women's march

[billvon]

IAnd when something isn’t sexual assault, consent has a different relevancy.

No, it really doesn't. In fact, if you do something sexual to any person at all, whether or not it is assault depends on whether they consent.

The fact that someone is offended by an action does not necessarily determine the general nature of the act

Correct. If someone is offended by something but consented to it, then they may be angry, but there was no assault.

That’s the point, pretending to grope, not actually groping. Getting consent violates the requirements for this particular prank.

OK. If that's the case, then anyone who performs such a prank is guilty of sexual assault.

Let's take an example. A woman gets drunk at a party and passes out. Guys take turns undressing and then posing with her open mouth millimeters from their genitals. (Might be touching; can't really tell from the picture, but they all say they didn't touch her.) They show the pictures around. Then when confronted on it, they say "hey, it was just a prank!" She is horrified that someone would do that to her, and says very clearly it was not OK with her.

In your view of the world, is that assault?

The risk Franken took was that she would be offended by it, which apparently she was, but her offense does not necessarily make it what it isn’t.

Again, offense doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if she was offended, or horrified, or just angry, or depressed. What matters is that he didn't ask, she didn't consent, he then did something sexual, and afterwards she said that she didn't consent, wouldn't have done so and that she was not OK with him doing it. THAT is what matters.

There were all kinds of contractual restriction on Allen Funt’s behavior while on the show that had nothing to do with legality. Had he preformed in a less restricted media platform that allowed him to be more edgy, who knows what he would’ve done.

True. He might have been the next Harvey Weinstein. Fortunately, he was not.

 

[iceaura]

Let's take an example. A woman gets drunk at a party and passes out. Guys take turns undressing and then posing with her open mouth millimeters from their genitals. (Might be touching; can't really tell from the picture, but they all say they didn't touch her.) They show the pictures around. Then when confronted on it, they say "hey, it was just a prank!" She is horrified that someone would do that to her, and says very clearly it was not OK with her.

So you are - as everyone is who attempts this - forced to invent circumstances significantly different from the actual Franken situation in order to clearly and plausibly assign the label "sexual assault", with all its connotations.
The name acquires the attribute of the thing. Not vice versa. First Law of Advertising.
(Countered with "throw enough mud and some will stick" - First Law of Agitprop)

Again, offense doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if she was offended, or horrified, or just angry, or depressed. What matters is that he didn't ask, she didn't consent, he then did something sexual, and afterwards she said that she didn't consent, wouldn't have done so and that she was not OK with him doing it. THAT is what matters.

What he actually did also matters. If, say, he made a self-mocking joke in the course of a raucous flight home after a successful tour, motivated by and in complete alignment with his standard role as villainous letcher on stage, and Tweeden deliberately took it out of context in order to suggest a focused attempt to humiliate her that she knew not to have happened, would that alter your assessment of "sexual assault"? You still have lack of consent, etc, - all the facts on the table unaltered.

 

[parmalee]

To that extent the act must be described without reference to the intent, or inferences from the intent.
There is no evidence, for example - not even an accusation - that Franken ever "grabbed boobs" without consent.
That he threatened, retaliated against, or persisted in harassing*, anyone.
Remove the inference of intent, and his actions become by turns trivial and innocent.
Very few people believe that, of course - or should, imho - but that's because they infer intent of some kind, perhaps folded into attitude. The entire issue with Franken is one of intention, attitude: that's what determines what the "anything" is that remains unexcused.

I don't disagree with you in that there is a seeming absence of prospective intentions in most of the Franken incidents (I disagree with respect to the Tweeden one)--or, at least, absent from the available evidence. But again, given the serial nature, the inference of intent is more than reasonable. (Also, intent isn't necessarily always teleologically oriented--well, that's debatable and has been debated for ages. Regardless, that's not pertinent to Franken's case insofar as inference of attitude cover "with which.")

But how should that have impacted the response to Franken? Franken's behavior was not like Harvey Weinstein's (and I think very few people have suggested otherwise), but how do Franken's actions differ significantly from, say, a guy at a nightclub or concert who gropes random women, and then never encounters them or has anything to do with them from that point onwards?

 

[iceaura]

But again, given the serial nature, the inference of intent is more than reasonable.

Of course.
The question was and is: what was the nature of that intent?

But how should that have impacted the response to Franken?

