Innocent till proven guilty sure, but for those of you that heard the audio the victim posted wear she said no during them doing it, and sinatra still going is hard to look past ngl
0
sinatra
posted in
Valorant Discussion
Comments:
Threaded
Linear
iirc the charges got dropped, and if the person wants to make sexual content on their own volition I don't see how it invalidates that she could also have been sa'd in the past
her making of isnt the problem its that she started it at a convenient time where everyone in the gaming community including big streamers like pokimane and xqc were talking about her due to the drama she got so much clout
honestly idc about sinatraa situation anymore its she said he said bs that nobody will ever know what actually happened hes clearly learned from it just get him in the league atp
could be used in so many different contexts i cant make a judgement off of that if you can good for you
He was a bad person yes, but it has been almost 5 years and I think we should just move on.
idrc if he competes or not, they have literal convicted domestic abusers like pancc running around in challengers, so it seems like riot doesn't care about this either.
Have you even heard the audio? She is babytalking, it has NO context whatsoever, it doesnt even sound like anything sexual. She purposely used it to so it would sound worse in text form. I suggest you go right now and listen to it, they both sound happy
I had this opinion the first time I heard it, but I mean as an adult if someone says no that means no, no matter the tone
This isn't necessarily always true though, a lot of sexual partners come up with safe words that mean stop rather than "no" since "no" can very often be used in a lot of ways and can get confusing. I'm not saying they had one, but pointing out what you said isn't necessarily true.
sure if you think that, it's fine
but put yourself in his shoes. imagine you and your girl are being playful w eachother, or the context is what he said in his post, and then it's used against you by a someone looking to tarnish your reputation
neither side has solid evidence, so im going to believe the person whose life could potentially be ruined by someone, as that's a lot more important than a potential victim getting closure
this is why innocent until proven guilty is a thing
What part of out of context do you not understand? You are clearly demonstrating a bias and that is you automatically assumed that the audio aligns with what she has described.
Also have you never been in a relationship? Understanding one another goes way beyond what is said, being sarcastic and playful is a thing, especially when it's based off human character. If it's specifically sexual then obviously this is more strict, but don't pretend like you know the details of their relationship, personalities and their communication styles - that is between them, there's nothing to say they haven't discussed about consent-matters beforehand, if anything this could be roleplay.
You're using that statement "no means no" way beyond what it was intended for. It isn't supposed to be a blanket statement - if you ask your partner if they want a gift for their birthday and they say no, does that mean you absolutely can't get them the gift? Cause I sure hope you be a good partner and get them something anyway.
Also have you never been in a relationship?
i agree with ur first two points but if anyone who is stretching the no means no rule its u. No means no is universally applicable to sexual consent. idk if it were me and my partner said no I would at least stop and check but that's just me, and ur right their relationship could be different
Once again, you do not have enough context. You cannot say it it were me ... because you don't even know the full situation. It's extremely common for couples to discuss sexual consent matters beforehand, such that there is a very specific way (e.g. safe word, or otherwise) to know when your partner does not give consent or would like to stop - what part of this do you not get?
"if someone says no that means no"
That is why I said you are using this statement beyond its intent - the context is not present for you to use this as a valid point to make a statement about sinaatra based purely on the audio.
And you didn't even mention your pre-assumption that she must have accurately described the audio? The audio could be literally anything - do I need to give you examples of how easy it is to take something out of context? Surely not
It was an audio taken out of context from the video sinatraa failed to submit simply coz he did not have it.
Cleo did have the video and she didnt turn up to court or use the video evidence simply coz shes a terrible ass human being who made up all of this just so she can get some clout.
NO SA victims in their right minds would start an OF to cope.
SA is bad but the fake accusers are even worse.
Discord