finally a good argument I will respond to.
I think we are all aware that obviously there was something wrong in the way he behaved, probably some moral issues as well according to what society considers to be moral, we are not blind and can see it, I think what some of us are arguing (and not defending) is the fact that calling 'rape' something that it is not it does a disservice to people that actually got raped.
Is he a perv with low morals? yes, did he rape those woman? I doubt it but we will see.
A pattern of low moral behavior does not mean rape.
I agree with you on calling "rape" something it's not is undermining
real rape victims and their suffering.
From where I sit, it's tough to pick a side (thankfully I don't have to).
On one hand, he's a high powered public figure... I'm sure there was no shortage of women wanting to be around him. Quite believable that some would keep their mouth shut from being public about his overly-aggressive bedroom behaviour.. whether they liked it or not. Throw a stone too far up the ladder and it won't reach it's intended target but will certainly come back to smack you in the face.
On the other hand, maybe as a woman you're into some rough housing in the sack. A little choke here, a little slap there, a little forceful play... i'll come harder, you'll come harder.. Yay. Oh snap, I got a bruise on my cheek... everyone around the office already sees us flirting and thinks I'm banging you. OH snap! Did I just get raped?... wait.. he did this to another girl too? Maybe I really did get raped. Damnit.. I think he raped me.. that mother effer.
Slippery slope.
I think the prosecution has their work cut out for them.
IMO, I think CBC did the right thing as sheeple are retarded - as witnessed by some posters in this very thread.
As a large broadcasting organization, cutting away from all the attention is
best case scenario for them. If they didn't, they would lose millions from advertisers cutting ties with them for the very same reason!