That is a question I think should have been central, rather than dismissed out of hand - its mere consideration an example of rape culture advocacy, misogyny, depraved and amoral political expediency.

Franken's behavior was not like Harvey Weinstein's (and I think very few people have suggested otherwise)

Joke?
The lumping of Franken and Weinstein, Franken and Moore, etc, was all but universal. Those who pushed back on it were publicly disparaged by the high moral grounders. You can't seriously maintain that only very few people - including Tweeden herself, on her radio show - "suggested" such a common classification scheme.

 

[billvon]

What he actually did also matters.

Yes it does. If he mimed putting a silly hat on her head, it would not have been an issue. Miming grabbing her breasts was.

If, say, he made a self-mocking joke in the course of a raucous flight home after a successful tour, motivated by and in complete alignment with his standard role as villainous letcher on stage, and Tweeden deliberately took it out of context in order to suggest a focused attempt to humiliate her that she knew not to have happened, would that alter your assessment of "sexual assault"? You still have lack of consent, etc, - all the facts on the table unaltered.

So you are - as everyone is who attempts this - forced to invent circumstances significantly different from the actual Franken situation in order to defend his actions.

 

[paddoboy]

While it may be tempting to dismiss such occurrences as “minor” or “harmless”, ​

​

Because it is minor and harmeles

Why are you arguing for the protection and continuation of sexual harassment of women in the street, paddoboy?

You have a history of accusing anyone that disagrees with you as condoning everything from what you term as sexual harassment to rape. I don't expect that to stop now.

Wolf whistling women is often sexual harassment. Why do you think it is acceptable behaviour?

There you go again...taking anyone that disagrees with you, including fellow mods out of context. I have said it is harmless fun, just as many women also think, despite you ignoring those earlier examples.

So you are using a term, the history of which you do not know or understand and you deliberately attribute the fight for women's fundamental human rights with Nazism.

You got it!!! https://www.google.com.au/search?q=...e..69i57j0.10231j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
feminazi
ˈfɛmɪnɑːtsi/
noun
derogatory
noun: feminazi; plural noun: feminazis; noun: femi-nazi; plural noun: femi-nazis

1. a radical feminist.

And what extreme view? Do you still not understand that when men catcall women, we don't know what comes next? We start to think about how he will respond if we ignore him, if we respond, if we smile it will encourage it, if we don't respond as he wants us to, what happens then? Women are being assaulted and murdered for not responding to street harassment, paddoboy.

On a public street, on a building site which was the example I first used, in the middle of the day, it is obvious to any normal thinking person without an agenda, an act of frivolity and harmless fun, as many women will agree.

Why do you think this is acceptable? And why do you view our demands that this behaviour stops as being "radical" or "extreme"?

I'm talking about my safety and wellbeing. You seem to believe I do not have the right to feel safe when walking down a street. Why?

While ignoring the countless of studies done on this very issue..

See previous reply.

And you still don't understand the meaning of the word "average".

Sure I do.

Wolf whistling is not harmless. Women are murdered in some instances for not responding in the manner the whistler or cat caller wanted her to. You condone rape culture when you repeatedly argue that street sexual harassment should continue.

As I have pointed out to you, there are extremes in any circumstances, involving women as well as men. And you certainly are holding dilegently onto all those extremes.

*Raise eyebrows*

You really have a problem with women, don't you?

No, not at all. I get on famously with both sexes and all in between.

No, but they do show what kind of person you are.

I no what kind of person I am thank you. A hard working, successful, jovial and reasonably intelligent old fart of 73. I'm not sure yet though what kind of person you are.

Cough..

The Health Insurance Bill 1973 (ie Medibank) was one of the Bills that led to the double dissolution of the Whitlam government.

And it was Bill Hayden who came up with the legislation that was later adopted by Malcolm Fraser with several amendments and then passed into law after the double dissolution, and without the tax levy that the Labor government had proposed in the legislation.

Okay?

Stop avoiding the bone of contention Bells. Whitlam's view when he came into power was for Australia to have a National affordable health care system for all.
He achieved that and Australia now has one of the best health care systems in the world.

But you tout Whitlam as being so great, when he refused to allow any Vietnamese refugees and allies into the country?

What Whitlam did when Saigon fell will forever remain a blight on Australia's history.

I gave you a link...three times. I suggest you read it.

He was as obsessed with you, as you were with him.

Liar, liar, pants on fire.

