Official Sexual Harrassment Thread

[The Feral Slasher]

Here is an article that discusses Bill Clinton's history. It appears to me that when multiple people come forward recently accusing an individual the accusations are more or less assumed to be true. Not sure Bill Clinton is assumed to be guilty in the same way. This may be due to assumptions of politics from the accusers, but not sure that explains it all.

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/10/bill-clinton-harvey-weinstein-sexual-assault

Here's a key claim from the article.

There’s a disparity in the way progressives treat the allegations against Clinton and those of other powerful men. Trump, Weinstein, O’Reilly and the rest are unequivocally denounced as sexual predators, and their alleged victims are believed. But when progressive pundits even bother to comment on Bill Clinton’s wrongdoings, the former president is merely accused of crimes; he has alleged misdeeds on his record; his actions require us to uncomfortably re-evaluate his legacy; his accusers are untrustworthy, or they’re simply promiscuous; and besides, it doesn’t matter, because he’s not running for president anymore.

[Fresno Bob]

Yea, like you said "some", not all!

BTW, what about old crazy Uncle Joe (yes, this is whataboutery, I know)? IIRC, weren't many a picture taken of ol' Uncle Joe Biden smelling women or touching them on their shoulders from behind his nose pressed to their ear or hair? Always seemed creepy to me, but I wasn't one of those women, and maybe they all consented before he did that.

I'll admit, this I get, my nose is definately an erogenous zone, what I'd call "nuzzling" is one of my biggest turnons, especially around the neck and shoulders. But again, can not imagine trying this nonconsentually, good way to get poked right in the eye. For me, there is nothing sexier than consent, ok, absolutely begging me to put my hands/nose/tongue/junk on you might be sexier.

I'm hoping to not see this as someone sig....

[Sour Masher]

Here is an article that discusses Bill Clinton's history. It appears to me that when multiple people come forward recently accusing an individual the accusations are more or less assumed to be true. Not sure Bill Clinton is assumed to be guilty in the same way. This may be due to assumptions of politics from the accusers, but not sure that explains it all.

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/10/bill-clinton-harvey-weinstein-sexual-assault

Here's a key claim from the article.

There’s a disparity in the way progressives treat the allegations against Clinton and those of other powerful men. Trump, Weinstein, O’Reilly and the rest are unequivocally denounced as sexual predators, and their alleged victims are believed. But when progressive pundits even bother to comment on Bill Clinton’s wrongdoings, the former president is merely accused of crimes; he has alleged misdeeds on his record; his actions require us to uncomfortably re-evaluate his legacy; his accusers are untrustworthy, or they’re simply promiscuous; and besides, it doesn’t matter, because he’s not running for president anymore.

I believe that, knowing what we know about Bill Clinton now, if he were running for office today, the Democratic Party would denounce him in the same way others are being denounced for such behavior at this moment in history. I do not think he would win political office at this moment in history as a Democrat.

I think another part of this is that the majority of rumors, claims, and outright accusations against Clinton, especially early on, centered on him engaging in consensual affairs with consenting adults. Those are in an entirely different category from the other claims put forth against him of sexual assault, which I don't think got as much attention initially, when he was running for office, as they have since that time.

I also think that because he has dedicated so much of his post-presidency to doing good in the world, many people don't want to believe he was/is capable of such acts. Everyone, to my mind, has always been willing to concede he was a horn-dog whose actions were unbecoming of the prestigious positions he held, and represented disturbing lapses from someone in a position to lose so much. But, yeah, I think it is fair to say some on the left have given him a pass, because while they believe he had affairs and displayed very poor judgment, those who remain silent on him, probably largely are not convinced of the accusations of sexual assault.

