9 upvotes, 2 direct replies (showing 2)
View submission: On what women want
Not to take sides, but he does dispute that description of events, and so we are back with the old situation we see so often.
So we fall back to #believeallwomen and hope none of them are ever wrong or lying, because it's the most sensible simple option. I don't really understand why we have abandoned the concept of a court as the appropriate venue for this sort of thing.
Comment by turtlehabits at 20/01/2025 at 13:35 UTC
10 upvotes, 1 direct replies
Yes, well. Most people accused of horrible things deny or dispute them.
The article argues that Pavlovich consented to all activities, whether or not she desired them, and that her texts are evidence of this.
I am not here to litigate the facts of the case. I am simply here to point out Rosenfield has conveniently omitted elements of the exposé that don't fit her narrative; namely, that a) by Pavlovich's account, she did not consent to the very first encounter, and b) that the exposé doesn't suggest that we should question Pavlovich's ability to consent because she is a woman, but rather because she was a vulnerable person with a history of abuse.
Finally, we haven't abandoned the court as a venue - Gaiman will not face any *legal* consequences unless tried and convicted in a court of law. But actions have consequences. Surely, if you discovered someone in your social circle was, say, regularly slipping roofies into girls' drinks and proceeding to take advantage of them, you would tell your other friends and choose not to associate with that person anymore. (At least I hope that's the case.) This is simply that same principle writ large.
Comment by mimic at 20/01/2025 at 09:41 UTC
9 upvotes, 1 direct replies
False dichotomy. Also look at the stats for number of rapist actually convicted in court. Believing women has no consequence similar to court also.