would be the first to want to kill any "high school boy" that pulled this with their daughter.

Black youth of 17 are regularly tried and convicted as adults. But when it's a rich white kid...he's "just a high schooler who didn't know what he was doing."

Too bad he didn't think about that.

Like so many of his classmen, he assumed, usually correctly, that he would get away with it.

because they always had gotten away with their antics. Sounds like a terrible school.

It's not that hard. It's really not.

Anyone who even insinuates otherwise is truly morally defunct or a coward. They should not have ANY power or authority over other people.

...I think back to my high-school years (which were several years before Kavanaugh's), and my observations of the male/female dynamic existing at the time.

Yes, times were very different, in ways which no doubt seem strange, if not outright oppressive and sexist today. For varying reasons (which would take way too long to explain fully here), there were certain ritualistic roles that were expected of boys and girls in those days. In particular, it was expected that guys would be "testing the limits," of pressing for greater degrees of physical intimacy, while it was the girl's role to set those limits.

Now, this may all seem quite Neanderthal today, but there were two other expectations of those ritual roles: 1) When a girl set limits, they were respected. "No" meant "no," at least for the immediate future…and, if a guy showed signs of not respecting his girlfriend's "no," that was grounds for ending the relationship. 2) These rituals took place in the contexts of relationships, of committed, exclusive "couple" status that was entered into over time.

What I'm getting at here is that, while there were gender roles and rituals in place back then that people nowadays might find upsetting, NONE of them can serve as an excuse for what Kavanaugh is accused to have done — then every bit as much as now. Back then, two guys grabbing a girl (who seems to have been, at most, an uninvolved acquaintance of theirs), and physically pinning her down and gagging her while removing her clothes would have been seen as attempted rape every bit as much as it would now, and every bit as deserving of criminal charges (in many cases, after getting the crap kicked out of them by their peers first). And the consequences of those charges would have followed them the rest of their lives

So, however medieval the old standards may seem to people today, please don’t use them to rationalize away the behavior of someone like Kavanaugh. It wouldn’t have been O.K. back then, just as it isn’t now.

He knew what he was attempting to do was rape, that is why he did not want her to alert others with her screams.

You may as well just come out and say his life shouldn't be ruined over a "mistake" - because that's what you're actually saying.

You're dismissing the pain and suffering of the victim - and that she matters so little to you, you forget her pain and only want to not cause the poor little rapist any trouble. Because, gee, isn't it bad enough the girl's life has been forever altered, why do the same to the rapist who caused all the damage?

Completely overlooking that sexual assault is a crime all the while pretending that it wasn't that bad for the victim but would be bad for the rapist if he gets in trouble for his crime.


That's the general "you" for those who use that bullshit excuse.

When they make that excuse they sound exactly like Brock Turner's father who said his rapist son shouldn't go to prison for "20 minutes of action".

He's flat out claiming it didn't happen. If you catch someone using the "but he was in high school" defense, inform them that he must be lying to get on the Supreme Court as an adult.

.

She said that people would normally claim they were there but did not do it.

His defense is he was never there, on the day of an unspecified party, hinting the your memory is faulty and you are pointing at the wrong guy.

.

I hope she sues him for defamation. Get this in a court of law, with investigation, discovery, cross examination, public record.

Or, let me guess, will the Kavanaugh Kourt rule that Supreme Court Justices are immune from lawsuits?

Youth or immaturity is not what drives men to rape.

Who brags in their yearbook about such a thing? He is a psychopath.

Last edited Wed Sep 19, 2018, 12:17 AM - Edit history (1)

There are now whispers that he assaulted one of his law clerks after he was appointed as a judge. Once a psychopath, always a psychopath.

and that practice won't change. Psychopathy, I'm very familiar with the disease and need no info. or explanations.

I use sarcasm a lot, but you might claim I’m being glib when that’s the last thing on my mind.

There was no sarcasm emoticon, nor did he clarify that he was being sarcastic. Instead, he stood by his words and seemed so offended when I suggested he not use that euphemism ("active"/action) for sexual assault. It really is wrong to use that euphemism, even if meant in jest or as sarcasm. Reminds me of when Brock Turner's father referred to the rape as "20 minutes of action."

I might accept that argument IF Kavanaugh acknowledged the act, expressed regret, and had worked to advance women's right since then.

He's done NONE of those things. In fact, he's doubled down on the lies. He's an unrepentant attempted rapist. And I wouldn't be surprised to learn other attempts were successful.