5 ms·
Sorry, your rationalization doesn't cut it, I'm afraid. When someone has BEEN raped, and I know you don't want to hear this, there is very often a reluctance t
by HomaSapiens 14y ago
Sorry, your rationalization doesn't cut it, I'm afraid.
When someone has BEEN raped, and I know you don't want to hear this, there is very often a reluctance to admit that's what happened. And of course, a HUGE reluctance to be treated like a filthy liar by people who really want their hero to not have raped someone.
It is, in fact, perfectly possible for someone to fuck up and create a situation that will be a huge political debility. It's perfectly possible that your idol- and mine-- isn't so great when his 'nads get involved.
- KimbaLion 14y agoSorry again, but you're really not getting this. Under your analysis, how is one to determine if a "rape" took place or not? On the say-so of the woman/women? On Julian's say-so? No, of course not. It'll (hopefully) be on a JURY'S say-so! Therefore ALL YOU HAVE is whatever evidence you have, which in this case comes down to BEHAVIOUR and CREDIBILITY and whoever's story a jury feels more inclined to believe on the day of reckoning AFTER such evidence has been presented! If you disagree with this, please let me know how any jury would otherwise reach their decision. I can't wait to hear it!