WWTBAM Bored

Bob78164 wrote:I'm okay with attempted forcible rape having lifelong consequences for the perpetrator, even a 17-year-old perpetrator. Because it certainly does for the victim.

Estonut wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:I'm okay with attempted forcible rape having lifelong consequences for the perpetrator, even a 17-year-old perpetrator. Because it certainly does for the victim.

You've said this a few times. Where do you get "attempted forcible rape?" Her account is that he groped her and attempted to remove her one-piece bathing suit, despite the fact that she was wearing clothes over it.

While his friend watched, she said, Kavanaugh pinned her to a bed on her back and groped her over her clothes, grinding his body against hers and clumsily attempting to pull off her one-piece bathing suit and the clothing she wore over it. When she tried to scream, she said, he put his hand over her mouth.

“I thought he might inadvertently kill me,” said Ford, now a 51-year-old research psychologist in northern California. “He was trying to attack me and remove my clothing.”

BackInTex wrote:Borrowed off a FB friend's comments....

This was the most rational explanation I can find about the Kavanaugh melee:
1. Fifteen year old girls do NOT go to a party alone. They didn't when I was 15, they didn't when my daughters and granddaughters were 15 and they don't today. 15 year old girls (and boys) tend to travel in groups. If Ford was at a party, then she was NOT at that party alone.

2. Fifteen year olds are not allowed to drive and they weren't in 1982 - or 1962. Ford would have gotten a ride to that party, most likely from an adult. And no, she didn't take a bus. People who can afford private school for their children don't live in the sort of neighborhood with a bus stop on every corner, nor do they allow their 15 year old daughters to go to a party alone on the bus.

3. IF an incident such as she describes, with an assailant attempting to rip her clothes off her, had actually happened she would have been disheveled and VERY upset. Fifteen year old girls don't simply take such an incident in stride. This was a PARTY - other people were present and likely a number of girls. She would have been noticed as she left that room disheveled and upset, likely crying. She would have been noticed by those other girls, including the one that she went to the party with.

4. Girls TALK and bad news travels around the world before good news can get its boots on. If this had happened then everybody would have known about it. It would not have stayed quiet for 35 years only to be dragged out in an attempt to blow up a Supreme Court nomination.

Brett Kavanaugh 2015 wrote:But fortunately, we had a good saying that we've held firm to, to this day, as the dean was reminding me before the talk, which is, 'What happens at Georgetown Prep, stays at Georgetown Prep,' "That's been a good thing for all of us, I think."

silverscreenselect wrote:

BackInTex wrote:Borrowed off a FB friend's comments....

This was the most rational explanation I can find about the Kavanaugh melee:
1. Fifteen year old girls do NOT go to a party alone. They didn't when I was 15, they didn't when my daughters and granddaughters were 15 and they don't today. 15 year old girls (and boys) tend to travel in groups. If Ford was at a party, then she was NOT at that party alone.

2. Fifteen year olds are not allowed to drive and they weren't in 1982 - or 1962. Ford would have gotten a ride to that party, most likely from an adult. And no, she didn't take a bus. People who can afford private school for their children don't live in the sort of neighborhood with a bus stop on every corner, nor do they allow their 15 year old daughters to go to a party alone on the bus.

3. IF an incident such as she describes, with an assailant attempting to rip her clothes off her, had actually happened she would have been disheveled and VERY upset. Fifteen year old girls don't simply take such an incident in stride. This was a PARTY - other people were present and likely a number of girls. She would have been noticed as she left that room disheveled and upset, likely crying. She would have been noticed by those other girls, including the one that she went to the party with.

4. Girls TALK and bad news travels around the world before good news can get its boots on. If this had happened then everybody would have known about it. It would not have stayed quiet for 35 years only to be dragged out in an attempt to blow up a Supreme Court nomination.

How about this scenario:

1) A 15-year-old girl goes to the party either with friends or her parents drop her off.

2) She winds up in a room with two older boys who are very popular in the various social circles.

