GeneralMacArthur's big Tara Reade article

[OSR stands with Israel]

You should share this with TYT and lets see them try to refute this article on air

How would one go about doing that?

Cant you @ them on twitter to do that but if you do that make sure you include both Cenk and Ana on that tweet

[7,052,770]

You should share this with TYT and lets see them try to refute this article on air

How would one go about doing that?

Cant you @ them on twitter to do that but if you do that make sure you include both Cenk and Ana on that tweet

You can, but who knows if they'll see it, much less respond to it.

[7,052,770]

You're someone who is always taking issue with what I post, regardless of what topic it is, what context, etc.

Is that true? I don't think so. You've posted over 5,000 times, and have we had cross words, like 4 or 5 times ever? I think you're exaggerating.

I checked Google to see if I've just forgotten things, and we've interacted a little bit over the years, but generally in pleasant conversation, like here and here

And the tiny, tiny handful of your posts that I have taken issue with are when you attack the character of Democratic posters here, calling us hypocritical, and not even with actual examples, just asserting that we would hypothetically be hypocritical if the tables were turned, ie "OK, yes I agree with the Democrats that the evidence says that Tara Reade is lying, but they're all still hacks anyway because they would still not believe her if the evidence said she was telling the truth." No, I wouldn't. No, most of us wouldn't. When you're THAT combative and can't back it up, you're going to get pushback from more than just me.

And you are also someone who seems to adhere to a straight and narrow approach regarding your party.

You see, there you go again. Not even an attack on Democrats in general, but on me personally. I go to great lengths to not be a hack, to consider all perspectives, to call out my own party when necessary. (You may remember that one our few previous dustups stemmed from you saying that I'm a hack and would not do that, and me disproving your notion by linking to this post.)

Perhaps you're confusing me with another poster or something (I've changed my avatar a few times since you've joined, currently D-AK because I'm a Dak Prescott fanboy) but you've greatly missed the mark on that accusation and you can't seem to shake it off. I've always called out politicians, political positions, and posters of my party when they're in the wrong, and am always willing to reconsider any of the above.

I guarantee you that if Biden were a Republican, or even a non-Democrat (like Bernie Sanders), people on here would be dancing over his grave and calling for him to drop out.

There are a lot of people here and I can't speak for literally everyone, but no, if a Republican were facing something THIS flimsy, most of us here wouldn't be pushing it. Just like we didn't push the extra, less credible accusers against Moore, Kavanaugh, and Trump himself.

On the other hand, did any Democrat here stand up to defend Ruben Kihuen? Justin Fairfax? Anthony Weiner?

[BlueSwan]

...and I am saying that you are wrong. The reason why these allegegations PROBABLY (not certainly) won't do that much harm to Biden, is almost solely because they aren't credible. If Biden had the list of credible accusers that Trump has he would be finished. Completely. Dead. That's the difference. Democrats care about credible assucations of sexual harassment. Republicans by and large, do not.

You seem to have great confidence in Democratic voters, a sort of confidence that in this era of extreme polarization, is sorely misplaced. You continue to adhere to the line that Biden could end up losing by a landslide margin were allegations of this nature to surface. Against Trump, I doubt it. And you are very confident about your analysis of my arguments.

I wouldn't call it confidence, more like realism.

The thing is, I don't personally think that this, if it was true, would be disqualifying for a political position at all. Rape is one thing (and I most certainly do not consider this to be rape, no more than a woman grabbing a man's penis should be considered rape), but typical male sexual aggressiveness should not be considered disqualifying IMO. And that includes a lot of the creepy stuff Donald Trump has done (again, excluding the actual rape accusations). It also includes what Kavanaugh did. I actually found Kavanaughs behaviour at the hearing disqualifying, not the dumb thing he pulled as a college student.

In general, I think it is tragically overlooked that the main reason why many men exhibit sexually aggressive behaviour is because women have tended to reward them for it. That doesn't make it right, but it certainly makes it understandable.

Now, as a good mamas boy, who have always treated women with respect and has never exhibited any sort of sexually aggressive behaviour (and hence has been much less sexually succesful than my less polite brethren), I would very much welcome a change in culture. But unless that culture does change, I find it really hard to fault many men for doing what elevates their status and their interpersonal succes. And I certainly do not find it disqualifying for a political position.

