Exposing the stupidity, lies, and hypocrisy of Social Justice Warriors since July 2012
http://slymepit.com/phpbb/
[youtube]aLEZunJmyjw[/youtube]BarnOwl wrote:I read that as "anal cyst," but then I don't think much of Zvan and her crap writing.Hunt wrote: Does anyone mind if I ask a really dumb question. No, of course you don't...
What the hell is an "analyst." Psycho-analyst? Does she work for the CIA? What?
^^This.John D wrote:[I still think it is quite possible both parties think they are correct. They entered a personal negotiation phase which broke down. Now they may or may not continue through a civil legal process. It is really interesting to watch.
1) She may really think she was harassed and her employer didn't take appropriate action (or she had too little evidence to prove it)
2) He may think he was having a normal interaction with her and now she is claiming harassment
Once she brought this up publicly he felt he had been wronged and needed to restore his reputation. Once he sued her she was compelled to fight back to maintain her story and prove her honesty. It all makes perfect sense really.
This scenario still fits within the context of the communication we have seen.
Liar liar pants on fire!Skep tickle wrote:Haha. Oops. Just showing Spike13 what it looks like when you don't use Preview or your Edit button, do you buy that?
Spot on. I imagine that they both do believe they are correct.John D wrote:I still think it is quite possible both parties think they are correct. They entered a personal negotiation phase which broke down. Now they may or may not continue through a civil legal process. It is really interesting to watch.Cunning Punt wrote:Morning Pytters, I am just popping in because I thought you all might have something to say about the Retractiongate. And you do!
What a clusterfuck. I don't know who is guilty here, but all I know is one of those two people, and possibly both, is a giant douchebag. There's no reading of the situation where they are both acting in good faith and genuinely mistaken. Someone is a cunt. Human psychology is fascinating, isn't it?
1) She may really think she was harassed and her employer didn't take appropriate action (or she had too little evidence to prove it)
2) He may think he was having a normal interaction with her and now she is claiming harassment
Once she brought this up publicly he felt he had been wronged and needed to restore his reputation. Once he sued her she was compelled to fight back to maintain her story and prove her honesty. It all makes perfect sense really.
This scenario still fits within the context of the communication we have seen.
I agree 100%. These people are vile. They live in a world where everything is black and white and everyone who is not 100% for them is 100% against them. People like this always make the world a worse place to live. I hope they self destruct!feralandproud wrote:
My only issue is with the whole "sued into silence" cries from the peanut gallery. Just because libel lawsuits ARE often used to silence unpopular opinions, there's no reason to think this suit was filed in bad faith. I mean, it may have been, there's only one person who knows that for sure. The point is, casting aspersions without evidence is just as shitty and fucked up as filing a lawsuit just to shut someone up. But, you know, PATRIACHY!
Hello Skep tickle! Still pytting away I see! Always the voice of reason here.Skep tickle wrote:Hi, Cunning Punt! Long time no see.Cunning Punt wrote:Morning Pytters, I am just popping in because I thought you all might have something to say about the Retractiongate. And you do!
<snip>
^^This.John D wrote:[I still think it is quite possible both parties think they are correct. They entered a personal negotiation phase which broke down. Now they may or may not continue through a civil legal process. It is really interesting to watch.
1) She may really think she was harassed and her employer didn't take appropriate action (or she had too little evidence to prove it)
2) He may think he was having a normal interaction with her and now she is claiming harassment
Once she brought this up publicly he felt he had been wronged and needed to restore his reputation. Once he sued her she was compelled to fight back to maintain her story and prove her honesty. It all makes perfect sense really.
This scenario still fits within the context of the communication we have seen.
