There are apparently a lot of people who like it rough, so to speak. Sure there's nothing new under the sun as they say. But my understanding is that folks who swing that way are pretty careful about what is allowed and not allowed, safe words, etc. So lines can still be crossed and crimes can be committed.
Yep, totally agree, people can have "buyer's remorse" so to speak, particularly where they think there might be a huge pay day in doing so. On the flip side of that, I think 9,999 out 10,000 young women are not going to open up intimate details of their sex life to public scrutiny unless there is some overwhelming reason to do so. Particularly where they realize that the target of their accusations can pay millions and millions in litigation fees without blinking an eye. Would you want lawyers interrogating everyone you ever had sex with for details of what you liked, didn't like, how you liked it, how often you liked it, etc. I don't think many people want to subject themselves to that.
QUOTE=BobC;2264317]Having heard all of the above, since when is a person's private sex life really anyone else's business? I do not defend nor condemn Bauer, but realize that he interacted with women who apparently had a somewhat similar proclivity to his of enjoying what I'll simply call "rough sex". I think it is pretty well known there are an untold number of fetishes and odd/weird tastes when it comes to what turns on and excites some people, and that goes for both men AND women. The trouble is that after the fact, people can change their minds, start thinking a little differently, end up with a sort of case of buyer's/seller's remorse, so to speak, about what they've done. They can also realize that if one party has considerable wealth that bringing up a suit after the fact can also get them a significant payday in some cases.
I am not definitely saying, nor even remotely insinuating, that in this particular case the alleged victim is at any fault whatsoever. So don't even try accusing me of blaming the victim, I am judging no one. What we do know is that there are some men that are horrible and treat women terribly and abuse them. We also know that there are some women who do go out of their way to entrap men and may abuse and mistreat them as well, or possibly then look for a payday by suing them after the fact for alleged abuse and harm.
What little facts I have heard are that the alleged victim apparently hooked up with Bauer more than once for this "rough sex", and apparently Bauer did not coerce or force the alleged victim into meeting with him on any occasion for what was, at least initially, consensual sexual relations. It is also a fact that local officials declined to press criminal charges against Bauer based on the evidence and facts they knew and had. It is also a known fact that anyone can sue anyone else, for literally anything, and the burden of proof in a civil trial only requires a majority opinion of jurors to win the case, far less than the 100% agreement required in a criminal trial.
And because there is no written agreement or document concerning the alleged level of their consensually agreed upon "roughness" in their sexual activities, you come down to this being a virtual and classic case of "he said/she said", plain and simple. I don't know who is truly right or wrong in this case, or perhaps the truth is they're both partially right and both partially wrong. My guess is that the actual truth probably falls somewhere in the middle of their two stories. Unfortunately, given our current environment and the various movements and such that seem to be controlling our societal narratives, Bauer appears to be more often than not considered the guilty party in the biggest court of all, the court of public opinion. And as a result, has further suffered at the hands of MLB who suspended him because they don't want that public opinion to spill over and possibly have any negative effect on the business of baseball itself.
Yet Bauer has technically done nothing illegal, nor been found guilty of anything as of yet.
If Bauer ends up being found innocent in a civil suit as well, I can see him easily having grounds to go back at his accuser for the harm caused him financially and reputationally by the allegations made against him. But the woman isn't going to have the money and resources to make him whole from what he stands to lose from lost earnings from baseball. So that leads to the possibility of Bauer suing MLB for prematurely punishing him for something he may not actually be guilty of. I understand that baseball has a morals clause and doesn't allow or condone conduct or activity detrimental to the game of baseball, but do they really have the right to punish someone for their sexual proclivities, which are supposed to be private and behind closed doors? At some level, this punishment of Bauer for possibly liking "rough sex" is akin to if MLB had similarly punished a player who suddenly came out as gay, back in the day when homosexuality was not as accepted by the court of public opinion as it is in today's environment. That gay player's sexual preferences should be his business and his business alone, but if it somehow suddenly had come out say 50-60-70 years ago that a player was a homosexual, when society was not so accepting of gay men, I could easily have seen MLB suspending or cutting/banning that gay player back then as well.
If Bauer does end up being exonerated on all counts and charges, including the civil ones, it will be interesting to see if he does go after MLB and sue them for lost wages and income. Not so sure he'd be able to prevail, but he seems to be the kind of oddball, eccentric type of person that would follow through and try to prove his innocence and being in the right through the courts. Time will tell.[/QUOTE]
|