How about you read what she wrote. I 100% stand by everything she said on this thread. You clearly have not read what she wrote or understood it and this is precisely why I don't just challenge but now ridicule what you said. You did not read what she wrote and you come on this forum part of a group that have precisely done what you accuse others have, turned this issue into a partisan one.
Perhaps you are the one not understanding the inherent harm the attitude of male=uncontrolled/female=controlled actually is to both men and women.
I couldn't care less what his political affiliation is.
Given the way in which you hurl insults on Liberal politicians, I do not believe this for a second.
The issue was and remains about consent. The young women who went back to his home have a responsibility to control their bodies and their safety over their bodies. It must begin and end with them on an individual level. Your patronizing attitude acts as if its up to a man to decide that. So of course you can't grasp her point or mine.
And it is also on you, and other men, to refute the notion put forth by SJ that men's sexual urges are so primal, natural, biologically driven, that they cannot control themselves and will push for sex in any way they can get it. This is what MG, Omni, MH, BC Cheque and I are doing. How about you take a moment and try to understand that instead of going on a rant.
I spent 30 years dealing with sex crimes. I read now a bunch of pathetic boys jumping all over one another in the name of politically correct posturing presuming to reduce this issue to what a man does.
While completely missing SJ's attempt to reduce the actions of a grown man down to 'animal in lust' vs. 'woman as keeper of virtue'.
Therefore it becomes a matter of choice, of individual choice, and women will decide when and where they will go and if they learn from certain mistakes they will but they don't and can't learn from mistakes if they put themselves in dangerous positions and then do not examine the choices they made to see if they could have done something safer.
And he had the "choice" to treat the woman he was with with respect; not to whip out his dick and expect a BJ or start raining kisses on a woman just because he was alone with her. They were stupid to overdrink, I agree; but to act as if he's being unfairly accused and that his actions were in line with what a 'natural' man would do is why men keep doing those stupid things.
That's the reality of the world we live in. You haven't had to sit in a room with a rapist and get in their head as I have. They are people who use power and access. Those are the two operative words, power and access. They place themselves in positions where they have access to the vulnerable. Then they use their power, money, body size, job position perhaps to force themselves on their target. You and the rest of your moral saint pack have no proof, not an ounce of proof Brown used power, money or his body to force his way to have sex.
Was one of them not 19 at the time, and he 35? Did she not work for him? Was she not at a staff party, a party that moved to HIS home? Was he not an MP at the time? And did he not then make advances on her? Just what is that but "power and access"? That he stopped when she asked him to is good; that he tried at all "because men will do anything to get sex" is the problem. A truly respectful, adult and controlled man would not have made any advances whatsoever. Period. And your support for his actions, and your support for SJ's 'natural man' argument is disgusting to me.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/patrick-brown-resigns-ontario-pc-1.4503040The other one was in *HIGH SCHOOL* - that means underage drinking. A stupid decision on her part, no question and yes, she's vulnerable - and Brown, who was NOT drinking, knew it. Again - Power and Access. He had it, and he used it.
https://www.cp24.com/news/women-who-accused-brown-of-misconduct-were-reluctant-to-speak-out-ctv-reporter-1.3775056Note what McGregor says in the article cited above:
McGregor said rumours have long been circulating about sexual harassment on Parliament Hill.
“Parliament Hill is a situation where you have, by definition, a lot of middle age men and a lot of young women staff,” he said.
“You have this basic built-in power imbalance and you have up here a lot of events. Pretty much any day of the week when the house is sitting, you can go somewhere and there (are) parties with MPs and free wine flowing all the time. So it’s a problematic situation.”
Power and access. Brown had it, and he used it. And you think we should heap blame on the women, that we're being unfair to Brown.
**** that.
http://None. Zero. Yet you take a second hand news story, which is called heresay evidence, which has never been corroborated, and you react like true SA Nazi Brown shirts. Your cause is righteous and you will persecute Brown.Why are you assuming these women are lying? Did they not 'gatekeep' well enough?
How does that empower the woman who made a bad decision to go to his house? How does that help her?
In one case, the rest of the party also made a 'decision to go to his house'; are those decisions equally as bad, or is only her decision bad because she was the one he made moves on? And, even if a woman does make a 'bad decision', does that mean the man gets a 'free pass' to make a pass? Or assault her? Or
**** her? Just where do you expect a man to behave well?
All of you are so busy preaching morality you can't see the basic issue Kimmy is talking about or for that matter the basic facts. As Sir J has tried to say, men have a prime instinct a sexual drive. Its inherent. Its born within us. If we do not learn to repress it, chaos ensues and a stable society can not be built.
SJ, Kimmy and now you are so busy trying to blame the women and excuse the men in these scenarios that you are missing the point: both men and women have a sexual drive; it is up to both men and women to ensure the other person is 'into it', and neither side has a higher responsibility to 'prevent sex' and neither side gets to say "oh, but my drive is so much stronger, I just have to do anything to get some".
That is the most basic and fundamental of psychological and religious concepts.
It certainly is a *religious* concept.