[POLL] Do you think Kavanaugh is a sex offender?

So why do evangelicals support and abet Trump again?

Free publicity?

 

Because they are fake Christians.

Jesus would be washing the poor's feet.

DD

 

https://www.thedailybeast.com/new-b...-sundance-doc-justice?source=articles&via=rss

 

Inside Sundance’s Top-Secret Brett Kavanaugh Documentary

https://www.rollingstone.com/tv-mov...entary-doug-liman-deborah-ramirez-1234665450/

 

So, not much new there. Drunken college students doing sex stuff on each other "without consent" in the 80s does not seem like a startling revelation. Would this incident have been particularly controversial in 1983, when it's alleged to have happened? Judging by the movies of the time, I think not.

There's a basic principle that some folks on the Left have a difficult time with. Don't judge people's past actions from decades ago (especially if they were young and immature, as 18 year olds frequently are) according to the social mores of today.

 

It's not a normal college activity to have your buddy force your dick in a girl's mouth.

 

Haven't read the article but did you mean with consent? If you meant without... was it not illegal in the 80s??? If not illegal, I would think it's still extremely problematic.

 

But if activity is wrong now, it was wrong then. The fact that we've become more enlightened in that area now doesn't excuse a wrong activity.

It would mean that the perpetrator didn't have malice in their minds when they committed the act. But if it isn't okay now, it wasn't okay then.

 

No, I meant without consent while both parties were very drunk. I don't think the described incident would have been considered illegal back then, and I'm not sure it would have been viewed as "extremely problematic" (any more so than drunken hazing, which was very common). I didn't go to college in the mid 80s, so maybe I'm off base. I'm judging this based on movies of the time where violating young women while drunk was seemingly a rite of passage and was often portrayed as comedic rowdiness.

 

In a sense I agree. But punishing someone today because they performed actions long ago that are highly inappropriate according to today's standards is, to me, not fair. Delayed punishment for past actions is only warranted if they violated rules of the time.

 

Okay.

 

Dang. That was very very wrong in my book in the 80s. I was not ever aware it was a rite of passage or of any normality, ever. And if I was aware of it, I wouldn't think it's right. It's pretty simple thinking for me -- I have sisters, a mother, and aunties... not ever morally okay to treat females like that.

 

I find it kind of an odd choice for this director, given his other work and given that this "case" will always be one of historical one person's account versus another person's account, where nearly all involved, including witnesses were intoxicating.

I'm not voicing an opinion on Kav-bro or any of the allegations. I just don't understand the point. His past behavior was relevant and (IMO) fair game when legislators were considering a critical lifetime appointment. If you're going after Kav-bro why not Clarence Thomas? And even then, why? Would a director hope to shame a justice into suddenly retiring? That's not going to happen. And none of what we've heard can suddenly become a criminal case.

Maybe I'm missing something. Maybe the director knows something and the "documentary" is step 1, but I wonder if he just spent too much time at the dailykos or some similar echo chamber. Or maybe the point is to just put other men on notice for their behavior moving forward. Like, "society won't turn a blind eye anymore. behave yourselves."

 

I think most of us did things when we were younger that we regret and I know personally I'm glad we didn't have cell phones with camera's and the internet widely available when I was in college in the 90's. That said things like rape and sexual assault were crimes then as they are now. One of the lawyers can correct me on this but I don't think there is a statute of limitations on rape.

In the case of Brett Kavanaugh there have been a lot of accusations but very little solid evidence. Even Dr. Ford's testimony couldn't be corroborated. I would be hesitant to consider any "documentary" claiming that Kavanaugh was a sexual predator as completely factual.

 

While I agree, I’d just retort that most of us aren’t on the Supreme Court with higher standards.

 

Do you have examples? I remember thinking the Steve Martin movie Roxanne the first time I saw it was a bit ****ed up because she basically got tricked into sleeping with someone who wasn't at all who she thought he was. Then she still ends up with the guy who orchestrated her sleeping with someone who was willing to play along and George Santos his way into her bed. And Steve Martin still gets the girl and all is considered completely normal and his character is considered a good guy despite his orchestrations that lead her to sleeping with the wrong man she was really interested in. Personally, I'd think someone so insecure that they'd rather lie from the moment they made it known they were attracted to me and kept up the charade until I caught wise to it; It would not lead me to continue to stick around and fall in love with that person and find them trustworthy to share my body, my finances and the unknown remaining duration that is my valued life with them anymore. I mean would you settle with someone you could never really trust and already demonstrated through meticulous orchestration their willingness to carry a multitude of lies to the end until caught?

 

I had no idea people raping each other in college was such a nothingburger in the 80s. Gen X really goes hard.

 

Between high school and college, I saw a lot of extremely questionable behavior. Sexual assault, harassment, and rape all happened in some form. There were almost no ****s given by many about taking advantage of drunk girls.

 

Revenge of the Nerds had a scene where the protagonist has sex with a women while she thinks he is her boyfriend. Not even drunk there, but it was done for laughs.

More on “rape culture” in 80s movies:

https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/cu...en-candles-rape-culture-1980s-brett-kavanaugh

 

Understanding that still, do you find it a credible excuse for someone in real life to commit such acts just because they saw it in the movies of the time? I find it similar to making the argument that first person shooter video games or rap music or metal are causes for in real life violence when there's no credible evidence to support such assertions. "I'm sorry sir, I didn't mean to commit first degree murder. All those gangsta rap lyrics and times I listened to Burzum influenced my judgment and made me value human life so little that in a momentary lapse of weakness I decided to kill someone. It's not me that's responsible for any of my actions. It's the culture of the time that brainwashed me into such actions." Would you buy that bullshit? Because that's seems like what's being presented. It's not Kavanaugh's own actions that put him into some rapey situations. It's the culture of the 80s. That's some affluenza bullshit in my opinion.