-
Welcome, guest!
Why not take a moment to register an account?
If you already have an account, remember to Log In!
Michael Gira (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter David Kronenbourg
- Start date
- Replies 188
- Views 14K
- Watchers 4
I'd rather not.
What about people that wouldn't have gone anyway?
nooleen
bad ape
not in the legal sense, no
if you're giving someone you just happen to like (or think is respectable etc.) the benefit of the doubt it means the person you don't happen to like (or think is respectable etc.) is getting the..um..anti-benefit of the doubt
which is fucked up and leads to all kinds of dreadful cover-ups
I think it might be possible to believe both of them in this situation.
Unless you're in a jury.
Unless you're in a jury.
Her contention is that she was raped while passed out/sleeping, no?
His is that there was a fumbling consensual encounter. Unless I'm reading it wrong.
The difference goes to the heart of the issue.
None of us can or will ever know the heart of the issue.
Sorry, is that your point? Not sure what you're saying here...
It all goes to consent. He says there was consent, she says it was absent.
I don't know how it's possible to believe both.
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2002
- Messages
- 38,544
- Solutions
- 3
It's possible to believe that he believed it was a fumbling consensual sexual encounter.
He believes (in his memory) there was consent, she believes (in her memory) that there was not. It's possible one of them is lying but I'm going to believe them both for now, I see no decent reason not to.
I see no reason to even hold a viewpoint on this one way or the other, but the two stories are wildly different.
It's not just 'possible' that one of them is lying, it's the only situation that the statements bear out.
One of them is lying.
It's not just 'possible' that one of them is lying, it's the only situation that the statements bear out.
One of them is lying.
nooleen
bad ape
or that he's so fucking clueless he doesn't know the difference (or pretends not to) between consenting and inert
which frankly...wouldn't be anything new
which frankly...wouldn't be anything new
Maybe he's a predatory, grooming, abuser. Maybe she is a bit unhinged generally.
both the above are comic-book caricatures of people.
Maybe they're both lying, or exaggerating, or remembering wrong. I don't know.
For now I'll hold off definitive ONE OF THEM IS A LIAR TRYING TO HIDE THEIR GUILT-RIDDEN, SEEDY, SWEATY SECRET statements though.
Supposedly he's told his version to his whole family already
And his statement definitely reads like a lawyer was in the room
If he didn't know the difference at the time, he sure as heck knows it now, and is still claiming consent.
Her version rings far more true to me - finagling to get into bed off a cold floor, classic think-with-your-dick maneuver - even before he had a massive change in tack in two days.
Last edited:
No one's making those caricatures here except you.
There are two distinct versions of events. It's cognitive dissonance to believe both at the same time.
One or both is lying.
No it's not. I believe they both believe what they say is true.
Schrodingers consent
nooleen
bad ape
case solved, close thread
Look at the internet detectives in here, finding objective truth in the subjective statements. Fine, carry on.
nooleen
bad ape
i'm mainly spectating here
Users who are viewing this thread
Activity
So far there's no one here
21 Day Calendar
Landless: 'Lúireach' Album Launch (Glitterbeat Records)
The Unitarian Church, Stephen's Green
Dublin Unitarian Church, 112 St Stephen's Green, Dublin, D02 YP23, Ireland
Dublin Unitarian Church, 112 St Stephen's Green, Dublin, D02 YP23, Ireland
Similar threads
Support thumped.com
Support thumped.com and upgrade your account
Upgrade your account now to disable all ads...
Upgrade now