[Calthrina950]

But of course this thread would degenerate into seemingly respectable Democrats passing off PUA bullsh**t as rationalization. ing unreal.

What do you mean by this? When I looked up "PUA", I came up with "Pandemic Unemployment Assistance".

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

The thing is, I don't personally think that this, if it was true, would be disqualifying for a political position at all. Rape is one thing (and I most certainly do not consider this to be rape, no more than a woman grabbing a man's penis should be considered rape), but typical male sexual aggressiveness should not be considered disqualifying IMO. And that includes a lot of the creepy stuff Donald Trump has done (again, excluding the actual rape accusations). It also includes what Kavanaugh did. I actually found Kavanaughs behaviour at the hearing disqualifying, not the dumb thing he pulled as a college student.

If Reade's allegations were true, they'd constitute a serious sexual assault. The statute of limitations would have expired, but if a post-investigation balance of probabilities suggested Biden had done it, that would hopefully be disqualifying w.r.t. him - or anyone in his position - becoming the nominee for president.

Non-consensual penetration of women is not typical male behaviour.

[lfromnj]

Holy  this thread has gone to sh**t, Im with Biden supporters on defending Biden in calling Tara Reade a liar but now its gone to well if he's done it so what?

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Holy  this thread has gone to sh**t, Im with Biden supporters on defending Biden in calling Tara Reade a liar but now its gone to well if he's done so what?

I think that's just the one poster, and I sincerely hope they were referring to other allegations rather than Reade's.

[Granite City]

...and I am saying that you are wrong. The reason why these allegegations PROBABLY (not certainly) won't do that much harm to Biden, is almost solely because they aren't credible. If Biden had the list of credible accusers that Trump has he would be finished. Completely. Dead. That's the difference. Democrats care about credible assucations of sexual harassment. Republicans by and large, do not.

You seem to have great confidence in Democratic voters, a sort of confidence that in this era of extreme polarization, is sorely misplaced. You continue to adhere to the line that Biden could end up losing by a landslide margin were allegations of this nature to surface. Against Trump, I doubt it. And you are very confident about your analysis of my arguments.

I wouldn't call it confidence, more like realism.

The thing is, I don't personally think that this, if it was true, would be disqualifying for a political position at all. Rape is one thing (and I most certainly do not consider this to be rape, no more than a woman grabbing a man's penis should be considered rape), but typical male sexual aggressiveness should not be considered disqualifying IMO. And that includes a lot of the creepy stuff Donald Trump has done (again, excluding the actual rape accusations). It also includes what Kavanaugh did. I actually found Kavanaughs behaviour at the hearing disqualifying, not the dumb thing he pulled as a college student.

In general, I think it is tragically overlooked that the main reason why many men exhibit sexually aggressive behaviour is because women have tended to reward them for it. That doesn't make it right, but it certainly makes it understandable.

Now, as a good mamas boy, who have always treated women with respect and has never exhibited any sort of sexually aggressive behaviour (and hence has been much less sexually succesful than my less polite brethren), I would very much welcome a change in culture. But unless that culture does change, I find it really hard to fault many men for doing what elevates their status and their interpersonal succes. And I certainly do not find it disqualifying for a political position.

Yeah, this does not read well and really is bordering on rape apology.

If Biden were guilty, there is absolutely no question in my mind that he should be replaced - even if the accusation constituted "typical male sexual aggression" rather than rape, it would only indicate how poor ideas around sexual behaviour are and in any case, the accusation is NOT normal behaviour. The evidence is overwhelmingly in his favour so we aren't going to have to deal with it but I really think you need re-read what you have posted.

[Granite City]

But of course this thread would degenerate into seemingly respectable Democrats passing off PUA bullsh**t as rationalization. ing unreal.

What do you mean by this? When I looked up "PUA", I came up with "Pandemic Unemployment Assistance".

Pickup artist stuff I think? You know those guys on YouTube harassing women because "it's what they actually want".

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

...and I am saying that you are wrong. The reason why these allegegations PROBABLY (not certainly) won't do that much harm to Biden, is almost solely because they aren't credible. If Biden had the list of credible accusers that Trump has he would be finished. Completely. Dead. That's the difference. Democrats care about credible assucations of sexual harassment. Republicans by and large, do not.