3) When she gets out of the room, she is scared and embarrassed and wonders what people will think if she says anything, so she tries to stay away from people and keeps quiet.

This encounter sounds a lot like what Anthony Rapp described about being assaulted by Kevin Spacey when he was 14, and Rapp kept quiet about it for 30 years.

Only about one in four sexual assaults are reported, and 30% of the female rape victims in this country were first raped when they were 11-17. Plus, the culture about reporting rape is much better now than it was 35 years ago.

And let's not forget

Brett Kavanaugh 2015 wrote:But fortunately, we had a good saying that we've held firm to, to this day, as the dean was reminding me before the talk, which is, 'What happens at Georgetown Prep, stays at Georgetown Prep,' "That's been a good thing for all of us, I think."

silverscreenselect wrote: And let's not forget

Brett Kavanaugh 2015 wrote:But fortunately, we had a good saying that we've held firm to, to this day, as the dean was reminding me before the talk, which is, 'What happens at Georgetown Prep, stays at Georgetown Prep,' "That's been a good thing for all of us, I think."

A story has hit social media alleging that Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s mother, Judge Martha Gamble Kavanaugh, ruled against the parents of his accuser in a foreclosure case, thus launching an intergenerational family feud. Pro-Kavanaugh sources are claiming that this is the reasoning behind the accusations of sexual assault against the Supreme Court nominee by a woman who knew him back in high school in the early ’80s.

But while these articles online make the whole matter sound very suspicious, there was some critical information left out of the history between the Blasey and the Kavanaugh families.

Snopes wrote:Martha Kavanaugh did preside for certain parts of a 1996 foreclosure case involving Ralph and Paula Blasey, who are indeed Christine Blasey Ford’s parents. However, Kavanaugh actually ruled favorably toward the Blaseys, who ended up keeping their home. These two facts cause the logic of the conspiracy theory, such as it ever was, to collapse.

The story about a foreclosure and revenge leading to sexual assault allegations falls apart without a foreclosure, and without the elder Judge Kavanaugh ruling against the parents of Brett Kavanaugh’s accuser.

Judge Martha Kavanaugh actually went a step further siding with the Blaseys by dismissing the foreclosure proceedings “with prejudice” which meant that the plaintiff could not come back for another bite of the proverbial apple.

To this day, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s parents still retain ownership of the house in Potomac, Maryland.

The author of the WaPo article wrote:Ford said she told no one of the incident in any detail until 2012, when she was in couples therapy with her husband. The therapist's notes, portions of which were provided by Ford and reviewed by The Washington Post, do not mention Kavanaugh’s name but say she reported that she was attacked by students "from an elitist boys' school" who went on to become "highly respected and high-ranking members of society in Washington." The notes say four boys were involved, a discrepancy Ford says was an error on the therapist’s part. Ford said there were four boys at the party but only two in the room.

On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 @ 3:21 pm, Bob78164 wrote:If it turns out that Dr. Blasey Ford had her therapist write notes about this incident six years ago (during a Democratic Administration), to lay the groundwork for scuttling Kavanaugh's nomination, then I'll make a sizeable donation to the Innocence Project.

The author of the WaPo article wrote:In an interview, her husband, Russell Ford, said that in the 2012 sessions, she recounted being trapped in a room with two drunken boys, one of whom pinned her to a bed, molested her and prevented her from screaming. He said he recalled that his wife used Kavanaugh’s last name and voiced concern that Kavanaugh – then a federal judge – might one day be nominated to the Supreme Court.

Estonut wrote:This is the article I read about her accusations:
California professor, writer of confidential Brett Kavanaugh letter, speaks out about her allegation of sexual assault

The author of the WaPo article wrote:Ford said she told no one of the incident in any detail until 2012, when she was in couples therapy with her husband. The therapist's notes, portions of which were provided by Ford and reviewed by The Washington Post, do not mention Kavanaugh’s name but say she reported that she was attacked by students "from an elitist boys' school" who went on to become "highly respected and high-ranking members of society in Washington." The notes say four boys were involved, a discrepancy Ford says was an error on the therapist’s part. Ford said there were four boys at the party but only two in the room.

