I think the common understanding of what ra** is probably differs by age group too. From my perspective, it does not involve digital penetration, even though it seems to be the common current definition. When I was in my youth I'm sure that there was only one type of ra**.
The crude grab 'em quote was about people letting you grab them, rather than Carroll's claim of not letting them.
In Trump's case, I don't think liberals will be able to divorce themselves unpassionately from their political beliefs where there is 24/7 Trump bashing on all the news channels. They are convinced Trump is a bad man prior to any of these court cases coming out. Factor in it being in New York with a democrat judge, the chance of him getting a fair trial are zero.
Aside from Trump, I've always had huge skepticism of ra** claims against rich men. Sure, it happens. But there is also a huge financial motive for the accuser to transform their lives by making a claim. And if you look at the UK, the claimant remains anonymous whilst the accused has their reputation trashed. Just look what has happened to Russell Brand. They should also make the accused anonymous too, considering the reputational damage.
Also, when it comes to ra** cases, I keep hearing that the real figures of ra** are way higher and men get away with it because their isn't enough evidence. Well, how do you know they got away with it? If you haven't the evidence you don't know! And therefore you don't know what the real rates of ra** are.
I'm sure there are plenty of women who have been raped but don't report it. But there are also those who a) make false accusations, and b) later on decide it was non-consensual, because they changed their mind after the fact. And what about men? It seems rather odd in UK law that a drunk woman cannot consent because she is too drunk, but if both of them have sex, the man is the rapist, even though he is drunk too. Can something please explain that to me? Being drunk is about ones ability to make a decision, so why are they saying women can't and men can? It is an example of overreaching with legislation. I am surprised this type of discrimination against men is not outlawed, especially since everything is supposed to be equal nowadays. I would love to hear the counter argument to this, anyone?
