On Female Vulnerability!

[B/W Photodude]

11 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

so as long as the guy is drunk, then he is covered?? wow. Double coverage if you are stoned instead, eh?

I think you are not understanding what I wrote. I was pointing out that often you have TWO intoxicated persons each agreeing to have sex and do. Then in the morning, one regrets what she did and claims rape. It has often occurred on college campuses that the claim of rape is not even made for months ofter "the event." Guaranteed, many a guy and girl have woken up in the morning (beer goggles gone) and looked at what they drug home from the bar and had sex with and were not happy with what they found. Never heard of a guy in the situation trying to throw the woman in prison for it!

If you are actually going to hold the man responsible for whatever happens even when intoxicated and the woman is given a pass for responsibility when intoxicated, then there is no equality here. The man is held to a higher standard, which suggest a superior level of accountability!

All this aside, people come here to have conversation and discuss topics. Too often, there is mockery of others online and that is unbecoming of people who claim to be Christians. It is one thing to disagree, but quite the other to degrade a fellow poster.

[B/W Photodude]

1 hour ago, bonnie said:

I had a manager fired for sexual harassment,some called it sexual assault. He was guilty as could be for inappropriate behavior. Absolutely deserved to be fired. However the woman involved should also have been fired. The manager could have stopped her inappropriate behavior towards him but chose not to for obvious reasons. He was the manager and had the authority. All was fine and fun and games until the manager had to fire a friend of hers. She then claimed the manager had been sexually harassing her for a long time

Many went to management and explained the coworker was as guilty as anyone for instigating much of it and thought she should be fired as well. And no it was not because she was intimidated or feared for her job in anyway.

Management claimed "she was vulnerable". She was about as vulnerable as a python.

I find it bizarre how many women take advantage of situations such as the Harvey Weinstein girls to advance their careers, but hold on to their "rape cards" sometimes for decades before pulling them out to use them. Review when all these events were alleged to have occurred.

[Gregory Matthews]

Folks,  my response is not to SDA standards.  Rather it is to accepted ethical standards of our society to include the law:

*  Physicians are not to be sexually involved with patients.

*  Psychologists are not to be sexually involved with clients.

*  Clergy are not to be sexually involved with members of their congregations.

*  Supervisors are not to be sexually involved with people whom they supervise.

*  Violations may result in conviction of statutory rape.

Why?  Because of the power difference and the potential harm that can occur.  Violations may result in  criminal prosecution, termination of employment, loss of professional license, and/or more.

In the example given it may be assumed that the organization had a policy and that the manager was aware of the consequences of violating that policy.

 

[B/W Photodude]

4 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

Oh, really?? Well help yourself!!

Sorry! Not well separated out from rest of post. Not referring to you.

[debbym]

do the words female vulnerability equate with female victim?  It should not.

anywhere there is unequal power there is vulnerability, and  potential for exploitation of the less powerful.

this is true for parents, aunts, uncles, grandparents, lawyers, teachers, Dr.'s, therapists, aka know as "the-rapists", ICE agents, police, judges... there are a lot of laws and rules around these positions to protect from abuse of position or power.  and poor behavior of those with less power does not justify harmful actions of those in position of greater defined power. There were interesting lessons from Hitler's abuse of power all the way through his political and military ranks.

remember the experiment in America with the administration of electric shocks?  and the person who thought they were giving the shocks, believed they had no responsibility and were the object of the experiment

and in issues of domestic violence there is education that reveals the individual's part who appears less powerful but who is playing the stronger one to have power over them.   it seems the thrill of having your life endangered is addictive to some.

if i am drunk with another guy and we have an argument, fight, disagreement... and he kills me... he is culpable.  it goes both ways.   if it is a lesser offensiveness, usually i have an option whether to press charges.

it is amazing the crimes that are committed and then the victim decides to not press charges.  of course there is a certain degree of crime and the state takes action regardless.

[bonnie]

4 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Folks,  my response is not to SDA standards.  Rather it is to accepted ethical standards of our society to include the law:

*  Physicians are not to be sexually involved with patients.

*  Psychologists are not to be sexually involved with clients.

*  Clergy are not to be sexually involved with members of their congregations.

*  Supervisors are not to be sexually involved with people whom they supervise.

*  Violations may result in conviction of statutory rape.

Why?  Because of the power difference and the potential harm that can occur.  Violations may result in  criminal prosecution, termination of employment, loss of professional license, and/or more.

In the example given it may be assumed that the organization had a policy and that the manager was aware of the consequences of violating that policy.

 

Obviously the behavior went against company policy. There isn't any excuse for the manager's conduct. None whatsoever. The behavior of the woman employee was also against company policy. Coming up behind the manager and putting her arms around him and grabbing him in front was not behavior acceptable for an employee. 

He was a exceptional manager,never was inappropriate with anyone else,complete idiocy for what he was willing to throw away. He paid a fair and stiff price for his behavior. The young woman for being more than a willing half of the inappropriate behavior was called vulnerable. 

Women can be vindictive instead of vulnerable. I believe that most women that report rape are telling the truth. There are some women and I suspect they are mostly young women that set the stage and enjoy the game up and till. Some I am sure feel they can control the scenerio. Sadly find out they have been playing around with those that take what their words and actions say. Believing they are on the same page and understand the rules. 

The men should be held accountable but the "You have a right" You were vulnerable" isn't very helpful and can be downright dangerous. Laying in a back alley beaten and raped is small consolation for "You have a right to say,do and act anyway you choose.You should not expect consequences for any actions"

[LifeHiscost]

23 hours ago, bonnie said:

 

Management claimed "she was vulnerable". She was about as vulnerable as a python.

Many years ago I had a young woman express the same thing to me. Male/female have fallen natures. There is only one antidote.

7Submit yourselves, then, to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. 8Draw near to God, and He will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded.… James 4

God is Love!~Jesus saves!