IMF chief arrested for sexual interpretation of IMF policy

Originally posted by ~The Wickerman~
The confusion is from your post quoting my post which was a reply to inimalist claiming a string of sexual assault accusations, so I thought you were stepping in for him to provide that string of sexual assaults that he mentioned but did not produce.

I agree with your points.

I guess it depends on how you define a "string"

Trintane Banon, Piroska Nagy and now this maid.

not to mention, soliciting sex from a reporter for an interview is actually a form of sexual assault... so that leaves 3 cases prior to this one, and this one... all in 10 years...

plus, huge evidence that he has an inappropriate sexual appetite (Nagy was a subordinate who felt pressured into the affair), and he is twice divorced. You are right, the divorces prove nothing... except that he couldnt hold together a marriage, and one of the most common reasons for this is infidelity.

what evidence of a plot against him was there again?

or, the hotel video? that is an entire fabrication? the alleged victim is a fantastic actor who called a friend in tears minutes after the assault?

like, dont get me wrong, innocent until proven guilty, but this "ooooh, he is powerful, no way he could have done it, its a set up" is not consistent with any evidence you have presented so far, and rests on the idea that someone might benefit from it.

like, if the DNA evidence comes back positive, will that be enough to convince you? or is the conspiracy so deep they have his sperm on file?

Originally posted by inimalist
I guess it depends on how you define a "string"

Trintane Banon, Piroska Nagy and now this maid.

not to mention, soliciting sex from a reporter for an interview is actually a form of sexual assault... so that leaves 3 cases prior to this one, and this one... all in 10 years...

plus, huge evidence that he has an inappropriate sexual appetite (Nagy was a subordinate who felt pressured into the affair), and he is twice divorced. You are right, the divorces prove nothing... except that he couldnt hold together a marriage, and one of the most common reasons for this is infidelity.

what evidence of a plot against him was there again?

or, the hotel video? that is an entire fabrication? the alleged victim is a fantastic actor who called a friend in tears minutes after the assault?

like, dont get me wrong, innocent until proven guilty, but this "ooooh, he is powerful, no way he could have done it, its a set up" is not consistent with any evidence you have presented so far, and rests on the idea that someone might benefit from it.

like, if the DNA evidence comes back positive, will that be enough to convince you? or is the conspiracy so deep they have his sperm on file?

You probably shouldn't be sarcastic as you are the one that made a claim and is now resorting to grasping at straws to back it up.

Originally posted by inimalist
you... you do know there is a long history of people reporting this type of abuse against Strauss-Khan, yes?

"this type of abuse" ? Sexual abuse? How many reported sexual abuse against him? The novelist. That is all. Everything else in your post was either consensual, or harassment. Your claim that there is a long history of sexual abuses was incorrect.

Now that I cleared up why you shouldn't be sarcastic, I want to say I do agree that he's looking mighty guilty right about now having read all of those articles. All of this stuff wasn't reported where I live so all I had to go by was his general publicity of a ladies man and a powerful man with lots of enemies, so you can understand why I would be inclined to believe there's more to the story than meets the eye.

lol, that is a strange moral calculus you are doing:

its abuse, but it isn't abusive enough

lol, fine, he has a history of sexual abuse of which this is the most serious case, does this satisfy your demarcation of which type of assaulting women is ok?

I'm also going to take a leap here and guess you dont know much about the psychology of women who have been assaulted, and why it can be almost impossible to get them to come forward... prove me wrong, i suppose (not that Im claiming any specific expertise...)

Originally posted by ~The Wickerman~
All of this stuff wasn't reported where I live so all I had to go by was his general publicity of a ladies man and a powerful man with lots of enemies, so you can understand why I would be inclined to believe there's more to the story than meets the eye.

no, I cant. I have a hard time understanding how people can believe incredible things with no evidence at all. Im not being sarcastic here, conspiratorial thinking makes no sense to me

Originally posted by inimalist
lol, that is a strange moral calculus you are doing:

its abuse, but it isn't abusive enough

lol, fine, he has a history of sexual abuse of which this is the most serious case, does this satisfy your demarcation of which type of assaulting women is ok?

I'm also going to take a leap here and guess you dont know much about the psychology of women who have been assaulted, and why it can be almost impossible to get them to come forward... prove me wrong, i suppose

I was under the impression that all of us have the moral calculus that abuse varies in degree. I was under the impression that that's why calling a woman a b*tch, coming on to her or raping her are punished differently by the law. Must've been wrong though.

You clearly said this type of abuse has been reported against him for a long time. This type of abuse = prosecutable sexual abuse. You were wrong. Instead of wasting time trying to save face just accept that you were wrong, and read my point that I agree he fits the bill of someone who might eventually push too far.

As for women not coming forward, I am well aware of that, which is what peaked my curiosity when you said there was a long history of accusations. I was like "damn these french women are awesome for beating back the shame and fear of public scrutiny!". Sadly though, you were incorrect.

Wow. And the information I got is that she waited a two days to report this...I had no idea she reported it, instantly.

It would be different if she waited a couple of days after: after she found out who it was she "magically" claims to now have been assaulted. (Meaning, there is a strong possibility that she didn't report until after she found out his was "upper class" because she thought she could get some money.)

