Sexual Assault part 4 - "no, I don't want to see your weaner!"

[zelticgar]

Everyday is bringing new sex scandals. So many creepers exposed but I think there are more to come. 

So I was listening to Andy Cohen on the ride in today (don't judge) and he had Melissa Gilbert on. She is the little girl from Little House on the Prairie. She later went on to have a decent career in made for TV movies and was President of SAG. She told an interesting story about reading for the Meg Ryan role for Oliver Stone's Doors movie. Apparently at an event before the audition Oliver had been talking shit about TV, he was above doing TV etc... Melissa got into it with him about it and he got pissed. Fast forward and she is auditioning. She claims he created a seperate audition script for her that would have made her crawl around on the floor in a sexually charged and submissive manner. She claims he did is specifically to get back at her for the prior incident. She seemed pretty credible and the way she describes it makes it seem pretty creepy. 

I also heard an old bit on Stern this morning where they were making fun of Mike Pence because he wont have dinner or be alone with a female for any reason. Their theory was he knows he cant control himself so he never puts himself in that position. Might be true but based on what is going on now seems like a not insane policy. 

 

[zelticgar]

And John Conyers is next in line for the creeper of the day designation. 

[Eggegg]

1 hour ago, zelticgar said:

Everyday is bringing new sex scandals. So many creepers exposed but I think there are more to come. 

So I was listening to Andy Cohen on the ride in today (don't judge) and he had Melissa Gilbert on. She is the little girl from Little House on the Prairie. She later went on to have a decent career in made for TV movies and was President of SAG. She told an interesting story about reading for the Meg Ryan role for Oliver Stone's Doors movie. Apparently at an event before the audition Oliver had been talking shit about TV, he was above doing TV etc... Melissa got into it with him about it and he got pissed. Fast forward and she is auditioning. She claims he created a seperate audition script for her that would have made her crawl around on the floor in a sexually charged and submissive manner. She claims he did is specifically to get back at her for the prior incident. She seemed pretty credible and the way she describes it makes it seem pretty creepy. 

I also heard an old bit on Stern this morning where they were making fun of Mike Pence because he wont have dinner or be alone with a female for any reason. Their theory was he knows he cant control himself so he never puts himself in that position. Might be true but based on what is going on now seems like a not insane policy. 

 

Stone was thrown a lot of abuse for defending Weinstein and has got previous for this sort of thing, I heard Patricia Arquette claims Stone was pissed off that she brought her bf to a premiere or something. 

Having said that, Stones defence of Weinstein seems to have been that he wanted to wait till it went to court before he judged it, which seems a fair opinion, especially as it seems to have been before so many women came out with stories. 

As for Pence, well that is old news. He is very odd in that regard and it has to do seemingly with his "respect for his wife" that he wouldn't put himself in that position. I don't know what I believe there as I don't have a great deal of time for his beliefs, but seems a fair thing to do.

[Dr. Pepper]

36 women from SNL have defended Franken

This is getting bad for Democrats and exactly why Franken should resign.  We have zero leg to stand on when we defend gropers of our own party while condemning those who defend gropers, harassers and abusers of other parties.  I'm feeling ill.  Wouldn't be surprised if the fervent defense of this particular groper completely stalls this post-Weinstein era.  Why would women come forward knowing that liberal women aren't going to stand up for them?

[Eggegg]

10 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

36 women from SNL have defended Franken

This is getting bad for Democrats and exactly why Franken should resign.  We have zero leg to stand on when we defend gropers of our own party while condemning those who defend gropers, harassers and abusers of other parties.  I'm feeling ill.  Wouldn't be surprised if the fervent defense of this particular groper completely stalls this post-Weinstein era.  Why would women come forward knowing that liberal women aren't going to stand up for them?

No way should this stuff ever have anything to do with party affiliation, but surely people have the right to defend people they believe to be innocent.

[Lany Freelove Cassandra]

 

Quote

 

  10 hours ago, Lany Freelove Cassandra said:

Why is it so hard to understand that EXPECTING sex is not the same thing as finding someone attractive?

 

 

Quote

@ Mother Cocanuts: What's the point of sexual attraction without implicit sexual prospects? It's not hard to understand; you just haven't done a good job convincing me.

  10 hours ago, Lany Freelove Cassandra said:

It is that EXPECTATION that is the betrayal,

Why?

  10 hours ago, Lany Freelove Cassandra said:

that perpetuates the rape culture,

Okay, I'll indulge this: why?

  10 hours ago, Lany Freelove Cassandra said:

makes it hard to trust.  

Why?

 

 

 

To quote myself: an expectation carries an implied threat if the expectation is not met, and in the case of power imbalances can be seen as a command.

  

Quote

 

10 hours ago, Lany Freelove Cassandra said:

A woman passed out used to be thought of as fair game...and many comics and jokes were made about it (Lampoons Animal House just one more example).

 

 

Quote

When?

