Sexual Assault Scandals 3- the Fempire Strikes Back

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

4 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

In case there was anyone who was on the fence about Franken despite photo evidence, there's another accuser.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/20/politics/al-franken-inappropriate-touch-2010/index.html

I expect/hope a resignation to come shortly.

No fucking way he should resign. Even his accuser thinks that's ridiculous. You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater here.

[Theda Baratheon]

38 minutes ago, Mother Cocanuts said:

Because the relationships of men and women implicitly denote sexual expectations. These prospects are essential in the distinctions which characterize the sexes. Even in a family which you'd argue is a hub of platonic intimacy and love would exhibit behaviors that acknowledge and legitimize the aforementioned expectations. Case in point, separating boys and girls as they reach sexual maturity. Exceptions to this arise when one or either is "asexual" or homosexual. I'm not saying that heterosexual men and women can't be friends. I just think they're better served knowing that their relationships at least bear some implicitly sexual element.

I just don't agree that this is the way it inherently is or has to be.

[mormont]

39 minutes ago, Mother Cocanuts said:

Yes, that too would be nonsensical. But that's not what I've argued.

No. But it was the effect of the law prior to this change.

I'm not actually arguing with you, to be clear. I'm explaining what the law is in the UK and many other countries, and why it is that way. Your other answers suggest your understanding of harassment, what it is and why it is bad, is rather sketchy (as is your grasp of criminal vs civil law, employment relationships, power dynamics, etc.) But it is not really my job to educate you on those. I'm merely noting that harassment, according to many commonly used definitions, can be a single act. 

15 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

No fucking way he should resign.

I'm inclined to the view that if an employee would be fired for something, a politician should resign for it. By that standard Franken should go. By now any decent employer would have fired him.

[Dr. Pepper]

18 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

No fucking way he should resign. Even his accuser thinks that's ridiculous. You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater here.

Why shouldn't he?  There's a pattern of behavior now.  If we're hoping for widespread change, the only real way to do that is to say that we no longer accept those who have a pattern of behavior of groping, harassing or assaulting women.  It hurts to lose a senator like Franken, but it hurts to keep one like him as well.  

[Mother Cocanuts]

5 minutes ago, Theda Baratheon said:

I just don't agree that this is the way it inherently is or has to be.

Let me ask you this: would you let any of your male friends, particularly heterosexual male friends, stay in your room as you undressed? Would you stay in their room as they undressed? Our bodies comprise a composite of sexual parts, more so the female since her body produces the most labor in reproduction; these parts aren't ornaments. We consciously and sub-consciously understand this.  And sex is a powerful impulse. Freud argued that it's one of the two elements driving human behavior. This is by no means a refutation, or even contradiction, of philosophy. (If you've seen my previous "work," so to speak, you'd know I show nothing but deference to it.) But we should not be so myopic as to ignore these characteristically biological behaviors. Sex is a part of us; and it manifests more so among males and females. Even the terms "male" and "female" are inherently sexual.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 minute ago, mormont said:

I'm inclined to the view that if an employee would be fired for something, a politician should resign for it. By that standard Franken should go. By now any decent employer would have fired him.

That would be fantastic if both sides of the aisle abided by it. In a perfect world, and all that. But seeing as how you have a regressive, homophobic, bible thumping statutory rapist running for a Senate seat and refusing to step down, we clearly do not live in a perfect world. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

3 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Why shouldn't he?  There's a pattern of behavior now.  If we're hoping for widespread change, the only real way to do that is to say that we no longer accept those who have a pattern of behavior of groping, harassing or assaulting women.  It hurts to lose a senator like Franken, but it hurts to keep one like him as well.  

Because it doesn't fit the crime, and as you mentioned this is a good senator. And by that I don't just mean he's a Democrat. He's active on many committees, he's smart, he listens to his constituents. I think it's fair to wait for the results of an investigation and then make a decision.  

[Dr. Pepper]

5 minutes ago, Mother Cocanuts said:

Let me ask you this: would you let any of your male friends, particularly heterosexual male friends, stay in your room as you undressed? Would you stay in their room as they undressed? Our bodies comprise a composite of sexual parts, more so the female since her body produces the most labor in reproduction; these parts aren't ornaments. We consciously and sub-consciously understand this.  And sex is a powerful impulse. Freud argued that it's one of the two elements driving human behavior. This is by no means a refutation, or even contradiction, of philosophy. (If you've seen my previous "work," so to speak, you'd know I show nothing but deference to it.) But we should not be so myopic as to ignore these characteristically biological behaviors. Sex is a part of us; and it manifests more so among males and females. Even the terms "male" and "female" are inherently sexual.

I'd be too afraid to undress in front of most men because they would sexualize me.  Because that's what they've been taught.  I don't care about staying in their room as they undress (assuming I've been explicitly allowed to do so by them) because I don't sexualize people.  I'm sure tons of women feel this way.

[Theda Baratheon]

5 minutes ago, Mother Cocanuts said:

Let me ask you this: would you let any of your male friends, particularly heterosexual male friends, stay in your room as you undressed? Would you stay in their room as they undressed? Our bodies comprise a composite of sexual parts, more so the female since her body produces the most labor in reproduction; these parts aren't ornaments. We consciously and sub-consciously understand this.  And sex is a powerful impulse. Freud argued that it's one of the two elements driving human behavior. This is by no means a refutation, or even contradiction, of philosophy. (If you've seen my previous "work," so to speak, you'd know I show nothing but deference to it.) But we should not be so myopic as to ignore these characteristically biological behaviors. Sex is a part of us; and it manifests more so among males and females. Even the terms "male" and "female" are inherently sexual.

