I *think* the context here is that a woman who has done porn shouldn't react like a prude when a guy texts her that he wants to lick her between the legs. This doesn't mean that porn actresses should be hit on like it's nobody's business, but they shouldn't act so surprised when someone does make crude advances.
She was on dating websites looking to cheat on her boyfriend, even before that video with mr dean.
Yeah, people.forget it's a cropped out part of the whole convo, previous interactions included.
Hope he's successful. That way it sets a precedent for all these sociopathic thots with daddy issues.
It's not a strawman when so much of Jacqui's objection was:
I don't know why this was so funny to me.Wonder if she gives fire top.
I think the guy says he didn't even know about it until Erik Kain did his article. Erik was attacked relentlessly for it, though, but if this is the good that came out of it? Good on both of them.
until now (I hope) it was pretty horrifying seeing the exact opposite, especially the journalists spreading the lies.
Coincidentally these are the exact things that will be used against the witness in a court of law, where she will be promptly destroyed by a junior lawyer.
Rightly so, as every evidence points to her lying. You cant be a known party girl eager to drink and then claim you have been "made to drink" etc.
Don't be daft. You don't get to suddenly act like Mother Theresa when you've done porn and act very promiscuous on social media. She was openly flirting with Avellone and priding herself in having transient sexual relationships. Morally uptight or sexually vulnerable people don't do porn, unless somehow forced which she quite clearly was not. In other words, she is certainly no prude, which implies 3 things:
Um yes, I agree with you as that was exactly my point when replying to
ToTTenTranz
who seems to defend Jacqui's accusations.
I'd say 90% of the Blue Checkmarks still stand by her. Empirical evidence means nothing in the world of make-believe.
The issue with this is that there are plenty of times where women really are sexually assaulted, and they don't come forward because they don't have proof, or they know some people will think they're lying, or they don't want to be mostly known for that accusation, etc. This would be creating yet another reason not to come forward, as mistakes do happen, and even the innocent can find themselves found guilty at times.
That is the victim's choice to pursue legal action or not. That's always been their choice, to weather the extra stress or focus it would bring to the alleged original action. Nothing changes in that regard.
It’s unfortunate but you can’t expect action without proof in a civilised society. Anything else leaves itself open to corruption and a breakdown of common justice. That applies to any type of accusation.
Absolutely. It reminds me of my favorite scene in The Hateful Eight.
There’s always the recourse to sue for defamation, damage to career and earning prospects.
I think the idea is that if an accuser makes a claim about a sexual crime, and then evidence emerges that shows the accuser intentionally misrepresented or fabricated that claim, they should be punished accordingly. That isn't the same as punishing an accuser for a lack of evidence.
Even Ignoring the work and wealth situation, a man can’t just get cucked and not attempt to prove his innocence and get respect back. Gotta fight back, no matter what.
I understand that, but mistakes still happen. The entire justice system is supposed to prevent innocent people going to jail, but sometimes things don't work out like that. A truthful accuser could be in a situation where they don't have or couldn't collect evidence, while the guilty accused could have evidence that supports their side of the story, even if they're ultimately being misleading. Then you throw 12 random people at the situation, and people can make mistakes.
In any case, it's better to have a criminal free than an innocent incarcerated.
