Browns to trade for QB Deshaun Watson; Agree to new contract (5yr 230M Fully GTD)

[Tk3]

3 minutes ago, Mesa_Titan said:

I mean, that is assuming women repeatedly told him they felt intimidated. Without that, how do you know?

As a normal human being, it's not difficult to gauge when a person is not reacting or responding well to you.

Usually cases of "agree, but intimidated" involve some back and forth, some hesitant, or some lack of enthusiasm

If a person is too uncomfortable or intimidated to use the verbal words (which is literally how intimidation works. People don't tell you they are intimidated because... you know.. intimidation), you should still be able to recognize that you are doing something wrong.

And if its happening dozens of times, that's on him for either not realizing, or not changing behavior.

I feel very sorry that you struggle so much to comprehend this concept

[Ozzy]

5 minutes ago, Mesa_Titan said:

I mean, that is assuming women repeatedly told him they felt intimidated. Without that, how do you know?

Sure but one also has to know all of the women's financial situations.  Do they have kids, are their married, single?   How much money do they make a year, how much do they need this famous millionaire client, how much do they get paid an hour by him?  I would assume most were one time clients and not long time clients, that says something also and speaks to is this a habitual thing he did consistently.  

 

If one needs the money and he pays crazy high, people put up with crap because they have to in order to survive.  Why get him upset when it was good money?  Also seems a bit odd to be requested massages over instagram, not to mention flying some of them into give a massage?  Sounds like a famous dude taking advantage of the situation.  But no these girls just wanted a good time and to get a little side action?  Does not line up to me.  

[Mesa_Titan]

1 minute ago, Tk3 said:

As a normal human being, it's not difficult to gauge when a person is not reacting or responding well to you.

Usually cases of "agree, but intimidated" involve some back and forth, some hesitant, or some lack of enthusiasm

If a person is too uncomfortable or intimidated to use the verbal words (which is literally how intimidation works. People don't tell you they are intimidated because... you know.. intimidation), you should still be able to recognize that you are doing something wrong.

And if its happening dozens of times, that's on him for either not realizing, or not changing behavior.

I feel very sorry that you struggle so much to comprehend this concept

I am totally understanding what you're saying, but you keep adding things to the situation like we know them for a fact. Reading the room? What room? Do you have the room and the conversation and all the subtle cues that would go into being intimidated? We don't even know what Watson said verbatim in these conversations lmao.

Basically what I am saying is, Watson is a clown, but asking these women to do whatever he was asking at whatever time is not intimidation. Someone feeling intimidated by the question can be valid to their feelings, sure, but it's not intimidation.

[Mesa_Titan]

1 minute ago, Ozzy said:

Sure but one also has to know all of the women's financial situations.  Do they have kids, are their married, single?   How much money do they make a year, how much do they need this famous millionaire client, how much do they get paid an hour by him?  I would assume most were one time clients and not long time clients, that says something also and speaks to is this a habitual thing he did consistently.  

 

If one needs the money and he pays crazy high, people put up with crap because they have to in order to survive.  Why get him upset when it was good money?  Also seems a bit odd to be requested massages over instagram, not to mention flying some of them into give a massage?  Sounds like a famous dude taking advantage of the situation.  But no these girls just wanted a good time and to get a little side action?  Does not line up to me.  

I'm not saying any of those things, either, because I have no clue. Out of 22 of them, is their one or more that probably had that attitude? I wouldn't doubt it. All I was saying that based on what I've seen it's not intimidation. Seems more like a guy that has a nasty fixation that he's easily able to take advantage of because of his social status.

[Ozzy]

3 minutes ago, Mesa_Titan said:

I'm not saying any of those things, either, because I have no clue. Out of 22 of them, is their one or more that probably had that attitude? I wouldn't doubt it. All I was saying that based on what I've seen it's not intimidation. Seems more like a guy that has a nasty fixation that he's easily able to take advantage of because of his social status.

True, still waiting on the opinion of it the same thing happened to just some normal guy that was not famous or a millionaire would he be totally free from a criminal standpoint?   My guess is absolutely not regardless of consent if this many came forward to the police.  He said she said, I believe the many over the one.  

How you prove such a thing I have no idea, and I assume all or most of the massage therapist were one and done, not consistent clients over years but I do not know that for sure.  So how would they get proof if it was a random one time thing and they never saw him again?  And pretty sure it is not standard practice to see a massage therapist and do not pay them till they sign a non disclosure agreement.  But maybe that is a common thing for millionaire athletes, who knows.

[Superman(DH23)]

24 minutes ago, ET80 said:

My question on this - how does one interpret Watson’s intent/reception when he sends texts such as this to the alleged victims?

It feels like he knew he crossed a line and is trying to cover himself.

Would everyone agree - would somebody who felt they did nothing wrong/established consent send this text?

Orrrr....he was legitimately sorry for misreading the situation and wanted to sincerely apologize.  

I mean what part of that text screams sexual predator to you.

[Tk3]

2 minutes ago, Mesa_Titan said:

I am totally understanding what you're saying, but you keep adding things to the situation like we know them for a fact. Reading the room? What room? Do you have the room and the conversation and all the subtle cues that would go into being intimidated? We don't even know what Watson said verbatim in these conversations lmao.

Basically what I am saying is, Watson is a clown, but asking these women to do whatever he was asking at whatever time is not intimidation. Someone feeling intimidated by the question can be valid to their feelings, sure, but it's not intimidation.