1) "The therapist's notes, portions of which were provided by Ford..." What did the rest of the notes say? If you're going to use these as evidence, you shouldn't be able to cherry-pick what is revealed. Bob#s even agrees that "all available evidence" should be examined.
2) She knows who this was and how it has affected her life so adversely, yet doesn't name him?
3) "The notes say four boys were involved, a discrepancy Ford says was an error on the therapist’s part. Ford said there were four boys at the party but only two in the room." A house party in the 80's with only four boys in attendance? That's complete BS. Bob#s also agreed that the therapist's "contemporaneous notes" are important evidence.

On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 @ 3:21 pm, Bob78164 wrote:If it turns out that Dr. Blasey Ford had her therapist write notes about this incident six years ago (during a Democratic Administration), to lay the groundwork for scuttling Kavanaugh's nomination, then I'll make a sizeable donation to the Innocence Project.

The author of the WaPo article wrote:In an interview, her husband, Russell Ford, said that in the 2012 sessions, she recounted being trapped in a room with two drunken boys, one of whom pinned her to a bed, molested her and prevented her from screaming. He said he recalled that his wife used Kavanaugh’s last name and voiced concern that Kavanaugh – then a federal judge – might one day be nominated to the Supreme Court.

1) I think the husband tried to add too much detail to their story, like liars often do. He said that "in the 2012 sessions," "he recalled that his wife used Kavanaugh’s last name." Why then, is Kavanaugh's name not in the therapist's notes?
2) Further, he claims that in those sessions, "he recalled that his wife ... voiced concern that Kavanaugh – then a federal judge – might one day be nominated to the Supreme Court." So she has this 35-year trauma (we don't know how old, since she doesn't know when it happened), and when she first reveals the attacker's name to her husband, she is not concerned about having him punished and/or preventing him from doing the same to others, but she is concerned that he might "one day be nominated to the Supreme Court?" To me, this sounds like absolutely contrived BS.

Bob78164 wrote:

Estonut wrote:This is the article I read about her accusations:
California professor, writer of confidential Brett Kavanaugh letter, speaks out about her allegation of sexual assault

The author of the WaPo article wrote:Ford said she told no one of the incident in any detail until 2012, when she was in couples therapy with her husband. The therapist's notes, portions of which were provided by Ford and reviewed by The Washington Post, do not mention Kavanaugh’s name but say she reported that she was attacked by students "from an elitist boys' school" who went on to become "highly respected and high-ranking members of society in Washington." The notes say four boys were involved, a discrepancy Ford says was an error on the therapist’s part. Ford said there were four boys at the party but only two in the room.

1) "The therapist's notes, portions of which were provided by Ford..." What did the rest of the notes say? If you're going to use these as evidence, you shouldn't be able to cherry-pick what is revealed. Bob#s even agrees that "all available evidence" should be examined.
2) She knows who this was and how it has affected her life so adversely, yet doesn't name him?
3) "The notes say four boys were involved, a discrepancy Ford says was an error on the therapist’s part. Ford said there were four boys at the party but only two in the room." A house party in the 80's with only four boys in attendance? That's complete BS. Bob#s also agreed that the therapist's "contemporaneous notes" are important evidence.

On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 @ 3:21 pm, Bob78164 wrote:If it turns out that Dr. Blasey Ford had her therapist write notes about this incident six years ago (during a Democratic Administration), to lay the groundwork for scuttling Kavanaugh's nomination, then I'll make a sizeable donation to the Innocence Project.

The author of the WaPo article wrote:In an interview, her husband, Russell Ford, said that in the 2012 sessions, she recounted being trapped in a room with two drunken boys, one of whom pinned her to a bed, molested her and prevented her from screaming. He said he recalled that his wife used Kavanaugh’s last name and voiced concern that Kavanaugh – then a federal judge – might one day be nominated to the Supreme Court.