You seem to have great confidence in Democratic voters, a sort of confidence that in this era of extreme polarization, is sorely misplaced. You continue to adhere to the line that Biden could end up losing by a landslide margin were allegations of this nature to surface. Against Trump, I doubt it. And you are very confident about your analysis of my arguments.

I wouldn't call it confidence, more like realism.

The thing is, I don't personally think that this, if it was true, would be disqualifying for a political position at all. Rape is one thing (and I most certainly do not consider this to be rape, no more than a woman grabbing a man's penis should be considered rape), but typical male sexual aggressiveness should not be considered disqualifying IMO. And that includes a lot of the creepy stuff Donald Trump has done (again, excluding the actual rape accusations). It also includes what Kavanaugh did. I actually found Kavanaughs behaviour at the hearing disqualifying, not the dumb thing he pulled as a college student.

In general, I think it is tragically overlooked that the main reason why many men exhibit sexually aggressive behaviour is because women have tended to reward them for it. That doesn't make it right, but it certainly makes it understandable.

Now, as a good mamas boy, who have always treated women with respect and has never exhibited any sort of sexually aggressive behaviour (and hence has been much less sexually succesful than my less polite brethren), I would very much welcome a change in culture. But unless that culture does change, I find it really hard to fault many men for doing what elevates their status and their interpersonal succes. And I certainly do not find it disqualifying for a political position.

Seek help!  Seriously, this is basically an undisguised defense of sex predators’ actions.  I mean, not only are you arguing that sexual assault is should be treated as an acceptable societal norm, but the bit about Kavanaugh is just unambiguous rape apologism.  You literally referred to attempted rape as “the dumb thing he pulled at college” and argued attempted rape shouldn’t disqualify someone from sitting on the nation’s highest court.  I mean, not even Famous Mortimer’s rape apologism was this blatant. 

Whatever you may tell yourself, your post makes it crystal clear that you do not respect women.  You’re part of the problem and posts like yours are a slap in the face to both male and female victims of sex crimes.  People like you are part of the reason that rape culture exists.  Your post is easily one of the most despicable and f***ed up things I have seen during my roughly 15 years on Atlas and that’s really saying something.

Btw, you may think the reason you haven’t been able to find a girlfriend or haven’t had sex or whatever is that you’re a “nice mamas boy” [btw that wording just sounds all kinds of weird on so many levels] or “less sexually aggressive,” but that simply isn’t true.  It’s because you’re a misogynistic creep with a deeply disturbing worldview who isn’t fooling anyone but himself with his “nice guy” schtick.

[Bidenworth2020]

Please, can we keep the focus on Biden's (evident!) innocence?

[Calthrina950]

You're someone who is always taking issue with what I post, regardless of what topic it is, what context, etc.

Is that true? I don't think so. You've posted over 5,000 times, and have we had cross words, like 4 or 5 times ever? I think you're exaggerating.

I checked Google to see if I've just forgotten things, and we've interacted a little bit over the years, but generally in pleasant conversation, like here and here

And the tiny, tiny handful of your posts that I have taken issue with are when you attack the character of Democratic posters here, calling us hypocritical, and not even with actual examples, just asserting that we would hypothetically be hypocritical if the tables were turned, ie "OK, yes I agree with the Democrats that the evidence says that Tara Reade is lying, but they're all still hacks anyway because they would still not believe her if the evidence said she was telling the truth." No, I wouldn't. No, most of us wouldn't. When you're THAT combative and can't back it up, you're going to get pushback from more than just me.

And you are also someone who seems to adhere to a straight and narrow approach regarding your party.

You see, there you go again. Not even an attack on Democrats in general, but on me personally. I go to great lengths to not be a hack, to consider all perspectives, to call out my own party when necessary. (You may remember that one our few previous dustups stemmed from you saying that I'm a hack and would not do that, and me disproving your notion by linking to this post.)

Perhaps you're confusing me with another poster or something (I've changed my avatar a few times since you've joined, currently D-AK because I'm a Dak Prescott fanboy) but you've greatly missed the mark on that accusation and you can't seem to shake it off. I've always called out politicians, political positions, and posters of my party when they're in the wrong, and am always willing to reconsider any of the above.

I guarantee you that if Biden were a Republican, or even a non-Democrat (like Bernie Sanders), people on here would be dancing over his grave and calling for him to drop out.