That's good to hear. Many years ago I was at work (night shift) watching TV during my lunch break and it happened to be on Fox News. It also just so happened to be a discussion with Ellen Johnson of AA talking about atheism. This was well before "new atheism" was a thing. Before 9/11. I like that AA actually does stuff. Even stuff I don't always personally agree with. Whatever...I'll let everyone get back to he said, she said.John D wrote:Silverman has been showing up on Fox News quite a bit too. He is on their "religion panel" with a crazy Rabbi and that Catholic nut Donohue. He holds his own with those guys and I think bit by bit he gets a few good points in. Hey, it is better than having no voice of atheism at all. I think Fox is interested in having a somewhat controversial panel, so Silverman gets a seat.debaser71 wrote:Remember when AA was going after the 9/11 cross? Do you remember when Silverman went on O'Reilly to talk about this? Do you remember what meme was started during that interview? "The tides go in, the tides go out". So, to me, backlash is something to consider but don't let it always outweigh potential unforeseen benefits.John D wrote:For anyone who cares to read it, here is the press release from AA on the Notary issue. I think it is quite good. They are only asking for an apology. What they are getting are lies from Bank Management. As I have said before. This is why I give them money. They do get some media attention. Sometimes they come across as mean and nasty, which may backfire a bit. But, I don't know how to raise awareness without poking some people in the eye a bit.
http://news.atheists.org/2014/03/27/ame ... statement/
And I am speaking to the general you. And more specifically to the atheist butter you. The "I'm an atheist but..." people.
Well that just sounds like a great big snarling nest of stress, mary, and like you could use a lot of pouncetugs and wincing laughs to get through the days; heaps of those to be found here.mary (abbie's ilk) wrote:Lumpectomy and 6 weeks daily radiation Rx has me away from the Pit for a bit..Mum has just had a lobectomy and I get to be her driver for her 6 weeks of radiation... I will never catch up...
but reading the Pit does provide a bit of comic relief at the end of the day..well, OK ..the Pit + 2 oxy's + soma + a few benzo's does the trick...snip
Agreed. In the end, it's all the same typical bullshit from this crowd. Of course it might not have gotten so out of hand if not for everyone's favorite sadfuck drama-monger, Peezus.John D wrote:I agree 100%. These people are vile. They live in a world where everything is black and white and everyone who is not 100% for them is 100% against them. People like this always make the world a worse place to live. I hope they self destruct!feralandproud wrote:
My only issue is with the whole "sued into silence" cries from the peanut gallery. Just because libel lawsuits ARE often used to silence unpopular opinions, there's no reason to think this suit was filed in bad faith. I mean, it may have been, there's only one person who knows that for sure. The point is, casting aspersions without evidence is just as shitty and fucked up as filing a lawsuit just to shut someone up. But, you know, PATRIACHY!
At any point in the process either of these fuckups could have de-escalated this. They thought they would be more famous and more powerful if they had a big public fight. He could have simply apologized at any point. He could have said that he thought his behavior was acceptable but now understands that it was not. Of course, the SJWs would have still gone after him, but he could have survived this and come out looking like a righteous person to most of us. At any time she could have said that she felt abused but it is possible he didn't mean to abuse her. They are both fucking assholes in my opinion.
I think you were right the first time. The "go ahead and post it if you feel like nothing will go wrong" move is hard to explain as anything but douchery. Radford was naive to think that he had it in the bag, but there is no way that leading him on like that was honorable or decent. Bad form at the very least.Cunning Punt wrote:Morning Pytters, I am just popping in because I thought you all might have something to say about the Retractiongate. And you do!
What a clusterfuck. I don't know who is guilty here, but all I know is one of those two people, and possibly both, is a giant douchebag. There's no reading of the situation where they are both acting in good faith and genuinely mistaken. Someone is a cunt. Human psychology is fascinating, isn't it?
http://img3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb2012 ... ase-2.jpegParody Accountant wrote:Hey guy, new rule for you:Spike13 wrote:Brive1987 wrote:Midnight Marauder is making a lonely foray onto the chill battlefield tonight. Full marks for a dogged rear guard action on this fell day.
Shitting in PZ's living room and then wiping his ass on the drapes....brilliant.