Always within my life time. Rape jokes have been a part of comedy for a very long time.   I mentioned National Lampoon’s Animal House, you can google the “angel/devil dilemma scene” – it’s NSFW (1978)

I can’t look up too many examples at work, but do have a few: 2012: Sam Morril: “My ex-girlfriend never made me wear a condom. That’s huge. She was on the pill.” Pause. “Ambien.” and Al Franken took that picture of him groping a sleeping woman AS A JOKE!  There are 34 years between my examples, and I have no doubts that these things are isolated incidents. I have too many blocked sites at work though to list more

 

 

 

Quote

 

10 hours ago, Lany Freelove Cassandra said:

We were ignorant then.  Society grows, it realizes it faults and it makes adjustments. 

We became more sensitive with the passage of time, too.

 

 

That’s not a bad thing, though

 

Quote

 

  10 hours ago, Lany Freelove Cassandra said:

We look at what consent means, and we understand what really is required to consent. These are not arbitrarily.

No. "We" don't understand what's really required to consent. When it all boils down, establishing consent is often subjective. To remove these subjective constraints, feminists have attempted and currently succeeded in legally objectivizing the establishment of consent by demanding arbitrary rules like explicit verbal consent.

 

 

 

No, it is stupid ass people and judges who say things like “she never told him to stop” that require these rules. Having explicit verbal consent is not arbitrary. It goes back to the sex with an unconscious or incapacitated person. The law is designed to protect them.

Having affirmative consent removes ambiguity and protect both parties.  

 

 

Quote

 

10 hours ago, Lany Freelove Cassandra said:

Tell me one example of an arbitrarily expansion. 

Yes Means Yes Law.

 

 

Since the law was the result of a massive study that showed more than 1 in 4 women on college campuses had been the victim of some kind of sexual assault, often occurring when they were very drunk or passed out, the law is not arbitrary, it is a direct response to horrifying situation

[Dr. Pepper]

15 minutes ago, Eggegg said:

No way should this stuff ever have anything to do with party affiliation, but surely people have the right to defend people they believe to be innocent.

The problem is that, historically, the defense of perpetrators comes at the expense of victims.  When a figure is popular, well loved, and has a massive system of defensive support, it's terrifying for victims to come forward.  I'm not just talking about victims coming forward to the press, but those who we will never know about.  Congregants of a small church, teachers at a rural school, a child in a large family, etc.  These 36 women who are defending Franken have now turned themselves into a coalition against accusers, whether they intended it or not.  

[Eggegg]

2 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

The problem is that, historically, the defense of perpetrators comes at the expense of victims.  When a figure is popular, well loved, and has a massive system of defensive support, it's terrifying for victims to come forward.  I'm not just talking about victims coming forward to the press, but those who we will never know about.  Congregants of a small church, teachers at a rural school, a child in a large family, etc.  These 36 women who are defending Franken have now turned themselves into a coalition against accusers, whether they intended it or not.  

If they genuinely believe he is innocent what would you expect them to do instead?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

6 minutes ago, Eggegg said:

If they genuinely believe he is innocent what would you expect them to do instead?

Given that we have photographic evidence of what Franken was doing... what could he be innocent of?

[Eggegg]

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Given that we have photographic evidence of what Franken was doing... what could he be innocent of?

Do we? I mean if his only offence is pretending to grab a girls boobs then I think he'll be fine. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

38 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

36 women from SNL have defended Franken

This is getting bad for Democrats and exactly why Franken should resign.  We have zero leg to stand on when we defend gropers of our own party while condemning those who defend gropers, harassers and abusers of other parties.  I'm feeling ill.  Wouldn't be surprised if the fervent defense of this particular groper completely stalls this post-Weinstein era.  Why would women come forward knowing that liberal women aren't going to stand up for them?

I don't see how those two things are related. This is a sincere defense of their longtime friend and co-worker, It doesn't mean he's innocent. You're ill because some women stood by their friend? That's a bit hyperbolic, don't you think?

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

13 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

The problem is that, historically, the defense of perpetrators comes at the expense of victims.  When a figure is popular, well loved, and has a massive system of defensive support, it's terrifying for victims to come forward.  I'm not just talking about victims coming forward to the press, but those who we will never know about.  Congregants of a small church, teachers at a rural school, a child in a large family, etc.  These 36 women who are defending Franken have now turned themselves into a coalition against accusers, whether they intended it or not.  

That's not turning yourself into "a coalition against accusers". None of them said these women are lying. They are saying this is not the man we know. This is not the man we worked with for decades.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 minute ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

That's not turning yourself into "a coalition against accusers". None of them said these women are lying. They are saying this is not the man we know. This is not the man we worked with for decades.

Despite evidence to the contrary.  

[mormont]

18 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

I don't see how those two things are related. This is a sincere defense of their longtime friend and co-worker, It doesn't mean he's innocent. You're ill because some women stood by their friend? That's a bit hyperbolic, don't you think?

Standing by your friend is one thing. Releasing a public statement supporting your friend is quite another. You can do the former by calling your friend up and letting them know you're with them. When you do the latter, you're not telling your friend you support them. The message you're sending is to the world at large, and yeah, that means you're defending them. 

