I understand that the consensual relationship doesn't rule out the sexual assault. I do have, however, trouble digesting such relations. Is it normal that people get into relations with other people that they intend to take to court?
Yes, it's very normal. Abusive partners can be very skilled at breaking down their victims; "you're so worthless, no one but me will ever love you" sort of scenarios. It's a very common phenomenon.
[edit: added 'this' initially omitted]
And "mansplaining" is a concept that was created to justify having smaller seats in a train basically. And to target and ashame people that cames in different sizes and shapes. The solution to mansplaining whatever it means is simple: bigger seats.
This terms are based in the --false-- claim that [all] men are dominant and [all] women are passive and unable to defend themselves from the big-bad-male. They aim for a society uniform when people will have much less margin to be an individual, and people with long legs or that weight different will be ashamed for that. Both terms, mansplaining and manspreading evoke a very dystopian feeling.
But if this is the kind of society that you wish for, feel free to spread the sticky mess
Epistemic implication is saying, for example, "she is home, because her car is in the drive way". The car is not the reason, and the first clause is not a statement of fact. It is not too odd that "must" can be found in this middle voice, "She must be (a slut/a victim) because ..."
Saving grace is that the comment did not explain anything, so it can be chalked off as self-ironic take.
Mansplaining is the phenomenon of which an arrogant male-persons arrogance can be attributed to their sex/gender (as appropriate), usually with some reference to "patriarchy" and the undeserved confidence of those higher up in the power hierarchy when belittling or underestimating those lower on that same scale.
In practice, it is a gender-specific, weaponised term used in any situation where a man is perceived to be arrogant towards a women i.e. it is commonly abused beyond any positive philosophical aims.
Maybe it has a similar reasoning i.e. men sexist-ly assume women know less than them - but the fact is that it is rarely clear b/c arrogant, narcissistic people of both genders exist without the need for such a basis.
Normal? He was the 7th most powerful person in the CCP, in a country of 1.4 Billion. He was then a 65 year old having a "relationship" with a then 25 year-old...
The guy checks all the boxes, and will have to be punished, but giving the appearance of a scorned mistress doesn't help her convince something so wrong happened a decade ago.
But, no need to be perfect to he heard, and she'll have to have her chance.
> giving the appearance of a scorned mistress doesn't help her convince
Given that we are certain both of those things can exist together, the case must at least be investigated. People should not have to be punished (or disbelieved) for being what they are: imperfect beings.
> "Is it normal?" just sounds like you saying "it isn't normal, she did something bad", almost putting the guilt on her.
You:
> I disagree.
Also you:
> she also should have had the moral fortitude not to ...
This seems to be a contradiction, unless you disagree on some metalevel, disagreeing with the course of events in general.
> she might have loved him or saw an interest in the relationship, but it does not matter for this
That's exactly the part I have trouble digesting. If I was sexually assaulted by person (that I want to take them to jail for it), how can I pursue a relation (later) with them? I don't think, also, that I'll be able to love such a person. But I guess that's just me?