I like to picture PZ with bucket and scrub brush removing the offending entry's .
If Pariahgula is now " a party he would wish to attend" perhaps he shouldn't pass out so early.
PS PZ he second storied the toilet too.
Use the fucking preview button. Every time.
Most of us scroll past you because you fuck up quotes. It's incomprehensible.
Preview, then fix it. Then, preview again. Until you get the hang of it. How have you not figured it out yet?!
while mostly everyone is taking their preferred party and saying they are completely absolutely right and OTHERPARTY is absolutely lying, if this particular facet we are all in complete agreementAngry_Drunk wrote:Something occurred to me. When you take into account the fact that it is often difficult to understand emotional intent in text communications, Baxter's statement "go ahead and post it if you feel like nothing will go wrong" can easily be interpreted as a dare. Think something like "Go ahead and hit me if you think you can take me out".
Of course, Radford is still a monumental fucking moron for posting a gods damned thing before there was ink on a page.
OK, ok. I haven't actually mailed it yet. I won't be able to get to the post office until at least Tuesday. But totes on Tuesday -- I promise, Karen. Unless something goes wrong.Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote:100 would be two weeks groceries for us. Just sayin' :whistle:Matt Cavanaugh wrote: I contributed $100. Check's in the mail, Karen.
Read: Radford's lawyers warned PZ to stop libeling as well. With two homes and two household incomes to seize, it'd give Radford's litigation gambit a bigger potential payoff.SoylentAtheist wrote:So pz myers was offered evidence and he refused to even look at it; thus he may safely stick to his conclusions and assumptions without any of the icky thought-process going on. He certainly has left the skeptic community.
Even Bigfoot and the Chupacabras think Radford is a monumental fucking moron.rpguest wrote:while mostly everyone is taking their preferred party and saying they are completely absolutely right and OTHERPARTY is absolutely lying, if this particular facet we are all in complete agreementAngry_Drunk wrote:Something occurred to me. When you take into account the fact that it is often difficult to understand emotional intent in text communications, Baxter's statement "go ahead and post it if you feel like nothing will go wrong" can easily be interpreted as a dare. Think something like "Go ahead and hit me if you think you can take me out".
Of course, Radford is still a monumental fucking moron for posting a gods damned thing before there was ink on a page.
radford is a monumental fucking moron
then she'll be as mad as the koch brothers after 2012Sulman wrote:If her only defence is money, what if she loses the case?
I loved Hotel California back when my mom bought the album when it first came out. 18,935 times later on "classic rock"* stations, and I'm sick to death of it.Scented Nectar wrote:Hotel California is the one song that can turn me into a homicidal-minded maniac.another lurker wrote:[youtube]Qgyfn_eHfoo[/youtube]
[youtube]Wm-o7_VVAoU[/youtube]
Thank you, whoever posted this Eagles antidote video a while back. :D
the other interesting point is that since this communication was done via Facebook it is entirely plausible to point out Radford could have fabricated the entire conversation thread. Screenshots are easily faked even without psrpguest wrote:while mostly everyone is taking their preferred party and saying they are completely absolutely right and OTHERPARTY is absolutely lying, if this particular facet we are all in complete agreementAngry_Drunk wrote:Something occurred to me. When you take into account the fact that it is often difficult to understand emotional intent in text communications, Baxter's statement "go ahead and post it if you feel like nothing will go wrong" can easily be interpreted as a dare. Think something like "Go ahead and hit me if you think you can take me out".
Of course, Radford is still a monumental fucking moron for posting a gods damned thing before there was ink on a page.
radford is a monumental fucking moron
But it was insensitive :violin:Sunder wrote:SJWs are actually mad at Stephen Colbert for a joke done in service of their cause?
Fuck the lot of them. Moreso than usual.
