In this case what you’ve outlined isn’t sexual assault
But it is a breach of academic integrity and the professor should have lost his job for this.
Sure… if there’s suspicion. I get a feeling the few (I believe this is rare) dirtbags nasty enough to do something like this would probably try to fly under the radar by picking on the most vulnerable students they can find.
Unless the professor is gunning for repeated sexual encounters with the same student, there would somehow have to be suspicion. At which point the person with the camera has to be the ONE person out of a entire lineup of girls that he decides to prey on
At one of my old schools we had a teacher who got caught for making child porn in the school (long story). He was only caught by fluke chance… he had been doing this for many years, and it was revealed he had not only done this at the school I was at… but also the school he previously worked at
Really sick stuff… he went to prison
He had a wife and kids.
For there to be a sting, there needs to be suspicion. This was in todays day and age, yet no one suspected a thing and he got away with it for years.
Anecdote doesn’t mean much, but across the board when people get caught for this sort of stuff it’s generally a long standing issue that has been unfolding over a long time.
So his life was like a live pornographic film?
“Professor! I need better grades”
Cheese 80s porn soundtrack plays in the background
The number of cases referenced relative to the number of cases in total, is almost insignificant. And why focus on sexual assault? If someone can be convicted based solely on an accusation, that would not be unique to sexual assault and points to a flaw in the justice system that goes beyond sexual assault.
Because we’re in a thread whose topic is a man possibly involved in sexual assault and human trafficking for sex work and who might be the man whose voice is in a recording in which he said, “I loved raping you.”
I suppose someone can make another thread titled “Flaws in the Justice System” for this.
I’m not sure I see your point. Though he is trash, I don’t see how he is a nobody considering his millions of followers and his interviews on major news channels. And if we’re going to see men as “somebody” or “nobody” based on their net worth, I guess that 300-plus-million benchmark puts all of us on this board in the “nobody” category. (Unless there actually are members here worth that.) @GulliverMcGee
A net worth of 300 million, a collection of 20+ supercars and millions of followers coupled with being the world champion in a sport (K1 kickboxing nonetheless) qualifies as being a nobody?
I mean, old jeffy boi did bulk up a bit (at least relative to Musk, Buffet, and Gates). Maybe he started reading the forums between his yacht trips and got bigger.
I really don’t want to antagonize anyone here but putting men in the “nobody” category because they aren’t amongst the ranks of billionaires seems hugely condescending and cynical. Like the men on this board, you, me, others, attending work, going to school, husbands, fathers, sons, uncles, employers, close friends: all nobodies because we aren’t billionaires and because billionaires scoff at us.
This is kind of a bizarre take, to me. It feels like you’re taking ‘position of authority’ to mean something very limited in scope, and not necessarily what the legal perspective of position of authority is. Are high school teachers in a position of authority? I would assume you’d say yes to that. Are bosses/managers? I would THINK you’d say yes to this too. As a parent, if you’re watching someone else’s kid, you’re in a position of authority over that kid, right? You’d also be in a position of authority if, say, you worked at a nursing home and had the ability to make a person who got on your ‘bad side’ miserable in various ways. Doctors are in a position of authority over their patients. The list goes on. I think this can be broadly defined as ‘someone who has significant power/leverage over another person SPECIFICALLY because of their job/role in relationship to that person’. Perhaps this definition isn’t nuanced enough, but it has to be pretty close. It’s ‘I have the power to royally fuck with your life, because of my job, and you would have little to no recourse if I decide to do so.’ A professor is absolutely in that position, ESPECIALLY if he/she is a professor with a solid reputation.
I think his point is that most ppl with money and confident in that money don’t flaunt it on social media the way Tate and other influencers do.
Both my parents work with incredibly wealthy individuals and most of the time, they go out of their way to hide their wealth. It’s the moderately wealthy ones who insist on always dressing designer, sharing fancy dinners…
300 million is a far cry from something to scoff at, but it does rub me the wrong way that he goes out of his way to display his wealth so ostentatiously
Actually the case fell apart before the players ever went on trial so the players never served jail time. The only person to serve any jail time was the DA Mike Nifong for knowingly making false statements in court.
