Really? That was your thought? In your world someone who visits the apartment of a friend, family member, business associate, or colleague is implicitly responsible for what said friend, etc. does to them while they are there? How are things for you in the 19th century?
Seriously? your first thought is blame the victim?
Every wise judge must consider all things, not just blindly follow the words of one side.
You obviously do not have trust issues... but what about wisdom?
Oh, you’re one of those. Ok, conversation terminated.
I do not need to give you any justification. You are not my judge.
No. Of course you do not. I, however, gave you the opportunity to provide a justification, or - upon reflection - to concede that your position, at least as you have expressed it, is insensitive, patriarchal and archaic. It was an opportunity. You had every right to decline the opportunity and you did so. That was informative.
Certainly not in the Biblical sense, and yet I have judged your espoused views on the matter and found them, as noted, insensitive, patriarchal and archaic.
Have I expressed any desire to censor your thoughts? Certainly not. I encourage you to express them. It is helpful to be able to identify those who hold such views.
You know what is interesting, the OP said "thoughts"? And instead of simply giving your thoughts about the OP, you are trying to create a witch hunt just because I asked "my thoughts are: what was she doing in his private appartment".
You really don't get it, do you? You don't see that by asking why she was in his apartment - as your first thought - you are implying that she had a share of the blame for what then happened to her. In your world we are to accept as normal that if you visit your boss at his home, or hotel room, you are than at serious risk of being assaulted. Nonsense! The blame here is on the man now found guilty of sexual assault, not on the victim. Your remarks implicitly blame the victim. That stinks.