:lol:Dick Strawkins wrote:Even Bigfoot and the Chupacabras think Radford is a monumental fucking moron.rpguest wrote:while mostly everyone is taking their preferred party and saying they are completely absolutely right and OTHERPARTY is absolutely lying, if this particular facet we are all in complete agreementAngry_Drunk wrote:Something occurred to me. When you take into account the fact that it is often difficult to understand emotional intent in text communications, Baxter's statement "go ahead and post it if you feel like nothing will go wrong" can easily be interpreted as a dare. Think something like "Go ahead and hit me if you think you can take me out".
Of course, Radford is still a monumental fucking moron for posting a gods damned thing before there was ink on a page.
radford is a monumental fucking moron
No. Their whole nefarious plan for taking over CfI (& Teh Movementâ„¢) was: This place is rotten with misogyny and sexual predation, and we're the only ones who canReally? wrote:Hmm...I'm a little surprised that I don't see any SJW hoping that "sexual assault" never happened in the first place. Shouldn't THAT be their hope?
:lol:JacquesCuze wrote:Email tells me I've been elevatorgated by Stephanie Zvan.... I feel so unclean, I am triggering with rage right now having tossed my surlies at this unsolicited storification.... Well, let's see what I could possibly have done....
https://storify.com/szvan/yay-more-people-to-block
http://i.imgur.com/vaJBmt0.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/c5dQ7f7.jpg
So that was a tweet not only worth blocking BUT worth storifying.
In fact, most of the storify reads that way. Any outside observer would look at most of who she blocks and conclude she is nuts.
https://storify.com/szvan/yay-more-people-to-block
http://i.imgur.com/Y7k05XJ.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/DSLfOUr.jpg
Jeez, I stopped reading after three pages, stopped counting after six pages.
I believe she is unemployed and yet, If I were hiring her as an analyst and saw this, I would think she was crazy, and trouble. If I were any in her team of therapists, I'd be rethinking dosages, and working to help her become functional again.
Maybe she is just pissed off because every time someone says her name it sounds like a pig call..... Suey, suey, suey....here piggy, piggy, piggy!feralandproud wrote:But it was insensitive :violin:Sunder wrote:SJWs are actually mad at Stephen Colbert for a joke done in service of their cause?
Fuck the lot of them. Moreso than usual.
The chick leading the charge seems like a real treat too. I'm surprised she hasn't been approached by FtB yet.
http://i.imgur.com/FoVGyj3.png
The CIA should use the song on loop as a torture method.Matt Cavanaugh wrote:I loved Hotel California back when my mom bought the album when it first came out. 18,935 times later on "classic rock"* stations, and I'm sick to death of it.Scented Nectar wrote:Hotel California is the one song that can turn me into a homicidal-minded maniac.another lurker wrote:[youtube]Qgyfn_eHfoo[/youtube]
[youtube]Wm-o7_VVAoU[/youtube]
Thank you, whoever posted this Eagles antidote video a while back. :D
* (a.k.a. 'my personal & emotional development stagnated in high school' stations)
She just seems crazy and bigoted to me.John D wrote:Maybe she is just pissed off because every time someone says her name it sounds like a pig call..... Suey, suey, suey....here piggy, piggy, piggy!feralandproud wrote:But it was insensitive :violin:Sunder wrote:SJWs are actually mad at Stephen Colbert for a joke done in service of their cause?
Fuck the lot of them. Moreso than usual.
The chick leading the charge seems like a real treat too. I'm surprised she hasn't been approached by FtB yet.
http://i.imgur.com/FoVGyj3.png
She drank the Cool-aid big time and of course, she has given me white-male SUPER POWERS! Everything important in her life involves me...Mr. Super Whiteman!
I can't believe they let you around drugs, sharp implements and medical devices.Skep tickle wrote:Haha. Oops. Just showing Spike13 what it looks like when you don't use Preview or your Edit button, do you buy that?
