White House says All The Women Who Say Trump Sexually Harassed Them Are Liars

originally posted by: AMPTAH


Women don't lie.

They just have a different perspective.

What a man thinks is trivial flirtation, some women take as serious harassment.

Which would be a legitimate point, if it were not absolutely clear from his own testimony, that what Trump believes is trivial flirtation, is clearly sexual harassment, even by the standards applied to the matter by other males, leave alone the female of our species. Fact:

If he is the sort to walk up to a woman he likes the look of, and simply grope her genitals, then he is a cad and criminally liable for his actions, regardless of his wealth and prestige.

The problem is that men are naturally attracted to women.

No, that is not a problem. In fact, its quite normal for men to be attracted to women, and for women to be attracted to men. What is not normal, is for someone to force themselves on other people, without so much as a by your leave, because that is harassment or assault, depending on severity. Attraction is natural, but having no impulse control, or more correctly in the case of power players like Trump, not believing that cultural norms apply to them, is not natural, normal, right, healthy, or indicative of anything but the most base and depraved character, in need of adjustment or confinement, against the possibility that their inability or unwillingness to control themselves, causes anyone any harm in the future.

So, their auto-response system, like reflex, is to show interest in various ways when they encounter a beautiful woman.

Women often deliberately use this to their advantage, knowing that they'll get more out of their contact with men, by dressing in a certain way, and putting on all that make-up to entice the very responses they then complain about.

Balderdash.

Next you will be telling me, that I dress the way I do, to entice men to fight me to establish their dominance, or to make ladies clothing fall off just by walking into a room. Its nonsense, absolute poppycock. Ladies most often dress the way they wish to, because it makes them comfortable to do so. That summer dress is not a come on, its practical. That make up is not an advertisement, its a shield, a mask, behind which some refuge from the nonsense can be taken. A persons appearance is their own, for themselves, and only under very specific circumstances, do either males or females, dress up for the attention of one another either exclusively, or as a side note to their preferences of wardrobe and outward appearance.

In Muslim countries, they make women wear coverings to avoid this type of contact.

And I must argue, no they do not. If they were looking to avoid that kind of contact, they would have set their society up in such a way that any fellow found to have been inappropriate toward a woman, was beaten senseless with a metal bar and left to rot in the dessert sun, rather than instead, making everything the womans fault for not wearing enough clothing, and stoning a woman for being sexually assaulted, which is the most absolute example of victim blaming you can possibly imagine.

In the old communist China they used to dress women and men exactly the same way, plain white shirt and blue-grey pants, and make everybody call each other "comrade" instead of sexist labels.

In the West, there's was once a trend to enhance the differences between men and women, to make them even more attracted to each other. Women and men dress very differently, they act and talk differently. The west used to promote the polarization between the sexes to increase that attraction of opposites. This was good for marketing, and commerce, in various ways, since men earned the cash, and women spent it. Men had an incentive to earn more cash, to attract the women who wanted access to that cash to spend to buy all the things they wanted.

However, since the feminist movement decided that men and women have to be equal, and thus the same, to get equal pay etc..there's been this movement to destroy the differences between men and women, to reduce this attraction to the opposite sex, and eventually to eliminate sex all together. Women want to earn their own cash today. They don't want to have to have a man around, in order to be able to buy stuff.

That's the battle we're seeing now.

Sex is terrible. It causes all sorts of problems, we're told.

Yet, it's still a man's world. So, women, even those that earn their own cash, have to use their attractiveness to get the job to enable them to earn that cash.

When the girl gets to Hollywood, the director says strip, she does, because she wants to be a star and earn the big bucks, and that's her path to independence.

Now that we're killing off the essential motivation for making movies, by outing all the sex addicts in Hollywood as "perverts" , the movie industry is going to collapse.

The essential motivation for making movies has nothing to do with the desire of powerful men, to dictate to beautiful women. The essential motivation for making movies, or involving oneself in any kind of artistic expression, is imagination, vision and a desire to see these things realised, wrought in a medium that is transmissible from ones own mind to the minds of others. Comic book artists, painters, poets, musicians, photographers, directors, and all of those involved in the arts, have a desire to communicate the contents of their imaginations to others, as well as a talent for the doing of it. THAT is the purpose of ANY truly artistic endeavour, the essential motivation of it.

There are, amongst artists, sick people. There are sick people in every demography, none are free of it. That does not dirty the demographic, only those who perpetrate wrongs against others for their own edification.

Just look at the "content" of all the movies coming out of Hollywood, and ask your self, why are all these films so infused with sex? It's the directors, the producers, the movers and shakers in Hollywood, who's "mind" dwells on these things all the time. Hence the movies reflect the Hollywood work environment.