What extreme ideology?

Trying to classify wolf whistling as sexual harassment.

You keep saying this, but you are yet to actually detail what you mean by it, aside from whining that we don't want to be sexually harassed in the street.

I and many others on this forum actually contend it is you doing the whining, simply because we have not fallen into line with your apparent radicalism.

Firstly, a woman having consensual sex with one person, the player by the pool, does not mean she was not gang raped by several other players.

Secondly, she was found beaten and bloodied and required hospital care for goodness sake. The evidence that she was not raped was an eyewitness who saw her having consensual sex with one person by the pool. That one person was not accused of her gang rape. It was 6 other players who stood accused of gang raping her. But because she was apparently seen to be involved in a consensual act with one person, it meant that she could not have been raped or that there was not sufficient evidence of rape, despite the fact that she was found so badly injured that she required an ambulance to transport her to hospital? I mean, this is what you are using as an example of 'women being arseholes'? Really?

Fucking pathetic.

You seem to recognise the incident and the case. Do you know what team was involved? Was anyone charged and convicted?

Ya. And you are carrying water for a PM who openly sided with the Communist regime and denied entry to those trying to flee said Communist regime, especially those who worked at the Australian embassy there, who helped the Australian soldiers against said communist regime, ensuring that many of them were slaughtered. Yeah, you interpret it "without fear nor favour".

No he openly sided with a united Vietnam, and again I refer you to the link I gave you at least three times.
Just as an aside, Have you heard of Jack Mundey? He was that card acrrying communist, a member of the BLF, who lead the campaign against greedy fucking developers in Sydney who wanted to develop 'the Rocks", you know, that historical are of Sydney where the first fleet landed with so called green bans. That area is now one of Sydney's prime tourist attractions....This same communist was also a leader for reform in the building industry in general, particularly with regards to safety concerns. ps: What was it you inferred earlie re me being on the right?

 

[paddoboy]

double post

 

[sculptor]

And now:
A brief musical interlude:

 

[iceaura]

Yes it does. If he mimed putting a silly hat on her head, it would not have been an issue. Miming grabbing her breasts was.

That begs the question, completely. Do you know that?

So you are - as everyone is who attempts this - forced to invent circumstances significantly different from the actual Franken situation in order to defend his actions

No, I did not. I went straight from the established events, the facts on the ground, unaltered.
And so in the process, I didn't have to "defend his actions". Which I didn't.

This is key. You had to invent, I did not. You are dealing in stretchers and unacknowledged assumptions, I am dealing in no stretchers and only transparent, acknowledged assumptions that fit the facts we have. My description matches all the evidence from the public record, perfectly.

And this consistent difference in approach is - in my opinion - a warning to liberals: the approach adopted in dealing with Franken, the abandonment of reason and undermining of vocabulary and dismissal of honest recognition of reality, does not work for liberals. It works for authoritarians, for power and money, for those who can buy repetition and arrange saturation of media and launch persecution of resistance. It doesn't matter how others manage the expressions of their views - liberalism's main strength is in the favorable bias of reality.

 

[billvon]

No, I did not. I went straight from the established events, the facts on the ground, unaltered.

So, to you, a "self-mocking joke " is a good comparison to what he did. But when other people make comparisons, that's unacceptable. Because reasons.

With defenders like you, no wonder he went down.

 

[spidergoat]

On a public street, on a building site which was the example I first used, in the middle of the day, it is obvious to any normal thinking person without an agenda, an act of frivolity and harmless fun, as many women will agree.

What percent? Even if it's only 40%, why risk making someone uncomfortable?

 

[parmalee]

Of course.
The question was and is: what was the nature of that intent?

That is a question I think should have been central, rather than dismissed out of hand - its mere consideration an example of rape culture advocacy, misogyny, depraved and amoral political expediency.

(Re: the nature of intent, and the response to Franken) The legal implications? The philosophical implications? Other? With the first, it would not have impacted the consequent course of action: you grope someone, it's sexual assault (we're not talking about murder/manslaughter here). The second would yield an interminable conversation with no resolution--there's not even any sort of "consensus" on whether or not a person can act intentionally without intent (Anscombe, and countless others); moreover, there would be virtually no effect upon actions to take--no one (not even Franken) claims these were "accidental" gropings and certainly no one believes that Franken did not know that his actions were wrong. I do not consider discussion of the nature of Franken's intent to be rape advocacy, but should said discussion be used to mitigate or postpone any response (in actions) to Franken, that would be crossing a line.