1) I think the husband tried to add too much detail to their story, like liars often do. He said that "in the 2012 sessions," "he recalled that his wife used Kavanaugh’s last name." Why then, is Kavanaugh's name not in the therapist's notes?
2) Further, he claims that in those sessions, "he recalled that his wife ... voiced concern that Kavanaugh – then a federal judge – might one day be nominated to the Supreme Court." So she has this 35-year trauma (we don't know how old, since she doesn't know when it happened), and when she first reveals the attacker's name to her husband, she is not concerned about having him punished and/or preventing him from doing the same to others, but she is concerned that he might "one day be nominated to the Supreme Court?" To me, this sounds like absolutely contrived BS.

So what's your conclusion?

Bob78164 wrote:That she made up the therapist's notes and that they weren't really written six years ago?

Bob78164 wrote:That she made up the incident six years ago for some reason?

Bob78164 wrote:By the way, neither of these explanations is consistent with the account that surfaced today from one of her high school classmates, who says that the incident was known about when it happened, 35 years ago.

Estonut wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

Estonut wrote:This is the article I read about her accusations:
California professor, writer of confidential Brett Kavanaugh letter, speaks out about her allegation of sexual assault

1) "The therapist's notes, portions of which were provided by Ford..." What did the rest of the notes say? If you're going to use these as evidence, you shouldn't be able to cherry-pick what is revealed. Bob#s even agrees that "all available evidence" should be examined.
2) She knows who this was and how it has affected her life so adversely, yet doesn't name him?
3) "The notes say four boys were involved, a discrepancy Ford says was an error on the therapist’s part. Ford said there were four boys at the party but only two in the room." A house party in the 80's with only four boys in attendance? That's complete BS. Bob#s also agreed that the therapist's "contemporaneous notes" are important evidence.

1) I think the husband tried to add too much detail to their story, like liars often do. He said that "in the 2012 sessions," "he recalled that his wife used Kavanaugh’s last name." Why then, is Kavanaugh's name not in the therapist's notes?
2) Further, he claims that in those sessions, "he recalled that his wife ... voiced concern that Kavanaugh – then a federal judge – might one day be nominated to the Supreme Court." So she has this 35-year trauma (we don't know how old, since she doesn't know when it happened), and when she first reveals the attacker's name to her husband, she is not concerned about having him punished and/or preventing him from doing the same to others, but she is concerned that he might "one day be nominated to the Supreme Court?" To me, this sounds like absolutely contrived BS.

So what's your conclusion?

My conclusion is that her story, especially with the additional comments from her husband, absolutely stinks.

Bob78164 wrote:That she made up the therapist's notes and that they weren't really written six years ago?

I believe she may have made her vague, statements about an unnamed person to her therapist and that he/she wrote them down. I do not believe the therapist made a mistake regarding the number of attackers she reported. As I said before, her explanation of the "misunderstanding" by the therapist is complete bullshit. "House parties" by teenagers in the 80's did not have 4 boys in attendance. 400 is far more likely. Since she offered them "as proof," I'd like to know their entire contents.

Bob78164 wrote:That she made up the incident six years ago for some reason?

I think it's more likely that she is filling the "details" in today for political reasons. Her husband's comments sound as if they were made up recently. I don't, for a moment, believe that in 2012 she mentioned the possibility that Kavanaugh might end up as a supreme court justice.

Bob78164 wrote:By the way, neither of these explanations is consistent with the account that surfaced today from one of her high school classmates, who says that the incident was known about when it happened, 35 years ago.

This was not an account. She has "no first-hand information to corroborate the accuser’s claims." She did not know the accuser. She said, "Many of us heard a buzz about it indirectly with few specific details." So, no actual knowledge, heard a buzz about a third-hand rumor with no details.

Bob78164 wrote:

Estonut wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:So what's your conclusion?

My conclusion is that her story, especially with the additional comments from her husband, absolutely stinks.

Bob78164 wrote:That she made up the therapist's notes and that they weren't really written six years ago?

