Sexual molestation?

[Hermit]

There is documented use of prostitutes in Atlantic city 1964 in Larry Kane. The embedded journalists were given the unpicked girls for their own use so they would shut up about it.

Wow. Well, if someone wrote it, it must be true. Nobody ever lies in print.
Except journalists of course.

And you base your opinions on...?

Oh. That's right. You base your opinions on your opinions. Rock solid foundation for, um, your opinions.

[pErvinalia]

There is documented use of prostitutes in Atlantic city 1964 in Larry Kane. The embedded journalists were given the unpicked girls for their own use so they would shut up about it.

Wow. Well, if someone wrote it, it must be true. Nobody ever lies in print.
Except journalists of course.

You forgot climate scientists, as well.

[piscator]

There is documented use of prostitutes in Atlantic city 1964 in Larry Kane. The embedded journalists were given the unpicked girls for their own use so they would shut up about it.

Those girls fucked roadies and straphangers for the opportunity to stay in the Group as much as fuck a Beatle. Groupies are not prostitutes, merely goal-oriented and lovin life. They liked all the guys they hooked up with, on some level. And what road manager isn't going to kill 2 birds/1 stone by turning the excess groupiage at the press corps and letting what happens happen?

The first gig I ever played was a spur-of-the-moment thing with me on bass for my friend Chester on lead and some dude named Michael he knew on drums who seemed pretty confident about the whole thing. We did some Hendrix and some Stones and some Frampton and some Van Halen on the back of a flatbed trailer with someone else's amps. I was a shy 16 and could have played another set later on at the festival with a big name band, except I was getting my brains fucked out by a woman twice my age who wanted to sing with my band.

[Thumpalumpacus]

No you aren't. You're blinded by your ideology, biases and bigotry.

I'm not blinded by anything, I don't have an ideology, and I'm not a bigot...I'm just right and you are all wrong. Get over it.

1) You don't know my point of view, because I haven't voiced it.
2) I don't think you're a bigot. I have no data suggesting that.
3) I know for a fact that you're very ideological, from past interactions with you.
4) I've seen exactly how brittle you are in you opinions, and I've seen your unwillingness to consider views other than your own, which leads me to believe that you do indeed have blind spots, some very large.

Thus, your accusations that I quoted were pretty ironic, so far as I'm concerned.

[rachelbean]

This sounds solid. Way to crack the cases. There may not even actually be a such thing as rape, or I'd say maybe only 1 out of every 38 cases is based on reality, because I like to make statistics up

[Hermit]

This sounds solid. Way to crack the cases. There may not even actually be a such thing as rape, or I'd say maybe only 1 out of every 38 cases is based on reality, because I like to make statistics up

Well, yes. Blind groper starts the thread with "a speculation occurs to me", and mistermack chimes in with "I think". Business as usual from both of them.

Had they actually looked up some facts they would have discovered that the vast majority of rapes don't even get reported and that the majority of reported rapes don't get to the point of leading to anyone being charged. These two facts by themselves blow any allegations of false accusations out of the water in terms of statistical significance.

Then there's the standard procedure in court cases itself. While the plebs reading the tabloid papers or watching the tabloid news on TV are usually quick to come to a verdict one way or another, that is not the case with magistrates, judges and juries, and thank fuck for that. We don't really want to see a return to medieval "jurisprudence". Someone's memory of events will not lead to a conviction in court unless that memory is corroborated with actual evidence. As for allegations made by goldminers the same thing applies.

Neither BG nor MM have cited a single case in which someone has been convicted solely on grounds of someone's memory. Until they do, I regard their ejaculations as very smelly diarrhoea. Not that I expect them to provide actual links in support to what they say. As Xamonas Chegwé remarked early on in this thread that would mean changing a lifelong habit. Those two will forever go on speaking ex recto and hope nobody notices that what typically comes out of those orifices is utter shit.

[rachelbean]

You said it a lot better than I could have, and had the patience to use more than sarcasm

[Seth]

This sounds solid. Way to crack the cases. There may not even actually be a such thing as rape, or I'd say maybe only 1 out of every 38 cases is based on reality, because I like to make statistics up

Well, yes. Blind groper starts the thread with "a speculation occurs to me", and mistermack chimes in with "I think". Business as usual from both of them.

Had they actually looked up some facts they would have discovered that the vast majority of rapes don't even get reported and that the majority of reported rapes don't get to the point of leading to anyone being charged.

Maybe they aren't really rapes. I know it's politically incorrect to say this, but if you're raped you should report it. If you don't you are leaving a rapist on the street to rape someone else, which makes you morally responsible for future victims. I've heard all the reasons people don't report rape, but all of them are excuses that perpetuate the social stigma of rape. Time to suck it up and put rapists away, or better yet carry a gun and end them.

These two facts by themselves blow any allegations of false accusations out of the water in terms of statistical significance.

It's significant to the falsely accused. And how do the facts you cite relate in any way to the statistical significance or incidence of false accusations? I don't see how it follows.

[Hermit]

Maybe they aren't really rapes.

Yes indeed. Maybe they are not, but while some court verdicts have turned out to have been tragically and indubitably wrong later on (and not just in rape cases) I cannot think of a better way of determining guilt or innocence.

As for not reporting sexual abuse until years and sometimes decades after the event, you have no fucking idea of the psychological reasons behind why they have not been reported immediately, or at all for that matter. Anecdotally speaking, one of my three sisters has not reported sexual abuse that went on for several years and another has not reported a serious, violent sexual assault that came within a hair's breadth of being a rape involving penile penetration. My sisters explained to me why neither reported the crimes. The reasons were understandable and convincing, but given your views I don't expect you to ever understand them.