Joke?
The lumping of Franken and Weinstein, Franken and Moore, etc, was all but universal. Those who pushed back on it were publicly disparaged by the high moral grounders. You can't seriously maintain that only very few people - including Tweeden herself, on her radio show - "suggested" such a common classification scheme.

Any "lumping" of Franken and Weinstein that I've seen mostly pertains to the illegality and wrongness of their actions. Franken committed sexual assault; Weinstein committed multiple rapes and countless other crimes, directly related to the rapes and assaults.

 

[Vociferous]

Right - I did. Because that's what people see. They then ASSUME (that word again) that it's Bigfoot.

Right. Like I said, is there any doubt it's assumption?

Not when eight people agree. Then there's very little doubt.

Ad populum alone trumps the presumption of innocence?

Nope. Eight people saying they saw a tall man in the woods, or lights in the sky, or were assaulted by Joe, aren't "mob justice." They are just evidence that that actually happened.

Are the eight talking about the exact same incident? That would seem to be the argument you're making.
If eight people tell of lights in the sky on eight separate events, they do not corroborate any single event.

Nope. Such rules are regularly on display; no need for any sort of handbook. " . . .beautiful women — I just start kissing them, it’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab 'em by the pussy." Followed by, of course, "it's her word against mine" and attempts to ruin them. Call them sluts, call them whores, call them publicity hounds. Get them fired. Sue them. Just follow the formula.

Well, at least you seem pretty up on assaulter tricks.

 

[billvon]

Ad populum alone trumps the presumption of innocence?

Nope. But lots of evidence does indeed trump the presumption of innocence.

Let's say Adam is accused of sexual assault. He goes to court. He says "I never assaulted anyone!"

Prosecution calls first witness. She says "Adam assaulted me in 1994 at a party."
Prosecution calls second witness. She says "Adam assaulted me in 1998 at the gym."
Prosecution calls third witness. She says "Adam assaulted me in 1999 on a bus."
Prosecution calls fourth witness. She says "Adam assaulted me in 2002 at a coffee shop."
Prosecution calls fifth witness. She says "Adam assaulted me in 2005 in an elevator."
Prosecution calls sixth witness. She says "Adam assaulted me in 2008 in a supply closet."
Prosecution calls seventh witness. She says "Adam assaulted me in 2012 at a party."
Prosecution calls eighth witness. She says "Adam assaulted me in 2015 at the doctor's office."

The defense cannot demonstrate any credible reason why these women would make up such stories.

He will then be presumed to be a serial sexual assaulter by the jury. In that case, the prosecution has proven his claim wrong.

Are the eight talking about the exact same incident?

Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

If eight people tell of lights in the sky on eight separate events, they do not corroborate any single event.

They do indeed suggest that it's common to see lights in the sky.

And (to tie it back to the original premise) if eight people say "Adam assaulted me" - then it's pretty likely that Adam assaults people. Even if he didn't do it to all eight at the same time.

Well, at least you seem pretty up on assaulter tricks.

So is anyone who reads, nowadays. We have a president who regularly tweets such tricks to the entire country.

 

[Vociferous]

Nope. But lots of evidence does indeed trump the presumption of innocence.

Let's say Adam is accused of sexual assault. He goes to court. He says "I never assaulted anyone!"

Prosecution calls first witness. She says "Adam assaulted me in 1994 at a party."
Prosecution calls second witness. She says "Adam assaulted me in 1998 at the gym."
Prosecution calls third witness. She says "Adam assaulted me in 1999 on a bus."
Prosecution calls fourth witness. She says "Adam assaulted me in 2002 at a coffee shop."
Prosecution calls fifth witness. She says "Adam assaulted me in 2005 in an elevator."
Prosecution calls sixth witness. She says "Adam assaulted me in 2008 in a supply closet."
Prosecution calls seventh witness. She says "Adam assaulted me in 2012 at a party."
Prosecution calls eighth witness. She says "Adam assaulted me in 2015 at the doctor's office."

The defense cannot demonstrate any credible reason why these women would make up such stories.

He will then be presumed to be a serial sexual assaulter by the jury. In that case, the prosecution has proven his claim wrong.