Id probably share a bed with a male friend tbh if there was no where else. I've shared beds with plenty of friends who are girls and Im bisexual and I've never thought sexually of them 

[Eggegg]

2 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

I'd be too afraid to undress in front of most men because they would sexualize me.  Because that's what they've been taught.  I don't care about staying in their room as they undress (assuming I've been explicitly allowed to do so by them) because I don't sexualize people.  I'm sure tons of women feel this way.

I don’t agree that it’s what they have been taught, I’m not sure you can brain wash men into not finding women attractive and wanting to sleep with them. You can make them pretend they aren’t doing that of course. 

[Theda Baratheon]

Just now, Dr. Pepper said:

I'd be too afraid to undress in front of most men because they would sexualize me.  Because that's what they've been taught.  I don't care about staying in their room as they undress (assuming I've been explicitly allowed to do so by them) because I don't sexualize people.  I'm sure tons of women feel this way.

I wouldn't care about my male friends undressing in front of me or female friends tbh not like I'm gonna stare at them but I'd be careful with what male friends saw me undressing; my "best friends" I dont care lmao not like theyre gonna stare 

[Kalbear]

Someone has apparently never done theater before. 

Or ever heard of nude beaches.

[Dr. Pepper]

5 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Because it doesn't fit the crime, and as you mentioned this is a good senator. And by that I don't just mean he's a Democrat. He's active on many committees, he's smart, he listens to his constituents. I think it's fair to wait for the results of an investigation and then make a decision.  

And he also gropes women.  All of his good deeds don't detract from that.  Now that a pattern has been established, one starts to wonder how much has been paid out for sexual harassment claims on him.  Is his behavior costing us money?  Likely those victims signed NDA's so we might never know unless a hacker or whistleblower releases the info (and hopefully with victims names redacted).  

As mormont wrote, he'd be fired from a company already.  No reason why he shouldn't be fired from his public job.  

[Kalbear]

If anything, the second accusation is significantly worse than the first, since he was in office at the time, has a number of extemporaneous witnesses to the behavior, and is not in a comedy sketch where there was apparently some horseplay going on. 

I strongly suspect that you could find people to report on this with almost any male politician out there, especially if they're over 50. Burn them all. 

[Dr. Pepper]

2 minutes ago, Eggegg said:

I don’t agree that it’s what they have been taught, I’m not sure you can brain wash men into not finding women attractive and wanting to sleep with them. You can make them pretend they aren’t doing that of course. 

It's not about "brainwashing".  It's about what we are all taught.  We're all susceptible to it, not just men.  Men are perfectly capable of seeing a naked body and not wanting to have sex with it.  The problem is our society teaches men to portray a hypersexual character because that's being 'manly' and being masculine is good.  

[Theda Baratheon]

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Someone has apparently never done theater before. 

 

LMAO right!? Or never been to a hostel

[Mother Cocanuts]

1 minute ago, mormont said:

No. But it was the effect of the law prior to this change.

Really? Do you have a reference?

1 minute ago, mormont said:

I'm not actually arguing with you, to be clear. I'm explaining what the law is in the UK and many other countries, and why it is that way.

You are arguing with me. I never asked you to explain the law in the U.K. or the reason it's that way. You sought to question my argument that harassment has to comprise of repeated behavior by arguing semantics. And I'm all for it, but let's call it what it is.

7 minutes ago, mormont said:

Your other answers suggest your understanding of harassment, what it is and why it is bad, is rather sketchy (as is your grasp of criminal vs civil law, employment relationships, power dynamics, etc.)

I would imagine that it appears "sketchy" because I never made a moral qualification of harassment (i.e. good or bad.) I described only what it was. The rest of it (i.e. my understanding criminal law, civil law, employment relationships, power dynamics) is just added fodder.

11 minutes ago, mormont said:

But it is not really my job to educate you on those.

As I stated above, I never sought your instruction. You're the one making that argument. If you don't want to, then don't.

14 minutes ago, mormont said:

I'm merely noting that harassment, according to many commonly used definitions, can be a single act.

I doubt those definitions are commonly used. But then again, I don't live in the U.K.

 

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, Theda Baratheon said:

LMAO right!? Or never been to a hostel

Or ever thought for a second that there might be non-heterosexual people in a locker room, or had to do a fitting for clothes, or undressed in front of their doctor, or...

[Eggegg]

7 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

It's not about "brainwashing".  It's about what we are all taught.  We're all susceptible to it, not just men.  Men are perfectly capable of seeing a naked body and not wanting to have sex with it.  The problem is our society teaches men to portray a hypersexual character because that's being 'manly' and being masculine is good.  

The idea that you can control men’s sexuality or make them not sexualise women is one of the most barmy and silly ideas going. Most major religions seem to have been attempting it for millennia! And they all failed. Because it’s inherent to being a male. It’s difficult for women to understand because you aren’t men. 

 

[kairparavel]

1 minute ago, Eggegg said:

The idea that you can control men’s sexuality or make them not sexualise women is one of the most barmy and silly ideas going. Most major religions seem to have been attempting it for millennia! And they all failed. Because it’s inherent to being a male. It’s difficult for women to understand because you aren’t men. 

 

I guess we can all go home then. We're done.

Ladies, back to covering up neck to ankle and chaperones for everything, because mens gonna mens and there ain't no stopping it.