Submitted too soon. Tends to not be found in situations such as this, where the victim had only a 6 month work relationship with the assaulted, and certainly not decades after the abuse happened.

Joe has a big problem.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even in a court of law where they have access to all the evidence, to depositions, to witnesses, to investigations, to trials...it can be very hard to know exactly what happened in a case. It is very rare to conclude that something definitely didn't happen in sexual assault cases, it is usually that there is not enough evidence to definitely conclude that it did (which doesn't mean it didn't happen, the evidence is just not sufficient and leaves room for doubt).

So the idea that people on here saying they know for sure it didn't happen based on what they heard on a radio podcast or by reading an article online (that likely is from a source that support their own perspective and confirms their own biases) is ridiculous. There are only two people who know for sure what did or didn't happen.

In an April 2019 interview Tara Reade "said of Biden: 'I wasn’t scared of him, that he was going to take me in a room or anything. It wasn’t that kind of vibe.'"

Didn’t someone already tell you... Stockholm Syndrome.

Tends to develop in situations where there is a long-term abusive relationship -incest, domestic violence, etc. And it develops as a survival mechanism. Tends to not be found in circumstances such as this,

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even in a court of law where they have access to all the evidence, to depositions, to witnesses, to investigations, to trials...it can be very hard to know exactly what happened in a case. It is very rare to conclude that something definitely didn't happen in sexual assault cases, it is usually that there is not enough evidence to definitely conclude that it did (which doesn't mean it didn't happen, the evidence is just not sufficient and leaves room for doubt).

So the idea that people on here saying they know for sure it didn't happen based on what they heard on a radio podcast or by reading an article online (that likely is from a source that support their own perspective and confirms their own biases) is ridiculous. There are only two people who know for sure what did or didn't happen.

In an April 2019 interview Tara Reade "said of Biden: 'I wasn’t scared of him, that he was going to take me in a room or anything. It wasn’t that kind of vibe.'"

Yes, I would like the posters defending Reade to find one example of a victim saying something as exculpatory as this.

https://www.vox.com/first-person/2017/10/13/16465064/harvey-weinstein-rape-allegations-asia-argento

I was reading Ronan Farrow’s excellent New Yorker article on Harvey Weinstein’s alleged history of rape and sexual harassment, when I got to Weinstein’s alleged rape of actress Asia Argento. Argento claims that Weinstein performed oral sex on her, against her will, in a hotel room.
Argento goes on to say that she grew close to Weinstein after he assaulted her — accepting gifts, meeting his mother, and having consensual sex with him.

Once upon a time, my rapist, another well-connected and accomplished man, did the same to me. Not only did he encourage me to pretend as though nothing bad had happened between us, but he also made it abundantly clear that he would trade on his privilege to encourage me to stay silent.
“A real rape victim wouldn’t do that”
Among the basic tenets of rape culture is the typecasting of the rapist as an aberrant monster and an outlier. Rape culture does not allow for the possibility that a rapist can be a regular guy with a family, your neighbor or colleague, a trusted friend, or the cute guy smiling from across the room at a party. To allow for that possibility is to admit that none of us are truly safe. It would also mean admitting that the victim could not have predicted the rapist’s behavior.

One rape culture myth is the idea that “a real rape victim” always acts bravely in the aftermath. She would never appear to be on good terms with her rapist — she would only treat him as the monster he revealed himself to be. A famous example of this is the case of Emma Sulkowicz, or “mattress girl,” who famously accused a fellow Columbia University student of rape. Because Sulkowicz sent friendly texts to the student, Paul Nungesser, after the incident, doubt was cast on her story. Nungesser went on to sue Columbia for sexual discrimination and reached a settlement.
“A real rape victim wouldn’t do that,” a male friend told me when we were discussing the controversy.
Yet to cast doubt on this scenario ignores both the power differentials between men and women in society and the self-loathing survivors deal with in the aftermath of rape.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her accusation wasn’t vague or flimsy at all, it’s absolutely in line with what experts in the field say people recall.