Tried fixing that, but for some reason the DB is screwed up. Don't have time to dig into. It's no biggie, realistically speaking.Skep tickle wrote:mary (abbie's ilk) - take care of yourself and your mom - what a rough patch you're both in, so sorry to hear it. Glad the 'Pit can provide some lulz when you have the chance to pop in amidst all that's going on IRL.
(Maybe now the fascist tit will change your 'nym color from newbie-gold to cool-kid-blue?)
I honestly don't think that Radford is that stupid --- actually, I don't think he's smart enough to pull off something that stupid.helenhighwater wrote:the other interesting point is that since this communication was done via Facebook it is entirely plausible to point out Radford could have fabricated the entire conversation thread. Screenshots are easily faked even without psrpguest wrote:while mostly everyone is taking their preferred party and saying they are completely absolutely right and OTHERPARTY is absolutely lying, if this particular facet we are all in complete agreementAngry_Drunk wrote:Something occurred to me. When you take into account the fact that it is often difficult to understand emotional intent in text communications, Baxter's statement "go ahead and post it if you feel like nothing will go wrong" can easily be interpreted as a dare. Think something like "Go ahead and hit me if you think you can take me out".
Of course, Radford is still a monumental fucking moron for posting a gods damned thing before there was ink on a page.
radford is a monumental fucking moron
I want my nym color to be somewhere between Juicy Cantaloupe and Luscious Mango:Skep tickle wrote:mary (abbie's ilk) - take care of yourself and your mom - what a rough patch you're both in, so sorry to hear it. Glad the 'Pit can provide some lulz when you have the chance to pop in amidst all that's going on IRL.
(Maybe now the fascist tit will change your 'nym color from newbie-gold to cool-kid-blue?)
i concur. just pointing out another possibility. very low probability considering his track record this far.Angry_Drunk wrote:I honestly don't think that Radford is that stupid --- actually, I don't think he's smart enough to pull off something that stupid.helenhighwater wrote:the other interesting point is that since this communication was done via Facebook it is entirely plausible to point out Radford could have fabricated the entire conversation thread. Screenshots are easily faked even without psrpguest wrote:while mostly everyone is taking their preferred party and saying they are completely absolutely right and OTHERPARTY is absolutely lying, if this particular facet we are all in complete agreementAngry_Drunk wrote:Something occurred to me. When you take into account the fact that it is often difficult to understand emotional intent in text communications, Baxter's statement "go ahead and post it if you feel like nothing will go wrong" can easily be interpreted as a dare. Think something like "Go ahead and hit me if you think you can take me out".
Of course, Radford is still a monumental fucking moron for posting a gods damned thing before there was ink on a page.
radford is a monumental fucking moron
But you make a good point. Any electronic communication is pretty easy to spoof.
I remember once, back in the day when the big thing among tech bloggers was posting supposed emails from Steve Jobs "confirming" whatever bullshit rumor was making the rounds that day, I ginned up an example of an email from "Steve" complete with "authentic" header information pointing to Apple's servers that proclaimed me Apple's new VP of Fucking With Bloggers. Took about 20 minutes total.
But again, I really can't get onboard the "Radford made up the whole 'retraction' to make Karen look bad" train. For one thing, dumb as Radford demonstrably is, pulling something like that off takes at least a certain low cunning that he has heretofore failed to demonstrate.
From this threadAnd here I thought you guys believed in “Survival of the Fittestâ€. PZ should be proud of this.
“fighting for what is right, †Out of curiosity, where do you get right and wrong in your worldview?
Info #582 “However, if we start with even a few “oughts,â€â€¦
Just know that you have to use the Christian worldview in order to have any “oughts.â€
Tried fixing that, but for some reason the DB is screwed up. Don't have time to dig into. It's no biggie, realistically speaking.Skep tickle wrote:mary (abbie's ilk) - take care of yourself and your mom - what a rough patch you're both in, so sorry to hear it. Glad the 'Pit can provide some lulz when you have the chance to pop in amidst all that's going on IRL.
