but to pretend it’s not a possibility is wrong.

The number of these guys that honestly think she “only” gave non-verbal cues (which are often MORE clear than verbal ones) despite the article being clear that she eventually verbalized them is staggering to me.

Because she couldn’t say no or stop — or just leave?

Kaaaannnng. You’re being too hard on yourself again!

Cute. You don’t realize that that statement is inherently contradictory?

That’s why you’re diluting responsibility as much as possible, attacking a maximum number of people. Because that’s “holding those responsible accountable”. You’re doing those responsible a favor.

Not ad hominem - LOL!

I’m not making any cartwheels and I’m not explaining why she did or didn’t do anything. What she did or didn’t do was irrelevant. None of it reflects some responsibility in her own assault. If it was a good “strategy,” bad strategy, doesn’t matter—none of it is relevant. *He* assaulted *her.*

You’re a really confused person.

Smearing everyone and their father has precisely nothing to do with talking about the men that perpetrated anything.

That was not an ad hominem. You should look that up before you use it again.

I choose to use common sense in these instances. People don’t make this stuff up, her account is extremely detailed, she obviously knows/ is in contact with him, and he made a half-assed apology.

Do you have written permission by her to use your in your campaign against Cameron?

How desperate are you to not have a woman take responsibility for verbalizing her feelings?

Well here maybe this helps—this response was pedantic.

I would say you’re an idiot but you’re making that obvious.

Pedantic? Are you sure you know what that means?

He was sticking his fingers down her throat and willfully ignoring her non-verbal and verbal signals of non-consent.

So this is the third time, but she did verbalize her objections. It helps to read the entire story.

I haven’t really misjudged anything.