Put it this way: I was the support system for somebody that dealt with that. Just in your post, here are the problems: 1. Women often don't mention this to loved ones. There is a feeling that they let loved ones down by being in that situation (even loved ones that they did not know at the time). It is often one of the hardest and most painful steps to mention this to loved ones. It is common for reports to loved ones to occur years after the event (or not at all) for this reason. 2. Details are often difficult to remember for the victim. The event is not remembered in a linear fashion. It is often encoded as a series of sensory perceptions and feelings. Police interview techniques are being updated to deal with this issue. Here is a pretty good article on the subject if you are interested in learning about it: Why Don’t Cops Believe Rape Victims? Brain Science Explains. The article deals mostly with short-term issues (e.g., when women report) and why cops often don't believe them, even though the false report rate is quite low. If you would like articles on the long-term effect or why women don't report, I'd be happy to help you with that as well.
No, actually, this guy did: And you AGREED with his post. I'm going to stay on my high horse. I didn't get "overly aggressive" with women. I didn't hold them down while they resisted and tried to take their clothes off. And I didn't use drinking as an excuse for being a terrible person. I was actually shocked you agreed with such a disgusting post. Despite my strong disagreements with your politics, I respect you. It was baffling to me that you'd agree with a guy trying to excuse and normalize sexual assault.
Okay, so another member of the committee would also assist in the questioning? I can buy that as well. Yeah, Senators prepare their own questioning and do their own research. That isn't the work of their staff and the committee staff.
You are imputing a very different meaning of "overly aggressive" than I think he meant. Or maybe I did, but I don't think so. Obviously not that many people are trying to rape women, but sexually active people at that age often struggle with their urges and don't understand the consequences well. That was my point.
Senators typically only handle their line of questioning, not the entire questioning for the hearing, and have a lot more time than a week to prepare. This hearing is going to be in about six days away. During that time, almost ever Senator is going to go home to their state on Thursday or Friday and return Sunday. That is in addition to all their other votes and calendar appointments they had scheduled for this week. It would be easier to turn this over to a non-Senator, whose only job it will be is to run the staff and prepare for this high profile hearing on Monday.
I agree that neither of us understand her motivations, but one thing we should both understand is that she just signed up for a slice of hell by coming forward on this and agreeing to testify. Whatever her motivation is, it must be pretty strong. I rather doubt the political leanings of a potential judge is something somebody would voluntarily sacrifice themselves over. As far as her blocking things out, between the assault and the drinking, there very well could be missing memories from the time of the event. Completely understandable.
Look at what the woman here is alleging. He's saying "overly aggressive" in the context of the Kavanaugh discussion. It's an attempt to minimize what she says happened to her. I'm not sure how else I'm supposed to take it. Hell, he responded to your post talking about what Kavanaugh would be charged with if it were referred for prosecution.
Here is your description: That is rape or at least very close to it. By definition. That you don't realize that is the problem. It is also one of the reasons women often don't report sexual trauma.
I completely understand a women not wanting to tell anybody but could your somebody remember what happened to her, where it happened and how many guys were involved? This "vicitim" decided to publicly accuse Kavanaugh, after 30 years. He has a wife and two daughters. Why should we grant her favorable treatment and dismiss her failed recollection when there are two young girls who will be negatively impacted by the charges against their father?
Which is why we should smear neither... unless we learn the truth... which is unlikely Doesn't mean you don't have a right to smear, but just because you have a right to do something, doesn't mean you should do it...
Not entirely (which is as far as I am going to go, as it is not my experience to share). That is actually pretty common. The details are not encoded in a rational manner. That problem is a huge problem both immediately after the event and for those with PTSD. People often colloquially think of it as blocking it out, and that isn't 100% untrue, but it is far more complex. The brain encodes traumatic events in a very different manner. Police thought of reports in the manner you are, looking for inconsistencies, trying to lay out a consistent timeline, and drilling down on the details that their minds decided were important. That is simply not the correct way to deal with rape reports. If she is falsely reporting, that is part of the damage that she is causing. If she is not, it is not her fault that her daughters will have to go through that pain. It is his. Entirely.
It's possible for two things to be true at once... As the old saying goes... There's Kavanaugh's side of the story, her side of the story, and then there's the truth... which holds especially true to something that happened 40 years ago... Heck I'm only in my early 20s and I likely have a skewed memory of things that happened when I was 15... What she's saying may be true and she may not be lying... because she believes it to be true... We see this frequently with President Trump, for example...
Certainly. I've already mentioned that I think we'll never know any objective truth about this event. I am pretty sure however, that she believes something bad happened, or she wouldn't put herself through this. And he is in a no win situation, except to the extent he can get past this and still get confirmed. But there will always be lingering doubt for some people about whether he assaulted this woman.
Define overly aggressive... If by overly aggressive you mean flirtatious, you're probably not far from the truth... If by overly aggressive you mean... "pushing a girl in a room, closing the door behind you, pushing her on a bed, covering her mouth so she can't scream, and having your way with her with a high school buddy..." Then, no... I don't think that's status quo... and if it is, then that would be explicit evidence that we are living in a "rape culture" society...
What is she sacrificing exactly? Everyone's bending over not to say anything that could remotely be seen as critical and she will end up being a hero for being the one who brought down the evil brett kavanaugh with a 40 year old sexual assault accusation. Just don't see much of a downside for her.
Can you point to examples of his words being twisted? His column about Michelle being more of a man than Barack and that Bush let Laura know who was boss with "a firm pat on the backside in public" is quoted verbatim. “women who dress like prostitutes are also sending out signals” is a quote with a link to the column where he said it. This was alongside his photo in his yearbook: "Certain women should be struck regularly, like gongs." Basically, the entire piece is full of quotes ... You'll need to produce something other than ... It's not quotes ... It's Media Matters! Or you can read it in the Washington Post. What the man accused of being part of Kavanaugh’s alleged sexual assault had to say about women’s sexuality