(Maybe now the fascist tit will change your 'nym color from newbie-gold to cool-kid-blue?)
I am sorry that you found it triggering, SN. Don Henley is a pretentious douchebag, this is true. I was forced to listen to Henley and the Eagles while growing up because my dad loved them. I remember spending hours listening to this album, The End of the Innocence. I cunt listen to it to this day. Probably his most pretentious work. However, it was absolutely wonderful source material when I used to troll the 'intellectuals' on IRC DALnet. I would crib from that album, and dumbfucks thought I was *profound*.Scented Nectar wrote:Hotel California is the one song that can turn me into a homicidal-minded maniac.another lurker wrote:[youtube]Qgyfn_eHfoo]
[youtube]Wm-o7_VVAoU
Thank you, whoever posted this Eagles antidote video a while back. :D
Who gave you the right tp steal my illustrator's work?
At the time I saw it as a :Angry_Drunk wrote:Something occurred to me. When you take into account the fact that it is often difficult to understand emotional intent in text communications, Baxter's statement "go ahead and post it if you feel like nothing will go wrong" can easily be interpreted as a dare. Think something like "Go ahead and hit me if you think you can take me out".
Of course, Radford is still a monumental fucking moron for posting a gods damned thing before there was ink on a page.
Breaking News! Manager for feminist/hip hop group "Bigfoot and the Chupacabras" announces they will sue Benjamin Radford for claiming they don't exist.Even Bigfoot and the Chupacabras think Radford is a monumental fucking moron.
Reading between the lines of Radford's false allegations post, I suspect he believes Stollznow made these up cuz Bax caught her during a root in the boot with her old flame. Stollz clearly believes that her 'lived experience' trumps the law -- if she calls it sexual assault, then shut up and listen.Dave wrote:Spot on. I imagine that they both do believe they are correct.
Of course -- they're both members of the Twitterati, after all.I still think they are both narcissistic douchenozzles.
Josh Zepps:
No one's minimalizing your experiences, no one's minimalizing your right to have an opinion. It's just a stupid opinion.
You mentioned men’s changing role in family life. What do you think of the “end of men†type arguments?
In some senses, men are where women were 30 years ago. Fifty years ago, women were told, this is your place, stay in it. But about 30 years ago, it was, yes, you can do other things, but you must not compromise your femininity in doing it. You still have to be attractive and sexy. A lot of women have learned that you can throw out the old ideas about what makes you feminine. Men are at the point where they’re beginning to discover that there are things beyond the old notion of masculinity that are rewarding. Yes, intimacy is important. You ought to share housework with your wife. At the same time, they’re being told—and not just by society but by women who subscribe to these conflicting messages about masculinity—that they should be disclosing but not weak. They should be gentle but still willing to kill a mouse. They’re getting these messages that somehow they have to live up to a norm of masculinity that includes all the old protective, provider roles, but also the new ones.
Brive is a non-profitPhil_Giordana_FCD wrote:Who gave you the right tp steal my illustrator's work?
(No really, this is a piece by Gonzalo "Genzo" Ordonez Arias, my graphic artist for the past 7 years).
They should make a Chanty Binx talking doll. Of course, every time you'd pull the string, it'd say the same thing.Really? wrote:Good for a chuckle:
[youtube]d_165UJ82NM[/youtube]
UPDATE: More Than a Fighting Chance
What can I say? I am speechless with gratitude for all the generosity you have shown me in the short time this campaign has been live. As I write this, only a day has passed since I made this page, and together you have surpassed my original goal by over $10,000.
When I started this campaign, I honestly doubted that I could raise $30,000, the bare minimum I needed to go forward with defending myself. I have never been more humbled or grateful to be wrong. Your additional donations will go toward what could be a very expensive legal battle indeed (some estimates for lawyer fees alone are above $50,000), with any remainder at the end of the case going toward the sexual assault victims' center.
