Vee-Rex
All-Star
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2016
- Messages
- 4,070
- Reaction score
- 8,612
- Points
- 113
Because the definitions of all forms of sexual misconduct are important, right?Here's a point where I'm genuinely curious--why does this matter to you?
A legal conviction doesn't mean the person did it, and the lack of a legal conviction doesn't mean they didn't do it.
If there were still people holding out after the number of accusations, I'd hope that "I, therefore, find that the NFL has carried its burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Mr. Watson engaged in sexual assault (as defined by the NFL) against the four therapists identified in the Report" leaves no doubt, but I'm not that naive. I know trolls will still be out there. I just hoped RCF would be a bit better.
I believe it was @The Human Q-Tip who gave solid examples on the importance of how we define them.
If one person misread signals at the end of a date, goes in for a kiss and the other pushes them away, it's technically ~sexual assault~ if we define sexual assault as "an act in which one intentionally sexually touches another person without that person's consent". Or if a two people are making out and one person misreads it as a progression into sex, and grabs the other person's ass and they push them away.
The point here is that Sue Robinson's verdict, being based on the NFL's definition of sexual assault, might not necessarily be the 'de facto sexual assault' people are accustomed to. It's not good at all of course, but I don't think there's anything wrong with making that distinction.
Baxley essentially lied through omission to her own therapist. Her therapist detailed how she was claiming suffering from emotional distress, and was not informed at all that Baxley was continuing to contact Watson and schedule sessions. Her own therapist said her actions made no sense.You're free to do so.
I think it's a pretty shitty position to take.
If we're talking about who's less trustworthy in this situation and deserves less benefit of the doubt, it's clearly Watson--right?
What makes you question Baxley so much? Typically when plaintiffs accept monetary settlements, that brings more scrutiny, with people saying "She just did it for the money!" But Baxley refused to settle, stating that Watson's refusal to admit what he did and show any amount of remorse was unacceptable to her.
To me, that should remove doubt, not sow more.
“I mean, I was really surprised that she was responding at all,” the therapist replied. “I mean, I – I would think it's not consistent. Most people would not want to – I would – I would think that most clients that had actually been traumatized and sexually assaulted would not want to have anything to do with their perpetrator.”
“Yeah,” said the therapist. “I mean, especially the contact – contacting him. I don’t understand that. And then according to what you said, she even made an appointment or was willing to make an appointment, another appointment, another follow-up. … Makes no sense to me. I’m not saying that’s a lie, but it doesn’t fit the picture. It doesn’t fit the scenario.”
Hardin’s filing also pointed out that the therapist testified that she believed Baxley was not “fully truthful” in their sessions and that the texting made the therapist question her previous opinion that that Watson was a sexual abuser.
So if Baxley's own therapist questioned the validity of her own statements, why shouldn't I? Why shouldn't anyone? I'm not even claiming Baxley is downright lying. But I do think it's fair to have some doubts.
I'm not trying to pick apart stories and blame victims and so forth and I get how it could appear to be that way. I know a lot of people do victim-blame. I just try to look at any details objectively, since there are quite a few celebrities who have been falsely accused of sexual misconduct and/or domestic violence. Unfortunately, we don't always have a smoking gun in these cases.
I actually believe Ashley Solis though based on all the information that has been made available.
Yeah, I agree with this.I don't think you fall under this but if Deshaun Watson wasn't quarterbacking the Cleveland Browns, I think your stance would be significantly less prevalent around these parts.