Sexual assault?

[Tefal]

Gay guys have more casual sex than straight guys. Read an article on that yonks ago. There are statistic around to prove it (I'm not Googling that whilst logged in to my Google profile!).

And it makes sense given what we know about the differences between male attitudes to sex and female attitudes, once generalised across the whole population.

No men want more casual sex.

The differnce with gay men is the other half of that equation is another man not a woman who typically doesnt want casual sex.

Gay men are no more sexually aggessive than straight men, its just there is no woman to act as a brake on the situation.

To say a man in a gay bar is fair game is identical to saying a woman in a straight bar is fair game.

And its a pretty gross statement either way. Seriously though if you'e ever on the receiving end of sexual aggession from a bigger stronger man it' almost a certainty you won' act like your saying women should.


But as you say its a male attribute it comes from.the sexually aggressive male to whoever they'e targeting male or female, jist odds are a gay guy will be more into it than a woman.

 

[FoxEye]

I'm fairly sure that most of us straight males would rather have the **** kicked out of us resisting unwanted sexual advances from a macho gay guy, than just sit there and let it happen.

I question your experience of this happening to genuine straight males, firstly if they willingly entered a gay bar in the first place, and secondly if they let so-called "unwanted" advances turn into sexual acts.

I can only tell you that I personally would rather resist and have the **** kicked out of me. And then it would be rape anyhow, which goes beyond "unwanted advances" into a whole new ball park (no pun intended).

 

[GGizmo]

I think the charge is right.

I am concerned that cases like this are being paired up with wolf whistling, which some people are trying to criminalise too.

 

[Dave M]

@FoxEye I hope you are a troll, if not, seek help, seriously.

 

[FoxEye]

@FoxEye I hope you are a troll, if not, seek help, seriously.

Do you anything apart from an ad-hominem attack? No?

Perhaps come back with an actual viewpoint or argument? Or actually tell us what it is you find so offensive? That's pretty much the least you can do.

 

[Dave M]

Do you anything apart from an ad-hominem attack? No?

Perhaps come back with an actual viewpoint or argument? Or actually tell us what it is you find so offensive? That's pretty much the least you can do.

I apologise for the accusative tone if if you are a not trolling but I am not willing to engage in analysis of years of posting. You can read back through your own posts, it might be revealing if you do so with an open mind. To generalise however, I've noticed over time your attitude towards people and women in particular becoming more entrenched and if it's your real thought and opinions, rather than trying to get a raise out of the general public, to my delicate sensitivities it doesn't look healthy.

You are far from alone, I remember a time the white knighters would ride over anything mentioning a female before any discussion even started - but I think we've moved so far from that now that my annoyance at the white knighters thing has become my disgust of the misogyny present in so many threads today.

The general tone of the forum isn't what it was, but then it reflects the general population - I'd never dare raise many topics in the pub today as the opinions are strongly felt and polarised.

 

[FoxEye]

I apologise for the accusative tone if if you are a not trolling but I am not willing to engage in analysis of years of posting. You can read back through your own posts, it might be revealing if you do so with an open mind. To generalise however, I've noticed over time your attitude towards people and women in particular becoming more entrenched and if it's your real thought and opinions, rather than trying to get a raise out of the general public, to my delicate sensitivities it doesn't look healthy.

You are far from alone, I remember a time the white knighters would ride over anything mentioning a female before any discussion even started - but I think we've moved so far from that now that my annoyance at the white knighters thing has become my disgust of the misogyny present in so many threads today.

The general tone of the forum isn't what it was, but then it reflects the general population - I'd never dare raise many topics in the pub today as the opinions are strongly felt and polarised.

I'm certainly not a troll. And the viewpoints that I post here are my genuine viewpoints. I don't see the point in having a fake online persona.

Anyway, thanks for the response. As I mentioned in another thread, there's nothing (I find) more annoying than hit-and-run posts which amount to, "You're wrong" or "You're a bad person," with no counter-argument or reasoning.

To be 100% honest I have no idea what in particular you see in my attitude towards "people and women in particular". If you want to elaborate, please feel free. I don't claim to be a nice or a good person, but I don't think of myself as a misogynist in the slightest.

 

[Dave M]

To be 100% honest I have no idea what in particular you see in my attitude towards "people and women in particular". If you want to elaborate, please feel free. I don't claim to be a nice or a good person, but I don't think of myself as a misogynist in the slightest.

Bitterness generally but it stands out most in response to threads concerning marriage or divorce.

If you think back over your responses to similar topics would you consider a general distrust of females is prevalent? I genuinely do not believe such a view point, honestly held, is healthy. Women are not your enemy.

It's arguable people (in general) are suspect, and the weapons women deploy are powerful, but just as every powerful bloke you walk past doesn't pile drive you into the pavement every woman doesn't take your house.

​

 

[FoxEye]

I think what you've missed is that I distrust everyone. Not specifically women. Everyone. If you've picked up my distrust of women then actually you've simply not picked up my distrust of everyone who isn't a woman

e: Genuinely I believe that most people would screw you (me) over for their own gain. It's simply what we're programmed to do in modern society. For whatever reason I find myself unable to trust anyone more than superficially.

