[csomar]

> He sexually assaulted her, then at some later point in time they had a consensual relationship.

I understand that the consensual relationship doesn't rule out the sexual assault. I do have, however, trouble digesting such relations. Is it normal that people get into relations with other people that they intend to take to court?

[garbagetime]

I would say that it is not greatly unusual. A frequent scenario, albeit slightly different, is that sexual assault occurs partway through an otherwise consensual relationship. And then the relationship continues for some time.

[ceejayoz]

> Is it normal that people get into relations with other people that they intend to take to court?

Yes, it's very normal. Abusive partners can be very skilled at breaking down their victims; "you're so worthless, no one but me will ever love you" sort of scenarios. It's a very common phenomenon.

[vadfa]

Oh, let me explain some things about women...

[cafard]

Be my guest, if you are a woman. If you aren't, then I think this is what even I'd have to call mansplaining.

[edit: added 'this' initially omitted]

[Viliam1234]

How a person perceives themselves, and how other people perceive them, those can be two quite different things. I agree that women are more qualified to talk about the former, but the latter is also interesting.

[pvaldes]

A part of the advantages of being human is that you can understand other humans. Having exactly the same pain receptors, eyes and body temperature... Yes, men can talk and understand about how women feel.

And "mansplaining" is a concept that was created to justify having smaller seats in a train basically. And to target and ashame people that cames in different sizes and shapes. The solution to mansplaining whatever it means is simple: bigger seats.

[amcoastal]

How did you type this entire comment and not realize that mansplaining and manspreading are two different things?

[pvaldes]

Maybe because I couldn't care less about those stupid new void concepts that are used basically as 'holier than thou' weapon against other people.

This terms are based in the --false-- claim that [all] men are dominant and [all] women are passive and unable to defend themselves from the big-bad-male. They aim for a society uniform when people will have much less margin to be an individual, and people with long legs or that weight different will be ashamed for that. Both terms, mansplaining and manspreading evoke a very dystopian feeling.

But if this is the kind of society that you wish for, feel free to spread the sticky mess

[posterboy]

Yes, "men can talk and understand about how women feel." But mansplaining is not that.

Epistemic implication is saying, for example, "she is home, because her car is in the drive way". The car is not the reason, and the first clause is not a statement of fact. It is not too odd that "must" can be found in this middle voice, "She must be (a slut/a victim) because ..."

Saving grace is that the comment did not explain anything, so it can be chalked off as self-ironic take.

[Chris2048]

You seem to be describing slut-shaming, not mansplaining.

Mansplaining is the phenomenon of which an arrogant male-persons arrogance can be attributed to their sex/gender (as appropriate), usually with some reference to "patriarchy" and the undeserved confidence of those higher up in the power hierarchy when belittling or underestimating those lower on that same scale.

In practice, it is a gender-specific, weaponised term used in any situation where a man is perceived to be arrogant towards a women i.e. it is commonly abused beyond any positive philosophical aims.

Maybe it has a similar reasoning i.e. men sexist-ly assume women know less than them - but the fact is that it is rarely clear b/c arrogant, narcissistic people of both genders exist without the need for such a basis.

[rkk3]

> Is it normal

Normal? He was the 7th most powerful person in the CCP, in a country of 1.4 Billion. He was then a 65 year old having a "relationship" with a then 25 year-old...

[louhike]

"Is it normal?" just sounds like you saying "it isn't normal, she did something bad", almost putting the guilt on her. The thing is, it's just of no importance. We do not have the whole context, she might have loved him or saw an interest in the relationship, but it does not matter for this. It does not change the crime of the sexual assault.

[david38]

That’s not at all what’s being asked. It was an honest question and you are attacking the asker for not being as woke as you in how relationships of victims often play out.

[csomar]

I'm not putting the guilt on anybody. I just have a hard time to understand the dynamics of such relations. I don't have any hidden motives for my comment.

> she might have loved him or saw an interest in the relationship, but it does not matter for this

That's exactly the part I have trouble digesting. If I was sexually assaulted by person (that I want to take them to jail for it), how can I pursue a relation (later) with them? I don't think, also, that I'll be able to love such a person. But I guess that's just me?

[secondaryacct]

I disagree. Yes the law is the law and he should not have raped her, but she also should have had the moral fortitude not to then get into an affair with him.

The guy checks all the boxes, and will have to be punished, but giving the appearance of a scorned mistress doesn't help her convince something so wrong happened a decade ago.

But, no need to be perfect to he heard, and she'll have to have her chance.

[krageon]

> she also should have had the moral fortitude not to then get into an affair with him.

> giving the appearance of a scorned mistress doesn't help her convince

Given that we are certain both of those things can exist together, the case must at least be investigated. People should not have to be punished (or disbelieved) for being what they are: imperfect beings.

[posterboy]

GP:

> "Is it normal?" just sounds like you saying "it isn't normal, she did something bad", almost putting the guilt on her.

You:

> I disagree.

Also you:

> she also should have had the moral fortitude not to ...

This seems to be a contradiction, unless you disagree on some metalevel, disagreeing with the course of events in general.