Your donations will also help me to consider a counter suit, for the extreme damages I have suffered at the hands of my harasser and false accuser. Together, we can show victims that they have a voice.
My original $30,000 goal was simply to give me a fighting chance. Now, thanks to your continued support, I have a chance to fight.
Thank you from the bottom of my heart.
-Karen
Dick Strawkins wrote:UPDATE: More Than a Fighting Chance
What can I say? I am speechless with gratitude for all the generosity you have shown me in the short time this campaign has been live. As I write this, only a day has passed since I made this page, and together you have surpassed my original goal by over $10,000.
When I started this campaign, I honestly doubted that I could raise $30,000, the bare minimum I needed to go forward with defending myself. I have never been more humbled or grateful to be wrong. Your additional donations will go toward what could be a very expensive legal battle indeed (some estimates for lawyer fees alone are above $50,000), with any remainder at the end of the case going toward the sexual assault victims' center.
Your donations will also help me to consider a counter suit, for the extreme damages I have suffered at the hands of my harasser and false accuser. Together, we can show victims that they have a voice.
My original $30,000 goal was simply to give me a fighting chance. Now, thanks to your continued support, I have a chance to fight.
Thank you from the bottom of my heart.
-Karen
So... she would have donate the excess money to the sexual assault victims' center, but now that the excess money amounts to $20k she's going to keep it?Dick Strawkins wrote:UPDATE: More Than a Fighting Chance
What can I say? I am speechless with gratitude for all the generosity you have shown me in the short time this campaign has been live. As I write this, only a day has passed since I made this page, and together you have surpassed my original goal by over $10,000.
When I started this campaign, I honestly doubted that I could raise $30,000, the bare minimum I needed to go forward with defending myself. I have never been more humbled or grateful to be wrong. Your additional donations will go toward what could be a very expensive legal battle indeed (some estimates for lawyer fees alone are above $50,000), with any remainder at the end of the case going toward the sexual assault victims' center.
Your donations will also help me to consider a counter suit, for the extreme damages I have suffered at the hands of my harasser and false accuser. Together, we can show victims that they have a voice.
My original $30,000 goal was simply to give me a fighting chance. Now, thanks to your continued support, I have a chance to fight.
Thank you from the bottom of my heart.
-Karen
In order to sue Radford, wouldn't she first have to be found not guilty in this libel suit? Talk about counting chickens. The fact that she never considered filing a lawsuit in the past, especially since there's so much "hard evidence" laying around, makes me doubt her chances.Dick Strawkins wrote:In other words, she's going to use the money to sue Radford!
Myth 1 - Men cannot be sexually assaulted by women
A recent U.S. study reveals a surprising number of young men have been coerced into sex by women. Out of 284 high school and university-aged men, 43 per cent say they've had unwanted sexual contact. Of those victims, 95 per cent say a female acquaintance was the aggressor and 18 per cent say a female used physical force to make them have sex against their will.
Myth 2 - Men can't experience erections during a sexual assault
Men's bodies can respond in unexpected ways during a sexual assault that in no way reflects emotionally how they feel about the situation. Erection or ejaculation can still occur. Perpetrators will often use the conflicted feelings that result as a way to prevent the victim from reporting the offence, hoping the victim will blame himself for the arousal.
Also see: Teen says selfie addiction ruined his life
Myth 3 - Gay men are the biggest perpetrators of sexual assault on boys
Sexual assault is about exerting power and control over an individual and often has little to do with sex. Sexual assaults are often completely unrelated to the offender's expression of his sexual orientation.
Myth 4 - Some people aren't physically strong enough to commit sexual assault
Sexual assault is not just about physical force. It often happens through coercion or manipulation, and can involve the use objects.
Also see: How often do men really think about sex?
Myth 5 - Men who have been sexually assaulted will eventually become offenders
This myth is particularly prevalent regarding young boys who have been abused. Research shows the majority of boys who have been sexually assaulted do not go on to sexually assault others as adults.
