Composite snapshot of those who would believe a 6'2" obese
male in the state of turgidity was attacked by a 5' 120 lb woman.
Posted on 10/04/2003 6:17:34 AM PDT by Liz
Edited on 05/26/2004 5:16:59 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Which, to me, could explain why he was unable to say "no". It's easy to prey on a target like that. Go to any strip club and watch how the dancers prey on the fat, unattractive men's insecurities.
This thread is sounding like a witch hunt. Like the Kobe Bryant case, we don't know the facts. Kobe may have raped that woman or she could be setting him up - I don't know. The same applies here. Who knows why, but the accuser in this case could be setting this man up. The ONLY thing we have right now is "he said/she said" and some semen. That doesn't prove rape.
It's not a question of force, it's a question of leverage. When a woman puts her hands on a man's private parts, his willpower completely erodes and she has all the leverage.
You and I may have the willpower to resist these types of situations, but many men don't. All this woman would have to do is come on strong and she'd get her way.
And, YEAH, look at him.., how often do you think women are prying their way between his legs. He probably nursed that fantasy for so long that when it finally happened he didn't want it to stop.
Ultimately, the person who may have gotten beguiled here could have been him. Or he could be a rapist. Don't know... not gonna play God and pass judgement without any facts.
Composite snapshot of those who would believe a 6'2" obese
male in the state of turgidity was attacked by a 5' 120 lb woman.
Well, if you want to get insulting, that's fine, but don't be ignorant. Read my posts - I don't believe ANYTHING as it pertains to this case. The only thing I believe is that *I* am not omniscient - like yourself, apparently - and, therefore, am not in possession of all the facts. Truthfully, the facts are so sparse in this case (based on this one post) that only a fool would use this ONE article to pass judgement on this man.
Anyone want to bet that his lawyer does not have him testify at the trial. In fact I think I would try to have him not even be there in person.
Actually, you haven't heard HIS explanation. Read the article. It says:
"Sessoms, a Harlem community activist, gave a very different account of the incident to cops after he was busted Thursday, according to a law enforcement source.
"He said that the woman grabbed him on his pants without permission, causing him to [ejaculate] on the 29th, and then she calls him on the 30th, stating that he had raped her," the source said.
Cops said Sessoms, who stand 6-foot-2 and weighs 350 pounds, claimed the woman - who is 5-foot-5 and weighs 120 pounds - pulled his pants down, performed a sexual act and used his semen to make it appear as though she had been raped.
I don't see a single word in this article that is straight from the horses mouth. I see a bunch of "sources" offering their version of his explanation. If we applied your logic to, say, the Demonrats, I'd have to believe every misquote Tom D'a$$h*le ever attributed to President Bush.
Actually, this man's explanation of the situation is TWICE removed... it has passed through a "source" AND the through the reporter's editing for his story.
My point is that 60 years ago, there would little doubt as to which is more likely to be truth.
Societal "progress" has removed the boundaries which used to circumscribe normal and likely behavior. Today, anything is possible.
I try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, but this one is nonsense.
Yep - otherwise it's called "hearsay". For all we know, these sources could be approaching his explanation with the same disbelief you are expressing and spinning his explanation based on their disbelief.
From my experience, "his" story is not completely implausible... even as it stands. She could have come on aggressively, without his consent, and he simply lacked the willpower to say "no". It's not nonsense until it is proven to be nonsense.
Innocent until proven guilty, right? Or does that no longer apply at FreeRepublic?
Yep - otherwise it's called "hearsay". For all we know, these sources could be approaching his explanation with the same disbelief you are expressing and spinning his explanation based on their disbelief.
From my experience, "his" story is not completely implausible... even as it stands. She could have come on aggressively, without his consent, and he simply lacked the willpower to say "no". It's not nonsense until it is proven to be nonsense.
Innocent until proven guilty, right? Or does that no longer apply at FreeRepublic?
Seriously, though... going back to the Kobe Bryant case... I'm all for maintaining anonymity on both sides in allegations of sexual assault. Protect the accuser and the accused. Once someone is found guilty, however, HAVE AT the scumbags.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.