This speaks to the larger issue of how we tend to see people in binary. It is really hard for us to wrap our heads around someone being very good in many areas, and yet being horrible/vile in other areas. We tend to believe someone is either good or bad. They cannot be both. And when the bad comes to light, we reconcile it by assuming the good was all and act or cover. In fact, I believe people can be good in many ways and to many people, and be bad/vile at the same time to others. Many great people in history were also terrible people, at least in some ways, in other aspects of their lives. For men especially, the disconnect often revolves around sex. Many great men have shown weakness and immorality when it comes to sex and women. MLK Jr had affairs, for instance, and Gandhi has been accused on engaging in activities that would likely be considered sexual assault today (even though he was celibate and sexually repressed, he used to insist on sleeping next to naked girls, to "test" his restraint...at least according to one biographer).

[The Feral Slasher]

I believe that, knowing what we know about Bill Clinton now, if he were running for office today, the Democratic Party would denounce him in the same way others are being denounced for such behavior at this moment in history. I do not think he would win political office at this moment in history as a Democrat.

I think another part of this is that the majority of rumors, claims, and outright accusations against Clinton, especially early on, centered on him engaging in consensual affairs with consenting adults. Those are in an entirely different category from the other claims put forth against him of sexual assault, which I don't think got as much attention initially, when he was running for office, as they have since that time.

I also think that because he has dedicated so much of his post-presidency to doing good in the world, many people don't want to believe he was/is capable of such acts. Everyone, to my mind, has always been willing to concede he was a horn-dog whose actions were unbecoming of the prestigious positions he held, and represented disturbing lapses from someone in a position to lose so much. But, yeah, I think it is fair to say some on the left have given him a pass, because while the believe he had affairs and displayed very poor judgment, those who remain silent on him, probably largely are not convinced of the accusations of sexual assault.

I agree with a lot of what you said. The question is why people are not convinced of his guilt and if he is given a pass because he was a popular Democratic President. If people read the same article with the name Bill Clinton replaced with Donald Trump would people change their minds about what happened ?

[Bernie Brewer]

I believe that, knowing what we know about Bill Clinton now, if he were running for office today, the Democratic Party would denounce him in the same way others are being denounced for such behavior at this moment in history. I do not think he would win political office at this moment in history as a Democrat.

I think another part of this is that the majority of rumors, claims, and outright accusations against Clinton, especially early on, centered on him engaging in consensual affairs with consenting adults. Those are in an entirely different category from the other claims put forth against him of sexual assault, which I don't think got as much attention initially, when he was running for office, as they have since that time.

I also think that because he has dedicated so much of his post-presidency to doing good in the world, many people don't want to believe he was/is capable of such acts. Everyone, to my mind, has always been willing to concede he was a horn-dog whose actions were unbecoming of the prestigious positions he held, and represented disturbing lapses from someone in a position to lose so much. But, yeah, I think it is fair to say some on the left have given him a pass, because while they believe he had affairs and displayed very poor judgment, those who remain silent on him, probably largely are not convinced of the accusations of sexual assault.

This speaks to the larger issue of how we tend to see people in binary. It is really hard for us to wrap our heads around someone being very good in many areas, and yet being horrible/vile in other areas. We tend to believe someone is either good or bad. They cannot be both. And when the bad comes to light, we reconcile it by assuming the good was all and act or cover. In fact, I believe people can be good in many ways and to many people, and be bad/vile at the same time to others. Many great people in history were also terrible people, at least in some ways, in other aspects of their lives. For men especially, the disconnect often revolves around sex. Many great men have shown weakness and immorality when it comes to sex and women. MLK Jr had affairs, for instance, and Gandhi has been accused on engaging in activities that would likely be considered sexual assault today (even though he was celibate and sexually repressed, he used to insist on sleeping next to naked girls, to "test" his restraint...at least according to one biographer).

I don't think the bolded statement is true, though (although I now see that you said a "majority" so it is actually a true statement, my apologies!). Look up Junita Braoddrick, for instance. She claims, and later retracted only to later reclaim, non-consensual rape by BC when he was Attorney General in Ark. Not saying it’s true, but who knows? Probably only two people and they apparently disagree. I agree with the notion that the GOP should quit retrying the Clinton impeachment everything a GOP member is found to be a pervert, pedophile or sum bag. I am glad that this purge of sum bags is occurring, but I also worry about the hyper-frenzied rush to judgment going on with each new accusation. So far this doesn’t seem to be the case, but I worry good people will be hurt and where do they go to get their reputations repaired once they are cleared? I think back to the Duke Lacrosse rape case, in which various team members were accused of rape of a dancer at a frat party. Not saying they are innocent, but it is now pretty clear that the story that made all the headlines, wasn’t the truth. I wonder how history would look at these cases, maybe no differently, but...