[Seth]

Maybe they aren't really rapes.

Yes indeed. Maybe they are not, but while some court verdicts have turned out to have been tragically and indubitably wrong later on (and not just in rape cases) I cannot think of a better way of determining guilt or innocence.

As for not reporting sexual abuse until years and sometimes decades after the event, you have no fucking idea of the psychological reasons behind why they have not been reported immediately, or at all for that matter. Anecdotally speaking, one of my three sisters has not reported sexual abuse that went on for several years and another has not reported a serious, violent sexual assault that came within a hair's breadth of being a rape involving penile penetration. My sisters explained to me why neither reported the crimes. The reasons were understandable and convincing, but given your views I don't expect you to ever understand them.

I completely understand them, I simply don't believe that justice can be served by removing statutes of limitation on sexual assault. If you can't bring yourself to report any assault in a timely manner, don't expect to find justice later. While I empathize with victims, justice demands empathy for the accused as well, who must be presumed to be innocent. Inordinate delay caused by "psychological reasons" denies the accused a fair trial.

[laklak]

The statutes of limitation are there for a reason. Memory isn't particularly reliable, less so after the passage of years. I could no more tell you where I was on a given night 8 or 10 or even 3 years ago then I could fly to the moon. Unless it was a specific and memorable event, of course. I know where I was when I heard about 9/11, when my daughters were born, when my parents died, when I got married, and a few holidays, but if someone asked "Where were you at 11:00 PM on the night of February 23rd, 2001?" I'd be .

Actually, that was a Friday, so chances are I was in the Mountain Inn pub in Mbabane sucking down last call. I'm sure some old drunk remembers that, orificer.

[mistermack]

Their are other villains in this rape business, besides rapists. And they are the women who falsely accuse people of rape.

If women NEVER made false claims of rape, it would be dead easy to convict a rapist. If someone claims she was raped, she was.

Unfortunately, that's not the case. Some women are habitual liars, just like some men.
And when it comes to sex, they often have good motives, like being caught out cheating, among many others. Sometimes, they might even get railroaded by others into a rape accusation.
A little white lie that was never meant to amount to anything gets out of control, and ends up with an innocent person being charged.

And it's not just women who lie after twenty five years. Some women lie after twenty five minutes.
It happens. Day in, day out.

It's dead easy to get all huffy about people being cynical, but it's for good reason. People tell lies.

I know some people who never stop lying. About practically everything. For no logical reason whatsoever. They just can't help lying.

Some of you might never move in those circles. You might be a bit on the innocent side.
Get out into the real world, and you would get a bit of a shock.

[Blind groper]

http://www.canlaw.com/rights/recovmem.htm

To Hermit

Who claimed I had not quoted a single case of a man being convicted as a result of a faulty memory.

May I remind you of the case I quoted, written up in Scientific American, of a woman who had 'recovered memory' of her Baptist pastor father repeatedly raping her, leading to him being jailed? This is not alone. This faulty memory has caused many innocent men to be convicted for offences that never actually happened.

If you care to read the reference above, you will discover that this case is only one of many.

The fact that many rapes happen with no complaint being made is not an excuse to convict and imprison men who are innocent on the basis of faulty female memories.

[Pappa]

This sounds solid. Way to crack the cases. There may not even actually be a such thing as rape, or I'd say maybe only 1 out of every 38 cases is based on reality, because I like to make statistics up

Well, yes. Blind groper starts the thread with "a speculation occurs to me", and mistermack chimes in with "I think". Business as usual from both of them.

Had they actually looked up some facts they would have discovered that the vast majority of rapes don't even get reported and that the majority of reported rapes don't get to the point of leading to anyone being charged. These two facts by themselves blow any allegations of false accusations out of the water in terms of statistical significance.

Then there's the standard procedure in court cases itself. While the plebs reading the tabloid papers or watching the tabloid news on TV are usually quick to come to a verdict one way or another, that is not the case with magistrates, judges and juries, and thank fuck for that. We don't really want to see a return to medieval "jurisprudence". Someone's memory of events will not lead to a conviction in court unless that memory is corroborated with actual evidence. As for allegations made by goldminers the same thing applies.

Neither BG nor MM have cited a single case in which someone has been convicted solely on grounds of someone's memory. Until they do, I regard their ejaculations as very smelly diarrhoea. Not that I expect them to provide actual links in support to what they say. As Xamonas Chegwé remarked early on in this thread that would mean changing a lifelong habit. Those two will forever go on speaking ex recto and hope nobody notices that what typically comes out of those orifices is utter shit.

It is possible to be convicted based on witness evidence alone in the UK, but for such a case to even get to court, the witnesses' testimonies need to corroborate without the possibility of collusion.

I sat on a jury in which we convicted a guy of raping and sexually abusing his young daughter and her friend over 20 years ago. It was explained to us at length that all the other evidence beyond the testimonies was circumstantial, and that it was important to be sure that there hadn't been any contact between the women over the past two decades.

[mistermack]

This question of corroborating evidence is bollocks in a lot of cases.

The essence of a rape is consent, and the majority of defences are that the victim consented.
There might be other evidence, but many cases just come down to ''she consented'' and ''no I didn't''.

In the end, many juries decide who to believe. And that is not as easy as people think.
Liars can be VERY convincing. And innocent people can come across as very shifty.

And the point about victims having good reasons not to complain at the time is just stupid.
So what if they did? That doesn't make it any easier to get to the truth, 25 years later.