I believe she may have made her vague, statements about an unnamed person to her therapist and that he/she wrote them down. I do not believe the therapist made a mistake regarding the number of attackers she reported. As I said before, her explanation of the "misunderstanding" by the therapist is complete bullshit. "House parties" by teenagers in the 80's did not have 4 boys in attendance. 400 is far more likely. Since she offered them "as proof," I'd like to know their entire contents.

Bob78164 wrote:That she made up the incident six years ago for some reason?

I think it's more likely that she is filling the "details" in today for political reasons. Her husband's comments sound as if they were made up recently. I don't, for a moment, believe that in 2012 she mentioned the possibility that Kavanaugh might end up as a supreme court justice.

Bob78164 wrote:By the way, neither of these explanations is consistent with the account that surfaced today from one of her high school classmates, who says that the incident was known about when it happened, 35 years ago.

This was not an account. She has "no first-hand information to corroborate the accuser’s claims." She did not know the accuser. She said, "Many of us heard a buzz about it indirectly with few specific details." So, no actual knowledge, heard a buzz about a third-hand rumor with no details.

Sounds like you believe she was attacked but that she's making up the part about it being Kavanaugh.

Estonut wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:Sounds like you believe she was attacked but that she's making up the part about it being Kavanaugh.

I have no basis to believe she was not attacked. I also have no basis to believe that she was attacked. The attribution to Kavanaugh seems more recent and certainly political.

jarnon wrote:

Estonut wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:Sounds like you believe she was attacked but that she's making up the part about it being Kavanaugh.

I have no basis to believe she was not attacked. I also have no basis to believe that she was attacked. The attribution to Kavanaugh seems more recent and certainly political.

There are other possibilities besides Dr. Ford being a politically motivated liar. There are many stories of trauma victims seeing their tormentor years later, triggering disturbing memories of the attack. In a case like this, it's even more painful because the assailant got away with it and is now successful and prominent. But decades-old memories, even vivid ones, are unreliable, and it's hard to tell if her attacker was really Kavanaugh. The charges should be investigated fairly and respectfully.

Beebs52 wrote:I deleted my links re grabienews since they f!@#ed up. I know, I beeped fuck, too.

Spock wrote:You are viewing 15 year old girls attending alcohol parties in 1981(1982?/1983?) at a fancy private school as if they were vestal virgins.

"OMG, somebody might say something about me."

Spock wrote:SSS>>>How about this scenario:

1) A 15-year-old girl goes to the party either with friends or her parents drop her off.

2) She winds up in a room with two older boys who are very popular in the various social circles.

3) When she gets out of the room, she is scared and embarrassed and wonders what people will think if she says anything, so she tries to stay away from people and keeps quiet. <<<
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

You are viewing 15 year old girls attending alcohol parties in 1981(1982?/1983?) at a fancy private school as if they were vestal virgins.

"OMG, somebody might say something about me." Hell, at that age and in that friend cohort you probably would have gotten more crap about not being sexually active than any thing that might have happened in a closed room.

I was 15 in 1981 so these are my age cohorts.

Spock wrote:SSS>>>2) She winds up in a room with two older boys who are very popular in the various social circles.<<<

In a way, SSS is extremely sexist. He never gives girls any agency. He can't grasp that younger girls often set their caps for popular older boys. In his world, it is always the popular older boy's fault.

Spock wrote:SSS>>>2) She winds up in a room with two older boys who are very popular in the various social circles.<<<

In a way, SSS is extremely sexist. He never gives girls any agency. He can't grasp that younger girls often set their caps for popular older boys. In his world, it is always the popular older boy's fault.

Bob Juch wrote:

Spock wrote:SSS>>>2) She winds up in a room with two older boys who are very popular in the various social circles.<<<

In a way, SSS is extremely sexist. He never gives girls any agency. He can't grasp that younger girls often set their caps for popular older boys. In his world, it is always the popular older boy's fault.

I didn't think it was possible to think worse of you; I was wrong.