There are a lot of people here and I can't speak for literally everyone, but no, if a Republican were facing something THIS flimsy, most of us here wouldn't be pushing it. Just like we didn't push the extra, less credible accusers against Moore, Kavanaugh, and Trump himself.

On the other hand, did any Democrat here stand up to defend Ruben Kihuen? Justin Fairfax? Anthony Weiner?

I'll admit that I probably overreacted here, and it would behoove me to take note of my resolution, made when I returned from my hiatus last year, not to allow things to rile me up, or to become agitated. Sometimes, I've had the tendency of allowing political disagreements to turn into personal ones. And I'll admit that not all of our interactions have been hostile, though we very seldom agree on most of what we discuss. These allegations certainly aren't the last. And as people on here should know, I've become much more critical of Trump and Republicans since making my return here.

I will also admit that Democrats have become more vigilant in responding to sexual assault allegations in recent years, though in many of those instances, I would argue that it arose from political or partisan motives. And in the case of Justin Fairfax, not enough has been done. However, for anyone to argue that the defense of Joe Biden isn't in part motivated by partisan concerns, and the "whataboutism" factor (which is a legitimate one) posed by Donald Trump, is misplaced. And I think it ironic that so many people on here have so quickly embraced Joe Biden, especially given what happened during the primary.

[GeneralMacArthur]

I've given up on this thread.  Several posters have completely derailed it.

But for those interested, the article now has more than 30,000 views.

[Santander]

Now, as a good mamas boy, who have always treated women with respect and has never exhibited any sort of sexually aggressive behaviour (and hence has been much less sexually succesful than my less polite brethren), I would very much welcome a change in culture.

Have you ever considered the idea that your sexual frustration may lie in your complete misunderstanding of women? Harassing a woman into sex or preying on their insecurities is no more "sexual success" (a rather disgusting term, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt) than committing fraud or theft is "financial success".

[Antonio the Sixth]

But of course this thread would degenerate into seemingly respectable Democrats passing off PUA bullsh**t as rationalization. ing unreal.

Yeah, what a soul-crushingly depressing thread.

I really hoped Democrats were genuinely different from Republicans about these issues, but now it's clear that half the people who were upset about the Kavanaugh were just posturing.

You people are disgusting.

[Adam Griffin]

LOCK IT UP
LOCK IT UP
LOCK IT UP

[CookieDamage]

BlueSwan outing themselves as a sex predator apologist. Maroon, yellow, and blue avatars conflating the words of like two people to judge all Dems as immoral and disgusting. Yeah lock it up.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

...and I am saying that you are wrong. The reason why these allegegations PROBABLY (not certainly) won't do that much harm to Biden, is almost solely because they aren't credible. If Biden had the list of credible accusers that Trump has he would be finished. Completely. Dead. That's the difference. Democrats care about credible assucations of sexual harassment. Republicans by and large, do not.

You seem to have great confidence in Democratic voters, a sort of confidence that in this era of extreme polarization, is sorely misplaced. You continue to adhere to the line that Biden could end up losing by a landslide margin were allegations of this nature to surface. Against Trump, I doubt it. And you are very confident about your analysis of my arguments.

I wouldn't call it confidence, more like realism.

The thing is, I don't personally think that this, if it was true, would be disqualifying for a political position at all. Rape is one thing (and I most certainly do not consider this to be rape, no more than a woman grabbing a man's penis should be considered rape), but typical male sexual aggressiveness should not be considered disqualifying IMO. And that includes a lot of the creepy stuff Donald Trump has done (again, excluding the actual rape accusations). It also includes what Kavanaugh did. I actually found Kavanaughs behaviour at the hearing disqualifying, not the dumb thing he pulled as a college student.

In general, I think it is tragically overlooked that the main reason why many men exhibit sexually aggressive behaviour is because women have tended to reward them for it. That doesn't make it right, but it certainly makes it understandable.

Now, as a good mamas boy, who have always treated women with respect and has never exhibited any sort of sexually aggressive behavior (and hence has been much less sexually successful than my less polite brethren), I would very much welcome a change in culture. But unless that culture does change, I find it really hard to fault many men for doing what elevates their status and their interpersonal success. And I certainly do not find it disqualifying for a political position.

