Yes, because, when it comes to basing my opinion on whether he is a monster, it is based on my beliefs and values. And to me and based on my values, he is a monster. We absolutely have to have standards. We say a drunk woman cannot consent even if she says yes in her stupor because we believe in her state of mind, she could not actually consent. We say a 10 year old who happens to go through puberty early cannot consent. We say a 50 year old man cannot pimp out a 15 year old girl. We have to determine who can or cannot give consent, and because we try to protect those we do not believe is able or mature enough to give a valid consent for something like sex, we have standards. Like everything else. And I am perfectly with fine with making sex between an adult and a minor a crime and thinking the adult is absolutely a monster.GBear4Life said:Why because you say so? Some of the 'victims' in retrospect clearly do, but many that you do not see in the papers or documentary do not see themselves as victims and took responsibility for their choices. You don't get force somebody else in being a victim.calbear93 said:
Is the teacher in that instance a monster? Absolutely. Did he hurt or violate anybody? Yes.
There is something seriously wrong with you.AunBear89 said:
Rent a room, pedo lover. You and 93 will be more comfortable there. Then you can discuss Epstein's merits all you like and no one will interrupt you.
OK, moving on from the village idiot.AunBear89 said:
Yeah. You and your pedo loving buddy, GB4L. Other than that, I'm golden.
Carry on with your reasoned and polite discussion on whether Epstein is monster or not. I believe the ball is in GB4L's court. I can't wait to see what polite argument you will present to refute.
I'm saying you were insisting that, in principle, it is victimizing. Many of those girls aren't victims, and they will never be simply because you and I, in our moral indignation, say it is.calbear93 said:Yes, because, when it comes to basing my opinion on whether he is a monster, it is based on my beliefs and values. And to me and based on my values, he is a monster. We absolutely have to have standards. We say a drunk woman cannot consent even if she says yes in her stupor because we believe in her state of mind, she could not actually consent. We say a 10 year old who happens to go through puberty early cannot consent. We say a 50 year old man cannot pimp out a 15 year old girl. We have to determine who can or cannot give consent, and because we try to protect those we do not believe is able or mature enough to give a valid consent for something like sex, we have standards. Like everything else. And I am perfectly with fine with making sex between an adult and a minor a crime and thinking the adult is absolutely a monster.GBear4Life said:Why because you say so? Some of the 'victims' in retrospect clearly do, but many that you do not see in the papers or documentary do not see themselves as victims and took responsibility for their choices. You don't get force somebody else in being a victim.calbear93 said:
Is the teacher in that instance a monster? Absolutely. Did he hurt or violate anybody? Yes.
You don't have BearFarce2 on ignore?OaktownBear said:You aren't being a prude.calbear93 said:GB4L, I could not disagree with you more here.GBear4Life said:
Am I the only one who can plainly observe Epstein's escapades has been greatly manipulated and exaggerated by media and society?
I watched the Netflix special recently, which was an advocacy piece for the 'victims', and dug deeper into the facts, and there was no rape or nonconsensual activity by the witness' own admissions, only rape by statute (by law, minors can't consent to sexual contact). I even laughed out loud when one of the women was crying about how traumatizing it was and then proceeded to talk about how she recruited "40-60" girls in exchange for 'referral fees' from Epstein.
Buzz words like "pedophilia" and "sex trafficking" and "child porn" (I guess having sexual pictures of a teenager is now synonymous with "child porn")? The guy was a John and liked young girls. He offered them money for sex. And many of his "victims" were explicitly prostitutes consenting to eating d**k for money, while others consented to sexual acts for life changing personal and professional opportunities, experiences, and out of gratitude (I puked in my mouth just now).
When he was arrested and read the headlines and snippets from media (I didn't know who he was), I thought he was actually having sex with prepubescent girls and actually trafficking girls to his house against their will for Eyes Wide Shut type deranged sex parties with his elitist friends.
An olld man who manipulates and recruits 14 or 15 year olds for sex is absolutely engaging in pedophilia. It is not just a technical term. Anyone who has kids understands how unready 14 or 15 years olds are for sex with manipulative grown ups.