[Ormond]

I think there is a difference between saying "I never saw any bad behavior from this person" when asked and getting together a petition about it and having 36 people sign it.

There are many times in history when some person who has actually committed murder has had scores of friends and acquaintances sign a petition that he couldn't possibly do it because he was such a nice guy. You'd think people would have learned that perpetrators of any crime are not necessarily easily to spot, and plenty of people who are kind and considerate to most persons are dangerous to a few. 

If the consequences for Al Franken are going to be less than the consequences for Charlie Rose, it should be because an objective investigation into their behavior shows that the former's offenses were objectively less than the latter's. Given what Franken is accused of so far, I am on the fence about whether resignation is necessary in his particular case. But whether or not he has 36 women signing a petition saying they never saw or heard about him doing anything inappropriate is irrelevant to deciding what his consequences should be. 

[Kalbear]

23 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

That's not turning yourself into "a coalition against accusers". None of them said these women are lying. They are saying this is not the man we know. This is not the man we worked with for decades.

Distinction without difference. Saying he's not the man they know is implying the others are wrong. 

[Fragile Bird]

The problem is, as I think I mentioned in the last thread, that firing every male who ever touched a woman, made an inappropriate joke, or turned a kiss into a French kiss, would leave Congress and Senate pretty empty. Not to mention every other workplace. People had better start thinking what the appropriate punishment is for various levels of offense.

The British would transport you to Australia for stealing a handkerchief (yes, very famously listed in records) and hang you for stealing a loaf of bread. What was the plot of Les Miserables again?

A helluva a lot of people in these threads have all been saying Fire The Bastard! over every single reported case of a man who has stepped out of line. In the workplaces I've worked in the behaviour has to be pretty extreme to be fired. Sexual harassment complaints were investigated, warnings given out, maybe demotions given. And, of course, it had to be reported first. This is because the law in Canada won't let you fire someone on a whim or for something minor, unless you provide appropriate notice, and it's the paying out of weeks or months of salary at a firing that gives pause. Firing without notice is ok for cause, but the courts will not allow a hanging for a minor offence, and expect warnings and other forms of discipline to be used.

Of course, in many US states you can fire someone on a whim or for no reason at all, so I understand the calls for firing everyone, but that's stupid and not practical. You create a lot of very angry people, for one thing, and I suspect you'd make things worse, not better. Like, a backlash against women and even greater reluctance to report harassment than there is now.

And once reported, part of the investigation has to be looking at who knew what, when. People who turned a blind eye need to be dealt with appropriately as well. And no, you can't just say fire all them too, because people turn a blind eye for different reasons, including fear of retaliation, and often because they say "they're both adults and can do what they want".

There has to be a lot of education to change attitudes. As bad as the reports of harassment and assault are, things were worse 40 years when I first started in the workplace, when both were pretty openly practiced. But when I get together with my contemporaries and we talk about these events, we are all pretty disgusted by how little progress has been made in 40 years.

I want to add that even though I have used male/female comments here, I include every form of harassment and assault.

[Fragile Bird]

45 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Despite evidence to the contrary.  

You know what? If you got 36 women from Weinstein's offices they'd be talking about stuff they saw him do, I bet if you got 36 women who worked around Moore over the years they would talk about his chasing young women and being banned from the mall. And obviously if you got 36 women who worked with Charlie Rose you'd get an earful too. 36 women who worked around Bush Sr. would probably say a few things too.

These guys don't hide their behaviour. It comes out, people know. They may be forgiving, but they know.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

43 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

You know what? If you got 36 women from Weinstein's offices they'd be talking about stuff they saw him do, I bet if you got 36 women who worked around Moore over the years they would talk about his chasing young women and being banned from the mall. And obviously if you got 36 women who worked with Charlie Rose you'd get an earful too. 36 women who worked around Bush Sr. would probably say a few things too.

These guys don't hide their behaviour. It comes out, people know. They may be forgiving, but they know.

FB,

Understood.  I'm not saying Sen. Franken is the Devil.  But, it appears, he may not be the Saint some assumed him to be.  He, and his accusers, deserve an objective investigation into the allegations against him.

[Lany Freelove Cassandra]

23 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

The problem is, as I think I mentioned in the last thread, that firing every male who ever touched a woman, made an inappropriate joke, or turned a kiss into a French kiss, would leave Congress and Senate pretty empty..

I don't see that as a problem  

But I do understand what you mean.  I honestly think the standard needs to be "at this place of employment" (not saying it has to happen AT work, just be relevant to the current job, not for something that may have happened at a past job) when it comes to regular people, but our government officials should be held to a higher ethical standard.

We just had our top guy of the department that Capital Markets falls under (reports directly to the CEO) fired for "acting in a manner that was contrary to the company’s policies and its expectations of senior leaders during a communication he had with a former team member"   we were all pretty shocked, but this kind of thing needs to happen more often