The transgressions were mild enough that he would have been forgiven if he admitted them and apologized. However by claiming that his accusers were lying or at least mistaken he puts those who would have forgiven him in a bad spot. Because if such type accusations from a well regarded accuser could be wrong in this spot, why not in other cases as well? The letter lauding him signed by 60 women is also dubious. Because even the worst of the offenders (including Trump) tend to treat the professional woman they are not shooting at with respect. So bringing that fact up as if it mitigates the crime or lessens the chances it actually occurred has been deemed, in other cases, to be irrelevant.

Thinking that this incident may be some type of inflection point.

Oh good

Does anyone think there is a famous, straight guy who has not at some point done something creepy with a woman? I don't think there are any.

no

That was one of the things about the Al Franken debacle that infuriated me. GTFO with this, "well he didn’t eat my face so he must not eat faces" bs.

About time we had a cricket reference.

I find him probably guilty.

The seemingly unrelated plot lines are converging quickly now, like the last 30 minutes of a Christopher Nolan film.

If only there were some way men could avoid these sticky wickets.

NH lol

The point here is that by accusing her of lying he pretty much rejects the forgiveness that would almost certainly have come his way. Sort of like a defendant who rejects a very generous plea bargain. I wouldn't bet he is innocent but I think I would bet he would pass a lie detector test.

Speak for yourself.

I think it's also very likely that the denials are at least partially motivated by knowledge that there are other women out there with similar stories.

Then you must be quite disapproving of the letter signed by the 60 female bigshots (including Rachel Maddow).

I am. I think it's awful in the same way it was awful when the women did it for Franken. It chills women from coming forward, and minimizes the experience of this particular accuser.

Notice that if this is essentially true, it implies that most non famous men refrain only because they think they have little chance of succeeding rather than because they don't want to do something wrong.

Or because they receive more negative feedback. Part of the problem famous/rich men have is that the filters are broken - they do creepy stuff and it works with much higher probability than it does for ordinary guys - and the shoot downs are much softer - ordinary guys get shot down and learn the boundaries before they overstep the big ones.

But to some extent I think most of us would behave just like these guys if we were in their situations.

Or it implies that people with little respect for boundaries, norms, and their fellow humans' autonomy, or inflated sense of their own abilities (sexual or otherwise), are more likely to be famous/extremely successful.

You don't really need the "famous" qualifier.

What if she is lying? Should he cop to something he didn't do?

The allegations here are what? He tried to kiss someone?

If the allegations are true, the fact that he has publicly called the accusers liars is probably a worse offense than what he was originally accused of.

I'm reading now that some of the female signers felt pressured.

So many issues including this one would become a bit less controversial if people were not so averse to adding an approximate probability number to their contentions.

Lol

Now we're getting somewhere