 

[Jean-F]

Gay guys must have extremely low standards then. I could always take a paper bag to make it a fair test

However I wouldn't be in a gay bar because the very act of being there is implying that you're, well, fair game. And this is quite a specific situation I'm commenting on, which doesn't translate to women being "fair game" in a typical bar. We are probably all aware of the stereotypes surrounding gay males and their... I'll be blunt... increased promiscuity and penchant for one-night stands/casual sex.

In short being in a gay bar is very different situation to being in a workplace, typical bar, club, etc.

What I have to say, has little or no relation to the thread being about a guy being on a sex offenders register, but a lot to do with FoxEye’s post.
In the early eighties, I was in NYC with a friend of mine, while I visited a girl I’d been involved with back in London, when she’d been an exchange student at Brunel University, near Uxbridge.
One night, Johnny and I had gone into Manhattan from my girl’s place in Canarsie, Brooklyn to have a few drinks and enjoy the city.
We were both as straight as rulers, but I certainly was not looking for any action, I had a nice warm Jewish Princess to go back to, which filled my Protestant heart with joy.
Anyway, after a few drinks in The Village, and Chelsea, we ambled up 9th Ave toward 42nd St, and walked into a bar somewhere near the Port Authority Terminal.
I asked for an orange juice for Johnny, as he was our designated driver, and a 7 and 7 for myself, then turned and looked around the bar.
Johnny said, “Can you see what I see?”, I didn’t get it so replied in the negative.
He said in quiet tones, “There’s not one bird in here, and everyone’s dressed in motorcycle leathers.”
I got it then, no one it appeared had taken a blind bit of notice of two limeys coming in, but I said, “Maybe we’d better go further up the street, what do you think?”
We walked slowly out on to 9th, and no one said a word to us, and why should they?
My girlfriend rolled around the floor laughing when we told her, she said, “It sounds like the 9th Ave Saloon, I’d have loved to have been there to see that.”

 

[Angilion]

Gay guys must have extremely low standards then. I could always take a paper bag to make it a fair test

However I wouldn't be in a gay bar because the very act of being there is implying that you're, well, fair game. And this is quite a specific situation I'm commenting on, which doesn't translate to women being "fair game" in a typical bar. We are probably all aware of the stereotypes surrounding gay males and their... I'll be blunt... increased promiscuity and penchant for one-night stands/casual sex.

In short being in a gay bar is very different situation to being in a workplace, typical bar, club, etc.

It depends on the place. For example, I knew a place that was called a gay club but was actually genuinely open to anyone on equal terms and no more a haven for promiscuity than a typical bar. X is gay, his friend Y is straight, they both go there, nobody cares. I liked the place for that.

EDIT: I just clicked back and seen the context was being unwillingly felt up. That's a different thing entirely to promiscuity and casual sex. I have been to some places that were known as "meat markets" and not seen or experienced it there. I've had sex with people I just met and didn't even know their name, which is about as promiscuous as you can get, but being unwillingly felt up wasn't something I experienced in that context or saw happening. Different thing entirely.

 

[trilobite]

There are 2 issues here;
1The assault
2 the sentence.

It was a sexual assault. He paid privately for QC, she clearly advised him to plead guilty, because a jury would have found him guilty, ie 12 random members of the public would have found his conduct to be a sexual assault. A sexual assault is when a person A, touches a second person, B, the touching is sexual, and B does not consent to it, AND A does not reasonably believe that B consents. So he accepted that it was Sexual, and that he knew she didn't want it.
Sexual assault as you can see clearly depends in part on the surrounding circumstances. e conduct and the surrounding circumstances, so yes it may be different in a nightclub than it is on top off a roof in the middle of the day.

The second issue is sentence.
He was conditionally discharged for 12 months. So if he does not re-offend that is it, it will go away and become a spent conviction, if he does re-offend he can be re sentenced.
The registration is a result of the sentence, there is no discretion.
However the register is not exactly an imposition. You sign on at the police station. That is it. If you move, or plan on being at a different address for 7 days or more you have to notify the police. That is it. No one else knows, it is not a public register, it does not prevent you from doing anything you want to do, it is simply so the police know where you are living. In his case this will last 1 year, the same period as his discharge. I fail to see why anyone thinks this is onerous.

All in all he kissed a woman, he knew at the time she wasn't up for it, he said something at the time, (we don't know what). He paid a QC lots of cash to represent him. He got off with a telling off from the judge "stay out of trouble for a year", and he has to sign on once at the police station, and tell them if he's going on his holidays.
Seems to me the judge got it right.

 

[Angilion]

Unless he ever has a detailed criminal record background check done for any reason (e.g. an increasing number of jobs) or possibly if any woman invokes "Clare's Law". Or the register becomes public, of course. It is in some places and there are people who want it to be public here. They might succeed at some point in time.

For the sake of accuracy, his guilty plea doesn't necessarily mean that he accepts that it was sexual assault. It means that he accepts that it isn't worth the risk of a more severe sentence if he was found guilty in a trial. It might mean other things as well, but without further information that's all that we can be sure that it means. People have pled guilty for that reason when they knew they were innocent and weren't even present when the crime was committed, so a guilty plea defintely doesn't mean that the defendent accepts that they are guilty.

 

[Zenduri]

Anyone else see the irony in his surname...