Yes, pattern of behavior. But the defense would look to see if the details of one account were freely accessible to the other accusers, like via social media. If so, the similarities in accounts would have reasonable doubt of being independently genuine, which is why police don't release such details publicly.
The difference between building a legal prosecution and social mob justice.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

What about your example?

They do indeed suggest that it's common to see lights in the sky.

And (to tie it back to the original premise) if eight people say "Adam assaulted me" - then it's pretty likely that Adam assaults people. Even if he didn't do it to all eight at the same time.

Yeah, there are stars and planes in the sky all the time.
There are also overreactions to harmless interactions and accusations to cover for regret.
There needs to be some due process to sort it out.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

It is about time our society is confronted with all women are forced to put up with.
Hopefully things get better and they are given respect as humans and not just regarded as something to play with and seen by many men as objects rather than people.
I dont like the wolf whistle and it must be confronting to girls and even worrying for them.
And although many may see feminists as over the top I suggest they have good reason to be so as the way many men regard women really calls for extreme action.
Men who behave badly seem to have many excuses to justify their actions but that approach ignores the reality that to belittle another human is just plain wrong.

Folk here insist Bells is over the top because they feel she perhaps is too passionate but given the fact most men simply try and excuse bad behaviour I ask is it any wonder she needs to be so tuff and even then folk still think invading someone elses space is somehow ok.
And pranks...so childish but what is worse many do not see pranks are just plain wrong.

Prank me and I will break your face and say my excuse is whatever ... that should be OK.

Most pranks are simple assault.

I think the measure of a man is how he respects others by neither looking down upon others or looking up to others for whatever reason so those who prank or belittle others I regard as immature and their excuses damning upon their character.

Let the heads roll and let the message be that women wont take any crap ever again.

I hope that all that is happening now causes irresponsible big tuff men to realise that to be a man you really need to respect others and get this idea of entitlement out of their world.
Alex

 

[sculptor]

It seems that
There is a whole lot of sexism going on in here.

 

[iceaura]

Any "lumping" of Franken and Weinstein that I've seen mostly pertains to the illegality and wrongness of their actions.

Yep. The wrongnesses and illegalities of Franken and Weinstein are held to be similar. Frequently they are given one label, the same for both, and referred to interchangeably in discussing them as one topic. This is common (although since Franken's resignation, and the apparently startling confrontation with the possible consequences, I've noticed a tailing off, an apparent effort to stop doing that. It's hard on the reputation, of an ostensibly liberal pundit).

I do not consider discussion of the nature of Franken's intent to be rape advocacy,

Others do. Quite stridently.

but should said discussion be used to mitigate or postpone any response (in actions) to Franken, that would be crossing a line.

It's a line I have most definitely recommended crossing. I thought Franken's resignation should have been postponed until after the 2018 elections (and even longer if a Republican takes Governor in Minnesota) and his lame duck status employed to full effect in the Senate meantime, this handling justified in part by the nature of his intent as apparent in his pattern of offense. And I thought it should have been timed and enforced by the people and governance of Minnesota for their benefit, and not ignorant opportunists from distant places interested in sending messages of their own. But that's just my opinion, I'm open to changing it as a result of a discussion that no one - not a single poster in any thread - has taken up.

So, to you, a "self-mocking joke " is a good comparison to what he did.

It's not a comparison, at all.
It's a plausible description of the photograph as we see it, taken out of context and unexplained, and the accompanying letter. It directly matches Franken's stage character on that tour, and known public behavior before, since, and otherwise, for example. Likewise Tweeden's. Nothing at all invented, nothing borrowed from elsewhere for comparison.
[/quote] But when other people make comparisons, that's unacceptable. Because reasons.[/QUOTE] I just pointed to the nature of the inventions you and others have found necessary, apparently so that your "comparisons" would support your views when the plain situation I used proved inadequate. I noted the pattern - it's completely obvious, flagrant, and been noted repeatedly by me.
"Acceptability" is irrelevant - consequences are the matter at hand.
Because? Because imho reality, facts, honest and good faith analysis, the established and agreed public record and evidence, are the strength of the liberal stance in the world. And this is a bad time to go weak.

With defenders like you, no wonder he went down.

No one like me is a "defender", obviously. And that has been pointed out to you several times now. Attempting to label people like me "defenders of Franken" is a tactic, not an argument, not a good faith contribution to any discussion.

And we know why he went down. That was kind of obvious as well.

