Tuesday, December 6, 2011 4:28:45 PM
@Cajun, sorry, you need to brush up on your Feminism 101: NOW style! THEY have been pushing for exactly what I describe for decades now, and in most places THAT is what the law is.
Sometimes I think they're crazy, but mostly is makes it easier to convict accused rapists.
You seem to be most upset about "lawyer language" to me, just my observation. It isn`t called `rape` anymore, it`s called `sexual assault` & that sort of thing.
Tuesday, December 6, 2011 2:51:50 PM
One more thing: to show that I am impartial, I've actually read Paula Jone`s original complaint. Based on what she said the worst thing you could pin against Clinton would be Battery.
Tuesday, December 6, 2011 1:11:48 PM
In conclusion 5Cats the criteria you have put forth fails catastrophically to distinguish between inappropriate behavoir and violent behavoir. I've made my point crystal clear and I`m DONE.
Tuesday, December 6, 2011 1:09:30 PM
5Cats what you just wrote is absolute utter FAIL! Not only have you taken what I said out of context, you have also fundamentally skewed the concept of violence to such ridiculous levels I am not sure what you would not call violent. Just because someone lets another into their house does NOT mean that they consented to let the guest show them their genitals. That, however, does NOT mean that when the guest does so they have commited an act of violence against resident. Even if the guest TELLS the resident to perform fellatio that still does not mean the guest has commited a violent act against the resident because the guest has NOT done anything to or even attempted to threaten the resident. You are also suggesting that a woman who flashes her chest at someone else or a man who walks down the street buck naked is commiting a violent crime when that is SIMPLY not true because they do NOT or even attempt to threaten the well being of those around them.
Tuesday, December 6, 2011 10:53:59 AM
Oh boo-hoo laws aren't STRICT enough for you? Backwards again @cajun! Under the `old rules` a rape victem had to PROVE penetration for charges to stick. Hundreds of rapists who could afford good lawyers got off free! (eh, the puns!)
So it was an IMPROVEMENT to say that ANY unwante sexual attack COULD BE called assault. IMPLIED Coercion: it`s the backbone of many assault cases, eh?
WITH? You`re joking right, because she was there in the room that was implied concent to see "little willy"? Really? She willingly engaged in deviant sexual behaviour with him? Really? "With" in this case means that another person(s) was affected by the deviant behaviour, NOT that she wanted it. If he pulled it out all alone? No assault. Next you`re going to debate the meaning of the word "is"...
Indecent exposure is a FORM of sexual assault, m-kay? Like screaming dirty words at 3 year olds is.