Obviously, I am against exploitation of women of any age for sex, but demeaning and manipulating 14 or 15 year old girls for powerful man to exploit for sex could not be more disgusting or reprehensible.
I don't care if I am being a prude but those people who worked with Epstein could not be punished enough.
There is a reason this poster is the only one I have on ignore. He is either a genuinely sick person or he just likes to post sick things to get a reaction. (Which basically means he is just a different kind of sick person. I don't think anyone here needs to explain to the one guy in the universe who doesn't understand that Epstein was a truly horrible human being
Girls are absolutely victims if a crime was committed against them. In this case, it clearly was, and Epstein and his rich pals absolute broke the law.GBear4Life said:I'm saying you were insisting that, in principle, it is victimizing. Many of those girls aren't victims, and they will never be simply because you and I, in our moral indignation, say it is.calbear93 said:Yes, because, when it comes to basing my opinion on whether he is a monster, it is based on my beliefs and values. And to me and based on my values, he is a monster. We absolutely have to have standards. We say a drunk woman cannot consent even if she says yes in her stupor because we believe in her state of mind, she could not actually consent. We say a 10 year old who happens to go through puberty early cannot consent. We say a 50 year old man cannot pimp out a 15 year old girl. We have to determine who can or cannot give consent, and because we try to protect those we do not believe is able or mature enough to give a valid consent for something like sex, we have standards. Like everything else. And I am perfectly with fine with making sex between an adult and a minor a crime and thinking the adult is absolutely a monster.GBear4Life said:Why because you say so? Some of the 'victims' in retrospect clearly do, but many that you do not see in the papers or documentary do not see themselves as victims and took responsibility for their choices. You don't get force somebody else in being a victim.calbear93 said:
Is the teacher in that instance a monster? Absolutely. Did he hurt or violate anybody? Yes.
I understand the necessity of a legal marker in this case. But using that marker as a blanket moral hammer is not just inaccurate, it doesn't make any sense -- logically, morally, etc. The circumstances and facts of each instance must drive our assessment of culpability, responsibility etc.
I am guessing we'd disagree on alcohol and consent too.
Yes one is legally a 'victim' when a crime by legal statue has been committed against them, but can be less so in an actual sense. This wouldn't be the example of that for you, but surely there are plenty of examples of that in both civil and criminal proceedings where you would agree with that.calbear93 said:
Girls are absolutely victims if a crime was committed against them. In this case, it clearly was, and Epstein and his rich pals absolute broke the law.
And I would guess we would disagree on alcohol and consent too unless you agree with me that having sex with someone who is drunk is rape.
I don't think he realizes that I usually try to be civil with most even when some conversation may become less than civil. I only reserve the disdain I have for those who have proven over and over again to be mindless flamethrowers and posers with no contribution other than insults. So, no point in engaging in civil discussion with Aunbear, Cal Poly and Dajo.GBear4Life said:
calbear93 -- wow, I can tell by his syntax and diction, he's raging hard that you're being civil here. You can amp it up if you'd like, I won't take it personally.
I think getting a woman drunk to have her say yes when she would not have otherwise said yes or to have sex with someone who is so drunk that she is not in her right mind is absolutely rape. And if 70% of the population is doing that, maybe it is a good thing to scare the 70% straight by sending some to jail for a long time. And this goes for both genders.GBear4Life said:calbear93 said:
Girls are absolutely victims if a crime was committed against them. In this case, it clearly was, and Epstein and his rich pals absolute broke the law.
And I would guess we would disagree on alcohol and consent too unless you agree with me that having sex with someone who is drunk is rape.
Also yes, I think intoxication as the benchmark for conferring legal rape onto another person is ludicrous and immoral, and it also renders 70% of the population rapists.