So the question: why are these people posting like that? We know where the wingnuts and creationists are coming from, why they invariably resort to such postings. But liberals?

 

[paddoboy]

What percent? Even if it's only 40%, why risk making someone uncomfortable?

On a public street, in the middle of the day, and inevitably with people tooing and froing on the way to or home from work, I really don't see how anyone maybe uncomfortable. Mostly, it is a momentary thing, and then gone, finished.

It is about time our society is confronted with all women are forced to put up with.
Hopefully things get better and they are given respect as humans and not just regarded as something to play with and seen by many men as objects rather than people.

Agreed, and that is being done at this time and has for a while now. I'm all for gender euqality or women's equality...I'm not for women's rights.

I dont like the wolf whistle and it must be confronting to girls and even worrying for them.

That's your opinion and I see it as being a bit precious. Read my reply to spider.

And although many may see feminists as over the top I suggest they have good reason to be so as the way many men regard women really calls for extreme action.

I see "some" feminists as over the top, and also some male counterparts. Many women that I have referenced and linked to agree with what I'm basically saying.

Men who behave badly seem to have many excuses to justify their actions but that approach ignores the reality that to belittle another human is just plain wrong.

Some men certainly...and some women also.

Folk here insist Bells is over the top because they feel she perhaps is too passionate but given the fact most men simply try and excuse bad behaviour I ask is it any wonder she needs to be so tuff and even then folk still think invading someone elses space is somehow ok.

I rather see that folk here, including one other mod who she grossly insulted, as just objecting to her extreme claims and examples, and the inference in that it is applied to every minute of every day in every situation.

And pranks...so childish but what is worse many do not see pranks are just
plain wrong.
Prank me and I will break your face and say my excuse is whatever ... that should be OK.

Most pranks are simple assault.

Where's your sense of humour Alex? Isn't there enough sadness and unhappiness in the world today, without you suggesting you will smack someone in the mouth for playing a prank? My last Old boys reunion, December last year was attended by 12 old mates, and we already had the news that one of them was under chemo and radio therapy for cancer and had lost his hair. When we were all gathered at City Tatts, one of us, [not me] pulled out a wig for Bob and placed it on his head. Guess who laughed the loudest and longest? We Aussies Alex are generally irreverent of many things, and likewise are always open to pranks...harmless pranks. Even a couple of our Prime Ministers have reflected that noted irreverency...When the Queen was out here at one time and the then PM Paul Keating put his arm around her waist: The English tabloids went bananas and labeled him the "Lizard of Oz"
And of course who can forget Bob Hawke when he was Prime Minister and Australia had just wone the America's Cup in Yachting. Here's a reminder of what was broadcasted around the world....

So Alex, I believe you need to lighten up a bit.

I think the measure of a man is how he respects others by neither looking down upon others or looking up to others for whatever reason so those who prank or belittle others I regard as immature and their excuses damning upon their character.

Yep, I agree and always have....But guess what Alex? As opposed to some crazy feminazis, I'm still going to stand up for a woman on a crowded bus, or help here with a parcel, or even as I did just today while shopping, said to a young cashier "gee your pretty" She giggled and said thank you...I continued on my way.

I hope that all that is happening now causes irresponsible big tuff men to realise that to be a man you really need to respect others and get this idea of entitlement out of their world.
Alex

I'm neither irresponsible Nor do I about telling anyone how tough I am.
What some women in the feminist movement are proposing will not happen...not in my time anyway, and not in the time of my Son either.
TIP: Go back to the beginning of this thread and see how a respected member was slandered for making one harmless remark...All he replied with was "Wow!" and like this thread, some in the women's movement are attempting to take things too far.
As a bonus, ever here of a comedian called Steady Eddie?

 

[Vociferous]

"It was someone I thought I could trust and that I didn't have to worry about you know, if I said no, I assumed, like most men know that no means no. But unfortunately, that day, he didn't take no for an answer," she said.

For Lindquist, who grew up around guns, she said the best way to defend herself would have been to use her pistol, but because of Temple's policies prohibiting concealed carry on campus, she didn't have her gun.

"As things started to get a little more violent, I knew that I had no way to defend myself," She said. "I couldn't carry, I didn't have my gun. My gun was unloaded and locked in my gun cabinet."
https://www.circa.com/story/2018/02...-the-metoo-movement-should-include-gun-rights​