Don't forget he also defended extreme, violent rape and strangulation porn, claiming the women enjoyed it, even though that kind of material is almost always produced via some form of sex trafficking, whether by blackmail or outright violence.
Didn't he also publicly admit he was more or less groomed into the lifestyle and was frequenting bathhouses when he was of questionable age to get fucked by men 3 or 4 times older than him?
There are some details of his clubbing including at the notorious Club Z.
To be fair, this is just how gay men behave. Amhole or intact pole, older gay men groom teenage boys as almost a rite of passage. Milo Yiannopo-whatever admitted to it and got cancelled for it.
Isn't one of the signs of imminent societal collapse when people openly advocate and support degeneracy at this scope and intensity?
Elliot has a fetish for rape. Doing something to someone against their will is what gets him going. While the evidence is largely circumstantial, him defending rape porn while insisting whatever happened was a "consent accident" is a bit red flag. Add on that we only have The Dongless One's perspective, and things definitely seem suspicious. But yes, as you said, there's no hard evidence he's raped someone. It just isn't a good look to have records of him defending sexual assault porn and at least one consent accident that we know of.
Don't forget former co-workers coming forward to confess that Mr. Fong-Jones enjoys discussing his sex life and fetishes in public and at work and seems to relish in making people that don't buy into that lifestyle physically uncomfortable with the discussions, and if you try to say something he dashes to HR to make a human rights and workplace harassment complaint.
"According to the report, the two men, who lived together and were in a non-exclusive relationship, had been diagnosed with the disease at a hospital in Paris in early June.
Ultimately, consent is binary. Either the person consented or they didn’t. If they didn’t consent, in whole or in part, it is sexual assault at the very least.
I don't know what happened, because he's described it in such a remarkably bizarre way that it's probably intended to obfuscate it. He doesn't want to say what happened because something went wrong in such a way that it caused the other party to try to bring the incident to light, and he buried it and scared that person off the Internet.
This. Realistically we don't know that he is or isn't a rapist.
Trump would win, even if Trump had no money and no power he would win because he is exceptionally skilled at being insulting, minimizing and dismissive. Guess what people who chop their dick off thinking it will improve their orgasms hate when people do to them?
Also, he wasn't "accused" of this dog hair "accident." This is something he made up himself. He was making a panicked admission of being accused of a "consent accident," meaning he had some kind of sexual incident with another person who was claiming to have been sexually assaulted after it.
No, that's just you being incapable of understanding basic logic.
So what is the standard for KFers then? Largely circumstantial evidence is fine if you dislike someone? A "bit of a red flag" = definite guilt?
