It’s still not sexual assault

I have had this blog for long enough now, and trust my readers enough, to be able to get away with saying certain things without qualification or explanation, trusting that my readers will make the required background assumptions for a lot of my posts to work. It is with trust in my readers in mind that I make this claim: Nothing – absolutely nothing, interpreted in the worst possible way – that Trump said, or that anybody in the October Surprise reports has said about Trump, implicates him for sexual assault. None of it. “Grabbing by the pussy”, even if we take it to be non-consensual, is not sexual assault. Grabbing a woman’s ass is not sexual assault. Copping a feel is not sexual assault.

Use of the phrase “Sexual assault” is feminist created scare tactic. When you see the words “Trump is accused of sexual assault”, you immediately think “Trump is accused of rape”. This is because, like any normal human being, you see “assault” and think “oh, an attack”. You see “sexual” and think “Oh, a sexual attack”. And what is the only definition of “sexual attack” that really makes any sense? Rape. The phrase “sexual assault” understood outside of the various baggage associated with it by modern society (I know this is actually impossible, but humor me here) is basically just a synonym for rape.

This is what makes folks like Clinton the First and Trump sound remotely comparable. Clinton was accused of rape – actual rape. Juanita Brodderick accused Clinton of forcing her to have sex with him against her will. Forget whether or not the claim is credible; that is the claim. The worst thing so far claimed about Trump is that he maybe groped some women and maybe surprised one of them with a kiss.*

But saying “Clinton was accused of rape; Trump was accused of groping people” makes the moral difference between the two absurdly obvious. Even your most dyed-in-the-wool feminist is not stupid enough to really believe that “Grabbed my crotch” and “Held me down and fucked me” really deserve to be in the same moral class. The solution is simply to play pretend.

The theory goes something like this: If we call everything Bill Clinton has been accused of “sexual assault”, and everything Donald Trump has been accused of “sexual assault”, nobody can technically say we’re wrong since sexual assault is a legal term that means different things in different areas, some of which apply to the things Trump has been accused of doing. But they both sound almost as scary as actual rape, so it makes Trump look just as bad. It’s brilliant!

And Trump loses this battle for several reasons. First, the media is on Hilary’s side. I don’t think even the democrats are denying it now; it’s just turned into “Duh, why won’t Fox just get with the program already?”. Second, Trump is Trump. Hilary is not Bill. Yes, it is true that Hilary defended and sided with Bill – but she’s still not Bill. So these allegations don’t have the same weight with her. So in the “Whose sexual assault is worse?” battle between the Frog Casino King and Grandma Abortion Witch, Casino King loses.

But don’t get taken in. What Trump has been accused of doing is not the same as what Bill has been accused of doing. It is wrong, he shouldn’t have done any of those things just as nobody should, and if you want to make a case that they make him unfit for the presidency, go for it. But his actions are not sexual assault.

*To be fair, I do recall an old claim that he supposedly raped a 13 year old, but this is apparently so transparently ludicrous that not even the corrupt mainstream media has been pushing it.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to It’s still not sexual assault

  1. John says:

    Wait, so you think Trump will lose the election when you say ”And Trump loses this battle for several reasons.”?

    • I do think he’ll lose, but even if he doesn’t this has been an extraordinarily effective rhetorical attack, one he can’t effectively combat by Appeal To Bill.

      • So what do you think he’ll lose by? People keep saying this, but I want to nail down where they think the loss will come from. I think he has a 60% chance of winning– likely, but not currently guaranteed.

      • Probably about 5 to 10 points, but I’m really just spitballing. I’m not a political scientist, I’m just trying to read the waters. “People keep saying this” because by almost every poll, Hilary is winning. It’s not exactly coming out of thin air.

  2. goldrushapple says:

    This is what I saw when someone defended Trump supporters after being called an LIV –

    “Well at least Hillary supporters harp less on things that have either been disproven or are common to most politicians (like altering your opinions). Trump supporters ignore his many scandals, his rape allegations, his blatant sexism, his swindling of college students, and the fact that he broke an embargo to incessantly bitch about Hillary’s emails, for which she was cleared of charged by the FBI, and Benghazi, for which she was cleared of wrongdoing by numerous Republican investigative committees. Hillary holds up against even Republican scrutiny, while scrutiny of Trump continues to reveal patterns of problematic behavior that have remained consistent for decades.”

    The only thing that concerns me in that list of Trump issues is Trump University. Trump is crude and no one is fighting that. The sexual assault narrative you’ve covered. Sexism? Like I said he’s crude and no one is denying that. I don’t have an opinion on the Cuban Embargo.

    And of course Clinton will be cleared of any Benghazi charges. But hey, she “holds up against eve[ry] Republican scrutiny” while Trump doesn’t pass the test.

    Same poster also wrote “I’m not going to go out of my way to defend Hillary here, but to call her “the most horrific politician in American history” in a country where we had Joseph McCarthy, George Wallace, Richard Nixon, David Duke, Strom Thurmond, George Bush, etc. is ridiculously hyperbolic, dishonest, and stupid, even for you.”

    Go figure. He’s aware with politicians that go against his politics.

    • Those comparisons are risible. I would just post lol 100x to someone who was so historically ignorant and histrionic about defending Hillary by claiming David Duke was worse. LOLOLOLOLOLOL. The reflexiveness of the lying that Hillary partisans engage in is mildly interesting, it’s so seamless.

  3. Pingback: Sexually Assaulted with E-Mails | Malcolm the Cynic

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s