So much of this seems out of line with how victims behave. Initially tweeting her praise of her attacker? Editing her year-old blog to change her old story to align with her new story? Claiming she filed a report and then, only after Biden called her bluff, changing the nature and content of what she said she reported?

I was attacked 25 years ago and it never occurred to me to do any of these things. My attacker was pretty well-known in my field and I listened to people praise him. I've been silent, so in that respect I'm similar to Tara. But unlike her, I never praised my attacker. I never blogged about him and then edited my blog to put my own actions in a better light. I never made claims about my own response and actions that I later had to amend when somebody threatened to investigate me. When you're in the right, there's absolutely no need to defend or alter your account of what you did. It's really easy to stick to your story. The truth is bad enough, there's no need for all this drama.

Not when the person has power and prestige. Look at Weinstein cases. Some of them continued to see him even after being assaulted. They spoke positively about him and stayed connected out of fear of losing their careers if they didn't. Many of them said one thing back then and then another thing when they felt safe to speak out.

This, exactly. No one person can say a trauma victim "should" behave in one particular way. Isn't that what we've been told, over and over? By the same people now trying to discredit Reade?

Whooosh. 3, or maybe 4, people have pointed out that Weinstein's victims needed jobs from him. Tara left quickly to join her husband in the midwest, so she had nothing to lose.

So? You've heard of Stockholm Syndrome, yes? Just because someone has been assaulted (or kidnapped, etc.) doesn't mean the victim hates the attacker. None of this has to follow an orderly, logical progression. Remember? Isn't that what you lectured us all on recently? How soon we forget.

This is EXACTLY correct.

Stockholm Syndrome lasting 25 years? Has there ever been a documented case lasting this long, when the two weren’t even in contact for 25 years? Not even Patty Hearst was still devoted to her captors 25 years later. This is ridiculous.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even in a court of law where they have access to all the evidence, to depositions, to witnesses, to investigations, to trials...it can be very hard to know exactly what happened in a case. It is very rare to conclude that something definitely didn't happen in sexual assault cases, it is usually that there is not enough evidence to definitely conclude that it did (which doesn't mean it didn't happen, the evidence is just not sufficient and leaves room for doubt).

So the idea that people on here saying they know for sure it didn't happen based on what they heard on a radio podcast or by reading an article online (that likely is from a source that support their own perspective and confirms their own biases) is ridiculous. There are only two people who know for sure what did or didn't happen.

In an April 2019 interview Tara Reade "said of Biden: 'I wasn’t scared of him, that he was going to take me in a room or anything. It wasn’t that kind of vibe.'"

Yes, I would like the posters defending Reade to find one example of a victim saying something as exculpatory as this.

I am one. One way I felt in control was to actually be around the person who assaulted me. To say that I wasn't scared of him. I denied that what he did to me was really assault and as a way to not give him power, I had a 'he can never hurt me' attitude. I have never to this day talked honestly about what happened. My parents and family and friends all believe a very different version of events based on what I told them. I didn't want to be seen as a victim so I reframed the events in my head to create a different version of events.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her accusation wasn’t vague or flimsy at all, it’s absolutely in line with what experts in the field say people recall.

So much of this seems out of line with how victims behave. Initially tweeting her praise of her attacker? Editing her year-old blog to change her old story to align with her new story? Claiming she filed a report and then, only after Biden called her bluff, changing the nature and content of what she said she reported?

I was attacked 25 years ago and it never occurred to me to do any of these things. My attacker was pretty well-known in my field and I listened to people praise him. I've been silent, so in that respect I'm similar to Tara. But unlike her, I never praised my attacker. I never blogged about him and then edited my blog to put my own actions in a better light. I never made claims about my own response and actions that I later had to amend when somebody threatened to investigate me. When you're in the right, there's absolutely no need to defend or alter your account of what you did. It's really easy to stick to your story. The truth is bad enough, there's no need for all this drama.