Okay.. I'll agree, unless you or I are operating under a secret identity.. neither of us were likely in any of the rooms

So I'll ask this:

As an outside observer, which is more likely? Dozens of women felt intimidated (even though he committed no intimidating behavior), but they showed NO signs or gave NO indication that a reasonable person would pick up on as them feeling uncomfortable/intimidated, and then proceeded with legitimate consent, and then after the fact unfairly claimed that he was in the wrong, presumably because they saw some sort of incentive to do so? OR that he either failed to pick up on (or chose to ignore) signs that a reasonable person should have picked up on, and continued anyway, to the point where they felt like they were out of options, and allowed him to proceed, and then spoke out when the felt comfortable/safe to do so?

 

If this were a court of law a person would have to listen to more direct testimony, see evidence first hand, etc

But this is not a court of law, this is a court of public opinion. We can only work with what we have available to us. And there's enough smoke for a reasonable person to assume there is some sort of fire.

 

I'll disengage now, because I know there are individuals who don't want this sort of dialogue to exist here, and if this message has to be deleted, so be it.. but that's my piece.

[Mesa_Titan]

Just now, Ozzy said:

True, still waiting on the opinion of it the same thing happened to just some normal guy that was not famous or a millionaire would he be totally free from a criminal standpoint?   My guess is absolutely not regardless of consent if this many came forward to the police.  He said she said, I believe the many over the one.  

How you prove such a thing I have no idea, and I assume all or most of the massage therapist were one and done, not consistent clients over years but I do not know that for sure.  So how would they get proof if it was a random one time thing and they never saw him again?  And pretty sure it is not standard practice to see a massage therapist and do not pay them till they sign a non disclosure agreement.  But maybe that is a common thing for millionaire athletes, who knows.

I mean, you have to understand how these things work, too. Does the normal guy have money? Is he attractive? Both are big factors.

Dangerous thinking, my friend. You would have burned witches in Salem.

[Mesa_Titan]

1 minute ago, Tk3 said:

Okay.. I'll agree, unless you or I are operating under a secret identity.. neither of us were likely in any of the rooms

So I'll ask this:

As an outside observer, which is more likely? Dozens of women felt intimidated (even though he committed no intimidating behavior), but they showed NO signs or gave NO indication that a reasonable person would pick up on as them feeling uncomfortable/intimidated, and then proceeded with legitimate consent, and then after the fact unfairly claimed that he was in the wrong, presumably because they saw some sort of incentive to do so? OR that he either failed to pick up on (or chose to ignore) signs that a reasonable person should have picked up on, and continued anyway, to the point where they felt like they were out of options, and allowed him to proceed, and then spoke out when the felt comfortable/safe to do so?

 

If this were a court of law a person would have to listen to more direct testimony, see evidence first hand, etc

But this is not a court of law, this is a court of public opinion. We can only work with what we have available to us. And there's enough smoke for a reasonable person to assume there is some sort of fire.

 

I'll disengage now, because I know there are individuals who don't want this sort of dialogue to exist here, and if this message has to be deleted, so be it.. but that's my piece.

I would have to say I believe that both situations most likely occurred. Gun to my head the former more frequently.

[Deadpulse]

Well isn't this toxic AF

[ET80]

2 minutes ago, Superman(DH23) said:

Orrrr....he was legitimately sorry for misreading the situation and wanted to sincerely apologize.  

I mean what part of that text screams sexual predator to you.

“Sorry about making you feel uncomfortable” is a start, but that’s just me (and probably a LOT more). I don’t know how you can argue otherwise… but that’s just you, I guess.

It definitely isn’t something said if consent is established. 

[AZ_Eaglesfan]

12 minutes ago, ET80 said:

“Sorry about making you feel uncomfortable” is a start, but that’s just me (and probably a LOT more). I don’t know how you can argue otherwise… but that’s just you, I guess.

It definitely isn’t something said if consent is established. 

I don't really wanna get in on this convo too deep, but if this was a one off instance and he apologized and tried to make it right it would be ok. The fact that nearly two dozen women have said he did something similar to them says this apology might be more nefarious than it is genuine.

[Dome]

If you make a woman feel intimidated once without having any idea it was even happening, it was a mistake.

If you do it 22 times, you are a predator.

[Superman(DH23)]

Just now, ET80 said:

“Sorry about making you feel uncomfortable” is a start, but that’s just me (and probably a LOT more). I don’t know how you can argue otherwise… but that’s just you, I guess.

It definitely isn’t something said if consent is established. 

Sorry for making you feel uncomfortable might be something you say to a legitimate massage therapist you thought was a prostitute when you hired her.  

Idk this seems a lot of removal of personable responsibility.  Intimidation used to require, you know, actual intimidation.  This case is about changing the definition of intimidation to, "he was a rich athlete and so I'm not responsible for my own decisions"  if actual evidence of intimidation can be produced ill flip my stance on this, but the law is written as is for a reason. 

@Ozzy you bring up a valid point, which is an entirely different discussion about the 2 tiered justice system.  Should an ordinary guy accused of what Watson is accused of with the same evidence against him face criminal charges, being as the grand jury didn't indict, I would say no.  The solution to the problem is not everybody should be screwed over equally.  You don't fight injustice with injustice.  

[Ozzy]

You do not have consent from another person if:

• they’re sleeping or unconscious
• you use threats or intimidation to coerce someone into something
• they’re incapacitated by drugs or alcohol
• you use a position of authority or trust, such as a teacher or employer
• they change their mind — earlier consent doesn’t count as consent later
• you ignore their wishes or nonverbal cues to stop, like pushing away
• you have consent for one sexual act, but not another sexual act
• you pressure them to say yes

 

 

Pretty sure the position of authority or trust comes into play here, changing their mind also potentially, ignoring their wishes probably absolutely, pressure them to say yes possibly.  

 

"The absence of a “no” does not mean a “yes.” The same goes for “maybe,” silence, or not responding."

 

 

 

9 minutes ago, Deadpulse said:

Well isn't this toxic AF

This is moderately informative and moderately civil as well.  And I agree with @ET80 so this is historic.