WHAT THE F**K! This makes Texarkana look tame (and aren't you a schoolteacher?) Seriously, this is absolutely not an okay position to hold. Anybody who does any of the things you say has no place in civil society, let alone government. Fortunately, Biden obviously never did any of these things (as MacArthur effectively outlines), but if he or anyone else actually did, at the very least they should be expected to leave public life. I don't even know what you were trying to accomplish by posting this...

Please apologize.

[Meclazine for Israel]

30,000 people reading this article is not meaningful in the assessment of guilt or innocence of Joe Biden. Just because 3 billion people read the bible does not make the stories in them truth.

So what did the court of Atlas decide?

(a) Kavanaugh on the charge of sexual assault? (Guilty or Not Guilty)
(b) Joe Biden on the charge of sexual assault? (Guilty or Not Guilty)

The Atlas Democrats were raging over the appointment of Kavanaugh given the nature of the allegations themselves. No evidence. No court outcome.

Now, after the "Women should be believed" argument being the new mantra for the Democrats, we have a complete 100% U-Turn on credibility of that argument.

The facts are that we have not even heard from this woman yet speak on the media on the national stage, but somehow we have a conclusive statement of fact.

"Tara Reade’s allegation has now been subject to appropriate inquiry and scrutiny."

No it hasn't. It's a grossly biased assessment made by a left-leaning Democrat supporter who cannot come to terms with the fact that Joe Biden may lose the election in November 2020 because this allegation may actually be true.

[BlueSwan]

Now, as a good mamas boy, who have always treated women with respect and has never exhibited any sort of sexually aggressive behaviour (and hence has been much less sexually succesful than my less polite brethren), I would very much welcome a change in culture.

Have you ever considered the idea that your sexual frustration may lie in your complete misunderstanding of women? Harassing a woman into sex or preying on their insecurities is no more "sexual success" (a rather disgusting term, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt) than committing fraud or theft is "financial success".

I knew I would get flack for that post and that is OK. But let me clarify for those who are eager to read malintent into what I wrote.

1) I am not a misogynist. I am a lifelong feminist and proponent of womens rights. I have voted for women in the vast majority of elections I have participated in. I have two daughters who I wish will grow up in a world that actually treats women and men as equals.

2) I do not condone sexually aggressive behaviour and infact in that post wrote that I wish the culture would change. Explaining something is not the same as condoning something. Likewise, the fact that you don't think a criminal should be disqualified for life does not contitute an apology for said criminal action.

3) I am married with three kids and I am not "sexually frustrated". I used to be as a young man, sure. But I am probably amongst a minority of men who can 100% say that they never engaged in any sort of sexually aggressive behaviour or sexually inappropriate action.

4) I am a psychologist (high school teacher by current profession) and as such trained to understand human behaviour. This is basically what I am doing here. Patterns of human behaviour exist for a reason and that reason is generally that this pattern has resulted in succes of some sort for those who exhibit it. The PUA's mentioned in this thread do what they do because it works for them.

5) A LOT of this type of sexually aggressive behaviour pre-MeToo, stems from either a misguided idea of what women want or simply from miscommunication. Men are pretty bad at reading women's signals in general and given that the cultural norm is that the man should be the initiator of sexual contact, that will lead to things that shouldn't have taken place. Some men will be succesful being highly sexually aggressive while others will be regarded as dangerous creeps for the very same behaviours. This is confusing to young men in particular.

6) Largely because of point 5, I generally do not see sexually aggressive behaviour as disqualifying and especially not if said behaviour was undertaken whilst young and stupid (and often intoxicated). I STRONGLY dislike Brett Kavanaugh and see a multitude of reasons why he should never have been allowed to serve in the highest court of the land, but that reason is not something he did as a college kid.

7) And just to clear it up, I am obviously NOT talking about actual rape here. Neither am I talking about clearly malicious sexual actions of any sort. I am talking about inappropriate touching. I am talking about lewd comments. That kind of stuff.

[Anti Democrat Democrat Club]

HOLY ****ING **** OH MY GOD

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

5) A LOT of this type of sexually aggressive behaviour pre-MeToo, stems from either a misguided idea of what women want or simply from miscommunication. Men are pretty bad at reading women's signals in general and given that the cultural norm is that the man should be the initiator of sexual contact, that will lead to things that shouldn't have taken place. Some men will be succesful being highly sexually aggressive while others will be regarded as dangerous creeps for the very same behaviours. This is confusing to young men in particular.