Not when the person has power and prestige. Look at Weinstein cases. Some of them continued to see him even after being assaulted. They spoke positively about him and stayed connected out of fear of losing their careers if they didn't. Many of them said one thing back then and then another thing when they felt safe to speak out.

This, exactly. No one person can say a trauma victim "should" behave in one particular way. Isn't that what we've been told, over and over? By the same people now trying to discredit Reade?

Whooosh. 3, or maybe 4, people have pointed out that Weinstein's victims needed jobs from him. Tara left quickly to join her husband in the midwest, so she had nothing to lose.

So? You've heard of Stockholm Syndrome, yes? Just because someone has been assaulted (or kidnapped, etc.) doesn't mean the victim hates the attacker. None of this has to follow an orderly, logical progression. Remember? Isn't that what you lectured us all on recently? How soon we forget.

This is EXACTLY correct.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why not open a formal investigation?

Reade opened one with MPD and it has been moved to inactive status, and Biden openly asked for one on national television yesterday. So not sure who’s not answering your question.

No, he actually did not ask for a full on investigation, but he certainly should.

So should Trump. I’m up for them both being investigated. You’re a hypocrite if you don’t agree.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even in a court of law where they have access to all the evidence, to depositions, to witnesses, to investigations, to trials...it can be very hard to know exactly what happened in a case. It is very rare to conclude that something definitely didn't happen in sexual assault cases, it is usually that there is not enough evidence to definitely conclude that it did (which doesn't mean it didn't happen, the evidence is just not sufficient and leaves room for doubt).

So the idea that people on here saying they know for sure it didn't happen based on what they heard on a radio podcast or by reading an article online (that likely is from a source that support their own perspective and confirms their own biases) is ridiculous. There are only two people who know for sure what did or didn't happen.

In an April 2019 interview Tara Reade "said of Biden: 'I wasn’t scared of him, that he was going to take me in a room or anything. It wasn’t that kind of vibe.'"

Didn’t someone already tell you... Stockholm Syndrome.

Stop already with the armchair psychology. You look ridiculous.

Stockholm Syndrome 25 years later? Nope.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why not open a formal investigation?

Reade opened one with MPD and it has been moved to inactive status, and Biden openly asked for one on national television yesterday. So not sure who’s not answering your question.

No, he actually did not ask for a full on investigation, but he certainly should.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even in a court of law where they have access to all the evidence, to depositions, to witnesses, to investigations, to trials...it can be very hard to know exactly what happened in a case. It is very rare to conclude that something definitely didn't happen in sexual assault cases, it is usually that there is not enough evidence to definitely conclude that it did (which doesn't mean it didn't happen, the evidence is just not sufficient and leaves room for doubt).

So the idea that people on here saying they know for sure it didn't happen based on what they heard on a radio podcast or by reading an article online (that likely is from a source that support their own perspective and confirms their own biases) is ridiculous. There are only two people who know for sure what did or didn't happen.

In an April 2019 interview Tara Reade "said of Biden: 'I wasn’t scared of him, that he was going to take me in a room or anything. It wasn’t that kind of vibe.'"

Didn’t someone already tell you... Stockholm Syndrome.

Stop already with the armchair psychology. You look ridiculous.

Anonymous wrote:Why not open a formal investigation?

Reade opened one with MPD and it has been moved to inactive status, and Biden openly asked for one on national television yesterday. So not sure who’s not answering your question.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her accusation wasn’t vague or flimsy at all, it’s absolutely in line with what experts in the field say people recall.

So much of this seems out of line with how victims behave. Initially tweeting her praise of her attacker? Editing her year-old blog to change her old story to align with her new story? Claiming she filed a report and then, only after Biden called her bluff, changing the nature and content of what she said she reported?