You're entitled to your opinion, but this by definition NOT rape. To encourage a woman to have drinks with the hopes of intoxication rendering her more accepting of sexual intercourse is manipulative and objectively sleezy and immoral, it is not rape nor is it illegal (intoxication to the point of being blackout drunk or when you are cognizant of her inebriation being so severe that she cannot actually consent to sex is rape). I think we will agree though that we'd both really like it if people stopped doing this.calbear93 said:
I think getting a woman drunk to have her say yes when she would not have otherwise said yes or to have sex with someone who is so drunk that she is not in her right mind is absolutely rape. And if 70% of the population is doing that, maybe it is a good thing to scare the 70% straight by sending some to jail for a long time. And this goes for both genders.
GBear4Life said:You're entitled to your opinion, but this by definition NOT rape. To encourage a woman to have drinks with the hopes of intoxication rendering her more accepting of sexual intercourse is manipulative and objectively sleezy and immoral, it is not rape nor is it illegal (intoxication to the point of being blackout drunk or when you are cognizant of her inebriation being so severe that she cannot actually consent to sex is rape). I think we will agree though that we'd both really like it if people stopped doing this.calbear93 said:
I think getting a woman drunk to have her say yes when she would not have otherwise said yes or to have sex with someone who is so drunk that she is not in her right mind is absolutely rape. And if 70% of the population is doing that, maybe it is a good thing to scare the 70% straight by sending some to jail for a long time. And this goes for both genders.
And I take it you're a lawyer and would acknowledge your line of reasoning here -- and your note about "scaring people straight" -- is very weak and very dangerous. I do not think devolving law and judicial processes to align with what YOU think is immoral, and thus redefining rape, is rational.
What is "too drunk"? Whatever that "too drunk" is -- the point in which the other person is aware that they are not actually able to consent to sex -- is rape. In that sense we agree. No, you're proposing an extreme and attaching it to the 70% comment I made. But you know what I meant. Intoxication is present in one or both parties in a considerable number of sexual contact. There is nothing inherent about intoxication conferring rape to the sexual contact.calbear93 said:
But once she is too drunk to legally consent, it is rape. It is not my opinion. And it reflects the collective morality of the state. It was why there was such outrage over Brock Turner getting off so lightly. So, if 70% of the population are doing this thinking they can violate the law and not get caught, some should absolutely feel the weight of the law and be punished pursuant to the sentencing guidelines to get the others scared straight that they cannot engage in what is deemed rape and expect to get away with it.
Well you know that's not what I was saying. And yes I agree it is unadmirable behavior, but it is not against the law. Being 'manipulated' pr having ulterior motives does not make an otherwise legal act illegal.calbear93 said:
But if 70% of the population are getting cute trying to get women drunk hoping to get a woman buzzed enough to suspend her better judgment but conscious enough to be able to legally consent, I would guess they are playing with fire
Maybe we are not disagreeing. I think we both agree that someone who had couple of drinks but is still sober even if some inhibition is suspended can consent. Maybe that is what you meant by 70%. I think we both agree that when someone who is too drunk to know that she is consenting cannot consent. I think those who try to straddle the line between the two are playing with fire and may at times cross the line into rape. And so, don't play with fire. Because, when they cross the line, and the fact finders determine that the woman or man was too drunk to consent, they will go to jail.GBear4Life said:What is "too drunk"? Whatever that "too drunk" is -- the point in which the other person is aware that they are not actually able to consent to sex -- is rape. In that sense we agree. No, you're proposing an extreme and attaching it to the 70% comment I made. But you know what I meant. Intoxication is present in one or both parties in a considerable number of sexual contact. There is nothing inherent about intoxication conferring rape to the sexual contact.calbear93 said:
But once she is too drunk to legally consent, it is rape. It is not my opinion. And it reflects the collective morality of the state. It was why there was such outrage over Brock Turner getting off so lightly. So, if 70% of the population are doing this thinking they can violate the law and not get caught, some should absolutely feel the weight of the law and be punished pursuant to the sentencing guidelines to get the others scared straight that they cannot engage in what is deemed rape and expect to get away with it.
And if the guy is drunk too, by that logic, how can he consent, thus how can he be held to account? He's technically "too drunk" to consent. But there is a double standard here, which is besides the point, but that double standard is stemming from an antiquated "patriarchal" ideology that renders women weak and helpless and without agency.