That's not the case, at all.

I'm pretty sure the FBI has several profiles for "accusers" just trying to make a buck or get fame. I was reading (as part of homework we had) about several profiles they have on women crying wolf in rape and how it was much more common than once thought...but still so rare that it really doesn't affect the bottom line. There should be tell-tale signs of monetary or fame motivations from this lady that should fit those profiles, quite well. It does not appear to fit most of those, at the moment. There's still the "fame" portion that cannot be ruled out.

There's also the possibility that it was pre-meditated and she came onto him but due to his sexual aggression, he can't really make that case.

Anyway, we can play "armchair quarterback" all we want. We really don't know with a super surety what's going on. The DNA evidence on the floor proves nothing unless he was claiming that he did not have sex with her, at all.

lol, alright, fine, in your world, using one's power to pressure a subordinate into a sexual affair is not only forgivable, but shouldn't count as a history of sexual abuse. Pressuring a reporter into sex for an interview, not really abuse.

jeez, say hi to your wife for me

Originally posted by inimalist
lol, alright, fine, in your world, using one's power to pressure a subordinate into a sexual affair is not only forgivable, but shouldn't count as a history of sexual abuse. Pressuring a reporter into sex for an interview, not really abuse.

jeez, say hi to your wife for me

I'd like to point out that this post was not at me, but at Wickerman's...just in case people confused that. I think the dude is most likely guilty and he almost has a clear past of sexual predation. It just looks like you were posting at me but the timestamps reveal a different story of "at the same time" posting.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I'd like to point out that this post was not at me, but at Wickerman's...just in case people confused that. I think the dude is most likely guilty and he almost has a clear past of sexual predation. It just looks like you were posting at me but the timestamps reveal a different story of "at the same time" posting.

Nice cover up there you dirty rapist.

Originally posted by inimalist
lol, alright, fine, in your world, using one's power to pressure a subordinate into a sexual affair is not only forgivable, but shouldn't count as a history of sexual abuse. Pressuring a reporter into sex for an interview, not really abuse.

jeez, say hi to your wife for me

Man, seriously, this is ridiculous, why would you stoop so low just to save face instead of admitting to being wrong?

You claimed that the type of sexual abuse allegations he is claiming now have been claimed frequently in the past as well. That is simply not the case.

I obviously don't endorse or condone harassment of any kind, and am in fact the first guy to call my friends out when they're being misogynists. The simple fact that I called you out for being incorrect regarding the long line of sexual abuse allegations similar to the one he is facing now is no reason to assume I condone harassment, and I honestly don't see how anyone could jump to that conclusion.

Obviously, as I've mentioned before, I think that he is a very bad guy, I think that men very often push TOO far under the guise of sexual appetite and "just being friendly", and the abuse of power and influence disgusts me. That being said, you were wrong in your statement, just admit it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13455484

Looks like the IMF are already moving on, Strauss-Kahn has resigned from his post. I think his trial is today, or at least, he is making a court appearance.

Originally posted by Liberator
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13455484

Looks like the IMF are already moving on, Strauss-Kahn has resigned from his post. I think his trial is today, or at least, he is making a court appearance.

What I heard while making coffee was that he will be moved to house arrest in his daughter's NY residence, is not allowed to leave NY, will be electronically monitored and the case would be put on hold for months while both sides gather evidence.

Originally posted by ~The Wickerman~
Man, seriously, this is ridiculous, why would you stoop so low just to save face instead of admitting to being wrong?

You claimed that the type of sexual abuse allegations he is claiming now have been claimed frequently in the past as well. That is simply not the case.

just to clear up, I did admit I was "wrong"

not really that I was wrong, just that you and I have differing opinions of what a history of abuse is.

If you don't consider the things listed as sexual abuse, there isn't much I can say other than sarcasm, but up above I clarified that:

Originally posted by inimalist
lol, fine, he has a history of sexual abuse of which this is the most serious case

don't get butthurt over a little sarcasm. You seem to be the one who was determined to say these things weren't abuse or weren't bad enough to consider abuse, and on that point we disagree. However, I certainly did admit that he doesn't have a string of people accusing him of rape, just highly inappropriate sexual misconduct where he abuses his position of power to force women into uncomfortable positions. 4 times in 10 years.

In my world, that is a string of sexual abuse. Would you be more satisfied if I called it a string of sexual misconduct?

Originally posted by inimalist
don't get butthurt over a little sarcasm. You seem to be the one who was determined to say these things weren't abuse or weren't bad enough to consider abuse, and on that point we disagree. However, I certainly did admit that he doesn't have a string of people accusing him of rape, just highly inappropriate sexual misconduct where he abuses his position of power to force women into uncomfortable positions. 4 times in 10 years.

In my world, that is a string of sexual abuse. Would you be more satisfied if I called it a string of sexual misconduct?

A string of sexual misconduct accusations is absolutely correct, and again, I agree that the types of harassment he's been accused of are a form of abuse, but not "this type of abuse" which was your wording. "This type of abuse" = rape, which is quite different from simple sexual misconduct.

which was my wording in one post that I have now clarified at least twice....