I was attacked 25 years ago and it never occurred to me to do any of these things. My attacker was pretty well-known in my field and I listened to people praise him. I've been silent, so in that respect I'm similar to Tara. But unlike her, I never praised my attacker. I never blogged about him and then edited my blog to put my own actions in a better light. I never made claims about my own response and actions that I later had to amend when somebody threatened to investigate me. When you're in the right, there's absolutely no need to defend or alter your account of what you did. It's really easy to stick to your story. The truth is bad enough, there's no need for all this drama.

Not when the person has power and prestige. Look at Weinstein cases. Some of them continued to see him even after being assaulted. They spoke positively about him and stayed connected out of fear of losing their careers if they didn't. Many of them said one thing back then and then another thing when they felt safe to speak out.

This, exactly. No one person can say a trauma victim "should" behave in one particular way. Isn't that what we've been told, over and over? By the same people now trying to discredit Reade?

DP. I understand trauma, I understand how stories can drip out over time in ways that raise questions about their credibility, and I can understand how certain details of an assault while others that seem like they should be memorable can fade over time. I can tell you I was raped in the spring of 1997, but I can't tell you for sure which month it was anymore. Probably May, but maybe April. I remember generally what part of campus it happened on, but I don't remember anymore which dorm it was. I don't remember what I was wearing and I don't remember what I did after I left his dorm. I can remember his name, but I don't remember the name of his roommate that introduced us, even though I'd been hanging out with the roommate and other mutual friends all semester.

But I do know that if I was going to make that accusation public today, I would make sure I'd gone over everything I do and don't remember with a fine-tooth comb before putting my story out there. I would gone over and over whether I made a report and whether that report mentioned sexual assault, because I would want to make sure I was as accurate as possible for the sake of my own credibility, and if I couldn't remember whether I made a report, I would tell the truth about that rather than lying about something that could so easily trip me up. Reade comes across as just throwing random stuff out there to see what sticks, and when she gets caught in a lie, she seemingly tries to brazen her way through it. It's like she doesn't take her own story seriously.

This x1000. I’m the pp who talked about being assaulted earlier.

Confronting your attacker is a huge deal. If I were going to confront mine, I’d be absolutely sure my story was air-tight before even taking the first step. It’s your reputation vs. his, and you make sure you’re on 100% solid ground. This cavalier attitude—hey, I left to join my husband, on no, wait, they fired me—makes no sense.

Anonymous wrote:Even in a court of law where they have access to all the evidence, to depositions, to witnesses, to investigations, to trials...it can be very hard to know exactly what happened in a case. It is very rare to conclude that something definitely didn't happen in sexual assault cases, it is usually that there is not enough evidence to definitely conclude that it did (which doesn't mean it didn't happen, the evidence is just not sufficient and leaves room for doubt).

So the idea that people on here saying they know for sure it didn't happen based on what they heard on a radio podcast or by reading an article online (that likely is from a source that support their own perspective and confirms their own biases) is ridiculous. There are only two people who know for sure what did or didn't happen.

Tara sure doesn’t seem to know what happened!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even in a court of law where they have access to all the evidence, to depositions, to witnesses, to investigations, to trials...it can be very hard to know exactly what happened in a case. It is very rare to conclude that something definitely didn't happen in sexual assault cases, it is usually that there is not enough evidence to definitely conclude that it did (which doesn't mean it didn't happen, the evidence is just not sufficient and leaves room for doubt).

So the idea that people on here saying they know for sure it didn't happen based on what they heard on a radio podcast or by reading an article online (that likely is from a source that support their own perspective and confirms their own biases) is ridiculous. There are only two people who know for sure what did or didn't happen.

In an April 2019 interview Tara Reade "said of Biden: 'I wasn’t scared of him, that he was going to take me in a room or anything. It wasn’t that kind of vibe.'"

Yes, I would like the posters defending Reade to find one example of a victim saying something as exculpatory as this.