post.

[CitizenCain]

Prison works?

Right, because there's no rape in prison, is there?

Are you trying to prove my point?

Well, what is your point? You seem to be advocating locking people up before they've been found guilty, which strikes me as very wrong, but whatever. I am one of those weirdos who believes in that "innocent until proven guilty" insanity.

Scary, you know what I was thinking while reading your post.

I do? Alright, so you do support the "guilty until proven innocent" theory of justice and think we lock everyone in solitary confinement, since otherwise, there's a chance of baby-rape and whatnot.