Cory1848

That’s all fine and well; I would call you out on your quickness to publicly dismiss and condemn a whole category of humanity while simultaneously saying you “can’t be bothered” to learn anything about it, but so be it. As for “maybe [being] an ar$ehole,” I’m in no position to say, but maybe “grumpy old man”? I find that the latter term often describes myself perfectly ... Cheers.

Two quick things I saw were wrong in your assessment here: (1) your statement that transgenderism is a “mental problem coupled with homosexual wiring” (gender identity and sexual orientation are two entirely different things, and a “mental problem” only results when a transgender person is forced into accepting the gender they were assigned at birth); and (2) your notion that “nobody really takes them seriously” and that “most of us don’t want to accept” them. I think you’re simply wrong about that, or get the wrong idea from the company you keep or what you read. At least in the Western world and in tolerant societies elsewhere like Thailand and the Philippines, I think most people are quite open to transgenderism. Sure, there’s a reaction against it, but the reactionaries are generally in a minority. Here’s a couple of links I quickly found online. The American Psychological Association gives a good overview. Wikipedia has exhaustive information about the history of transgenderism. And Scientific American goes into the biology of it, in layperson’s terms. Might be worth looking at; I have had a hard time myself wrapping my brain around it, but I try to read, and listen, and understand. https://www.apa.org/topics/lgbtq/transgender-people-gender-identity-gender-expression https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_history https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/stop-using-phony-science-to-justify-transphobia/

What a piece of work. You may think you’re speaking “truth” but the fact is you’re clueless. Transgender people have been around for all of recorded history, and the fact that you regard it as “perversity” rather than what is actually the case (a brain that’s wired somewhat differently, as someone here characterized it) speaks to your own intolerance. Being 75 years old (or whatever you said your age was) doesn’t give you wisdom; it means you’re unteachable.

“Ladyboy” is a perfectly good and nonoffensive word; I often use it. However, “transgender” is also a good word, and I often use that as well, depending on context. If you believe that the word “transgender” pollutes the English language, that’s your problem and no one else’s. Languages evolve organically: deal with it.

The article said that she reported a sexual assault, that the police had enough evidence to arrest and detain the guy, and that somewhere during this time he confessed to “the crime,” which is “sexual assault.” I assume the article was written in English; the writer is Thai, and I assume they are able to read police reports in Thai and translate them correctly into English. To confess is <สารภาพ>. Sexual assault is <การล่วงละเมิดทางเพศ>. It would be hard to mistranslate either of those words. Those are my assumptions. You’re assuming that Thai cops and Thai reporters don’t know how to do their jobs, in an effort to impose your own male-centric narrative on this whole sorry incident. If you have access to the Thai-language police reports, go wild, and if you find errors showing that the man is in fact innocent, I’ll profusely apologize. Meantime, basta.

For the billionth time, the man already confessed to sexually assaulting the woman! What don't you get about that?

Perhaps the woman was foolish, or naïve, or gullible, or too trustworthy; who knows. I myself wouldn’t recommend that any female friend of mine do the same thing. But the problem here is, by saying “Yes, the guy shouldn’t have done it, *but the woman ...*,” you’re engaging in a sort of false equivalence, pivoting the story to lay some blame on the woman, who after all is the victim here. Why not say instead, “Yes, the guy shouldn’t have done it [in this case, he’s already confessed to sexual assault], *and I hope the woman gets her day in court and doesn’t suffer any long-lasting trauma from the experience.*” I’m not referring to you (charmonman), but the majority of people posting here twist the story completely around to lay most if not all of the blame on the woman, as though by her giving the guy the benefit of the doubt, that gave him a god-given right as a male animal to attack her. This I find sickening.

Oh, boo hoo. Men (especially Christian white men) are the most oppressed demographic on the planet (?) Gimme a break ...

Elise Stefanik is a Republican, in fact the fourth-ranking Republican in the House and the worst sort of Trump sycophant. For as much as you've posted on this thread, you really don't seem to know what you're talking about. And with each post, it's the same inaccurate and misinformed mantra over and over. Move on, man!

She said that he sexually assaulted her, and he confessed. Sexual assault is a crime. It's really that simple.

According to the original article, the woman said that sexual assault occurred, and the man confessed to the crime and was arrested. That seems pretty clear to me; why do we need to know about her bruises, if any, for the purposes of general discussion? What’s weird, though, is that you’re bending over backward to defend this guy, casting doubt on the woman’s story even though he confessed.

That’s absurd -- if a man is “excitable” and behaves like a dog, that excuses his behavior? He is 100% responsible: if he is “excitable,” he has lots of options that don’t involve assaulting the woman. Even if the woman is “loose,” wearing sexy clothes, flirtatious, comes on a like a dog in heat herself, the moment she says “no” or pushes him away, that means stop.

Sorry, I was simply parroting the language of the person I was responding to, who wrote “Women often take too many risks.”

I don’t know what you’re saying. There’s a pretty big difference between wanting to have sex and being willing to assault someone against her will to get it.

Thank you for posting that. And further to your last comment, it is *unnatural* for a man to want to rape or physically assault a woman who has said “no” in plain English, casual acquaintance or not.

It’s very unlikely that you’ll be accused of sexual assault unless you actually commit sexual assault. That said, your arrangement with your massage lady sounds like a safe bet all around.

Ha ha. Which is all the Commander wanted to do with the Handmaid, literally play Scrabble, in Margaret Atwood’s novel. As far as I can tell, most people posting here would feel right at home in Atwood’s dystopian world.

I’m not saying whether she was smart or not; I don’t know the woman; but that doesn’t matter in the least. What matters is, you’re putting the blame entirely on her for being attacked by a date who turned on her. I do not live in “cuckooland,” nor am I “naïve,” thank you. But you have a depraved view of humanity. Good luck with that.

I was merely parroting the wording of whatever misogynist it was I was responding to.

This is pure victim blaming. You’re blaming women for not thinking, rather than men who violently assault them. The vast majority of men are not criminals, but maybe you hang out in a different crowd than I do.

More victim blaming! She expected that he would respect her wishes, as almost all men would; that he would not suddenly become an animal and assault her. Posts like yours are not so much misogynistic as man-hating, you seem to have so little regard for the civility of your own gender (assuming that you’re a man).

Sure, if she really liked the guy after their date and wanted to see him again, he should have been happy to get her phone # and go back to his own flat to sleep. So maybe she lacked common sense and took a risk, having known the guy for only one date. But she said “no sex” up-front, and frankly I’ve never known any men personally in 60+ years who would have forced themselves on a woman against her will regardless of whether they were invited to her flat, and many men I’ve known are not “gentlemen.” If a guy has that hard a time controlling his sexual urges, he probably needs therapy.

One does not have to be a “perfect gentleman” to not get off on physically forcing oneself on a woman who is trying to shove you away. In fact, one has to be an animal to want to do that, sort of like the primate pictured as your avatar. Blaming the woman in a case like this, as many posts here seem to be doing, is outrageous and disgusting.

Men often commit too much rape.

Trump is “hated by the Left” (in fact by a substantial majority of the US electorate) because they firmly reject the direction he has promised to take the country. He is being PROsecuted (not “persecuted”) for crimes for which he has been indicted (four times, totaling 91 felony counts), and for which a growing number of former insiders are lining up to testify. If I have any technical questions about banking, I’ll come to you for sure. If I want a clear-eyed evaluation of political candidates, I’ll turn elsewhere.