6) Largely because of point 5, I generally do not see sexually aggressive behaviour as disqualifying and especially not if said behaviour was undertaken whilst young and stupid (and often intoxicated). I STRONGLY dislike Brett Kavanaugh and see a multitude of reasons why he should never have been allowed to serve in the highest court of the land, but that reason is not something he did as a college kid.

7) And just to clear it up, I am obviously NOT talking about actual rape here. Neither am I talking about clearly malicious sexual actions of any sort. I am talking about inappropriate touching. I am talking about lewd comments. That kind of stuff.

Or we can just hold people to a higher standard anyway even if it wasn't expected a decade ago.

[Beet]

I hate to say this but BlueSwan is getting at something. If you look at old movies like Blade Runner where Harrison Ford just shoves Sean Young against the window and orders her to kiss him, or Goldfinger where James Bond rapes Pussy Galore, it seems that this sort of thing has been glamorized in the mainstream in the past. Anyway, this is not Biden's defense & it's a professional environment, not a date so it's all irrelevant to this.

[It’s so Joever]

Now, as a good mamas boy, who have always treated women with respect and has never exhibited any sort of sexually aggressive behaviour (and hence has been much less sexually succesful than my less polite brethren), I would very much welcome a change in culture.

Have you ever considered the idea that your sexual frustration may lie in your complete misunderstanding of women? Harassing a woman into sex or preying on their insecurities is no more "sexual success" (a rather disgusting term, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt) than committing fraud or theft is "financial success".

I knew I would get flack for that post and that is OK. But let me clarify for those who are eager to read malintent into what I wrote.

1) I am not a misogynist. I am a lifelong feminist and proponent of womens rights. I have voted for women in the vast majority of elections I have participated in. I have two daughters who I wish will grow up in a world that actually treats women and men as equals.

2) I do not condone sexually aggressive behaviour and infact in that post wrote that I wish the culture would change. Explaining something is not the same as condoning something. Likewise, the fact that you don't think a criminal should be disqualified for life does not contitute an apology for said criminal action.

3) I am married with three kids and I am not "sexually frustrated". I used to be as a young man, sure. But I am probably amongst a minority of men who can 100% say that they never engaged in any sort of sexually aggressive behaviour or sexually inappropriate action.

4) I am a psychologist (high school teacher by current profession) and as such trained to understand human behaviour. This is basically what I am doing here. Patterns of human behaviour exist for a reason and that reason is generally that this pattern has resulted in succes of some sort for those who exhibit it. The PUA's mentioned in this thread do what they do because it works for them.

5) A LOT of this type of sexually aggressive behaviour pre-MeToo, stems from either a misguided idea of what women want or simply from miscommunication. Men are pretty bad at reading women's signals in general and given that the cultural norm is that the man should be the initiator of sexual contact, that will lead to things that shouldn't have taken place. Some men will be succesful being highly sexually aggressive while others will be regarded as dangerous creeps for the very same behaviours. This is confusing to young men in particular.

6) Largely because of point 5, I generally do not see sexually aggressive behaviour as disqualifying and especially not if said behaviour was undertaken whilst young and stupid (and often intoxicated). I STRONGLY dislike Brett Kavanaugh and see a multitude of reasons why he should never have been allowed to serve in the highest court of the land, but that reason is not something he did as a college kid.

7) And just to clear it up, I am obviously NOT talking about actual rape here. Neither am I talking about clearly malicious sexual actions of any sort. I am talking about inappropriate touching. I am talking about lewd comments. That kind of stuff.

Even if you are correct that our culture does ask men to take initiative with regards to sexual activity, that simply doesn’t excuse literal sexual assault. Lewd comments are one thing, and are highly inappropriate but shouldn’t necessary be disqualifying, but inappropriate touching is both vile and should be completely disqualifying. I am a young male and arguably very stupid, but I do not have a single reason nor a right to sexually touch a women without her consent. And that is how it should be. Age isn’t an excuse and you can make a move without sexually assaulting someone.
Consent is a thing, and every single teenager knows what it is (except for some sheltered freaks)
I don’t believe the Reade accusations for a variety of reasons, and honestly don’t prioritize the issue right now because Trump is committing a genocide, but that doesn’t mean sexual assault is okay. Under normal circumstances, sexual assault would be a disqualifyer for me, especially if the incident was denied at first (and actually did happen)