This is flawed thinking. Movies contain these elements, because the human condition is complex, dirty, wild and strange. The real world contains sex, violence, madness, chaos and disorder. It also contains beauty, wonder, tranquility and bliss. Art often juxtaposes these things, and in order to do so, references them in some manner. If it did not, it would not have the relevance that it does to the world in which we live, that most artistic endeavour does. Tell me, does a blank canvas have the same meaning as a picture of a poppy? Does a photograph of nothing, tell you anything about a statue, or a building, or a landscape, or a sky? When ones intention is to write, or paint, or film something about a racing car, does it make any sense whatever to feature only references to kittens and puppies? Should a film about Mars feature only shots from within a library building, moving images of people bustling by with armfuls of thick tomes, or sitting by microfiche viewers, trundling through old newspaper clippings for mention of long dead relatives?

Of course not. The meaning would be entirely lost otherwise, and give a false impression of the subject matter.

Continues in next post...

a reply to: AMPTAH

If I'm a director, I want to produce the films where the girl has to take off her clothes, so that when a candidate applies for the role, I can say to her "strip", let me see if you've got what it takes. If she hesitates, I'll just tell her "Sweetheart, if you can't take off your clothes in front of me, how are you going to do it in-front of all the camera men on the set? "

See? It's a natural fit for a power play. Picking and choosing films with lots of sex scenes, creates the natural environment to harass the clueless and gullible women. And make that harassment seemingly "legit".

A natural fit for a power play? So is every position of power, from those in private enterprise, to those in public service, from the position of the teacher with regard to their pupil, from the position of the police agent to the regular citizen, or an officer of lesser rank, every single hierarchy which exists anywhere in the world, for any reason, is open to abuse by sick people. But only sick people ever use their power for ill, for their own aggrandisment, and not all who possess a measure of power, are sick. For example, I have power, though tis small potatoes in the grand scheme of things. I know how to enter locked premises with barely a sound, leaving little to no trace. I could, were I a sick individual, use that power to do great harm to people, by invading their private spaces, moving things around their homes, or even watching them while they sleep. But I am not a sick man, so I do not desire to do these things. I could withhold my application of my skills, and only employ them if a lady customer was prepared to give me a cheap thrill in payment for my services. I am not, however, an amoral bastard, and so the very notion of such a thing only occurs to me at all, to serve as an example of how anyone COULD abuse their power, no matter how large or small. The thing which decides whether a person will, or will not abuse their power, is simply a matter of whether that person is sick in some extreme manner, or not. If they are, then they will. Those who are not in some manner broken, do not do these things, because their conscience would not permit it, because they are, for want of a better word, normal folk, for all that life may have lay responsibility and power at their feet.

Sex and money.

Isn't that what western life is all about?

Eventually, we all become like Muslim, and abolish all the harassment by removing the incentives and temptation before our eyes.

Except, we'll do it with science, eliminating the concept of gender altogether, re-engineering the human species to be gender neutral.

And thereby entering the dystopia we all seek to avoid? I think not. Not unless those with the power and the will to make things happen in the wider world, are deluded about the meaning of life, the meaning of living, and the importance of taking the risk that comes with liberty.

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight


Ivana Trump herself called it rape. Then, after the divorce preceding were over, under a "gag order" that only allowed to discuss her marriage after gaining Donald Trump's approval, she said that she didn't mean "criminal rape".

She never recanted the assault or the "rape".

You need to get a hobby - your hate for the man is unnerving

I'm sorry that the social implications of sexual assault, harassment and rape that are arising lately, and how Donald Trump's past behaviors are also coming into the spot light again, as a result of Cosby, Weinstein, Ailes, O'Reilly, Haliperin, and others, leaves you unnerved. Perhaps you should stay away from threads that trigger you!

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: AMPTAH
The thing which decides whether a person will, or will not abuse their power, is simply a matter of whether that person is sick in some extreme manner, or not. If they are, then they will. Those who are not in some manner broken, do not do these things, because their conscience would not permit it, because they are, for want of a better word, normal folk, for all that life may have lay responsibility and power at their feet.

Brilliant post. I particularly liked this part quoted above.

See it’s funny when conservatives defend Trump and say he’s honest just because they agree with him. He’s not honest, they just share the same biases. The same perception, the same fears; the same basic belief that god is a jealous god instead of a cold, distant, mathematical god.

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

Your defense of sexual abuse is more unnerving.

Yes it is . Maybe someone here on ATS would care to do a Psychoanalysis of a Mindset such as that.........

Easy, they said that because they are liars. This administration isn't afraid to tell it like it is.

They forgot a few things though. They're opportunistic Clintonites who conspired to influence the election.

Props to Trump admin, as usual. People who make public claims without a shred of evidence should be tarred and feathered, and discredited.

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

Heh, "sexual abuse."

Good try, but no evidence for such a claim exists

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

I'm not defending sexual abuse. Unless you're referring to psychoanalysis of spiritualzombie? meh