[Redbirds Fan]

Here is an article that discusses Bill Clinton's history. It appears to me that when multiple people come forward recently accusing an individual the accusations are more or less assumed to be true. Not sure Bill Clinton is assumed to be guilty in the same way. This may be due to assumptions of politics from the accusers, but not sure that explains it all.

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/10/bill-clinton-harvey-weinstein-sexual-assault

Here's a key claim from the article.

There’s a disparity in the way progressives treat the allegations against Clinton and those of other powerful men. Trump, Weinstein, O’Reilly and the rest are unequivocally denounced as sexual predators, and their alleged victims are believed. But when progressive pundits even bother to comment on Bill Clinton’s wrongdoings, the former president is merely accused of crimes; he has alleged misdeeds on his record; his actions require us to uncomfortably re-evaluate his legacy; his accusers are untrustworthy, or they’re simply promiscuous; and besides, it doesn’t matter, because he’s not running for president anymore.

Jeez. If nobody noticed, this isn't a news article, it's an opinion piece from the socialist magazine Jacobin. They've got such a hard-on for Bernie and are still so pissed off at Hillary they can't even get their eyes un-crossed. So this is their point of view, but their haphazard recitation of Clinton "facts" is reason enough to be skeptical of their editorial opinions.

The claims by the Clinton accusers have been litigated ad nauseum, but I'm happy to go through them all, date-by-date, line-by-line if anyone likes...not because Clinton deserves to be defended, but because too many people have made political hay out of his sexcapades. I'd rather talk about the sixty people he has murdered.

And again, here is a big difference...with many sex cases the dispute is 'consensual vs. non-consensual'. In Moore's case, that is not an issue. At 14, there is no legal possibility of consent. And, even if it was some state where a kid could consent at 12, is it still disgusting enough that a 32-year old prosecutor was dating a 14-year old in secret?

(BTW, Michael Steele, former GOP chairman, just said in an interview that when Clinton was the accused he didn't even get the benefit of the "if these allegations are true" doubt. In other words, Steele is saying that the facts are the opposite of what your post and the Jacobin opinion piece suggest, namely that Moore is being held to an unfairly high standard. He's saying that Clinton was assumed to be guilty and that everyone went from there. Interesting, huh?)

[Bernie Brewer]

I don't think the bolded statement is true, though (although I now see that you said a "majority" so it is actually a true statement, my apologies!). Look up Junita Braoddrick, for instance. She claims, and later retracted only to later reclaim, non-consensual rape by BC when he was Attorney General in Ark. Not saying it’s true, but who knows? Probably only two people and they apparently disagree. I agree with the notion that the GOP should quit retrying the Clinton impeachment everything a GOP member is found to be a pervert, pedophile or sum bag. I am glad that this purge of sum bags is occurring, but I also worry about the hyper-frenzied rush to judgment going on with each new accusation. So far this doesn’t seem to be the case, but I worry good people will be hurt and where do they go to get their reputations repaired once they are cleared? I think back to the Duke Lacrosse rape case, in which various team members were accused of rape of a dancer at a frat party. Not saying they are innocent, but it is now pretty clear that the story that made all the headlines, wasn’t the truth. I wonder how history would look at these cases, maybe no differently, but...

And, Soul Masher, while I find myself disagreeing with you often, as we definitely come to our views from different perspectives, I want to tell you that I am finding your posts to be very thought provoking and informative. It challenges my beliefs and gets me thinking. Red Birds is well-respected around here (and by me) and you are getting close to his lofty perch in my mind. I appreciate the way in which you respond when someone offers a counter-view. Just thought you should know.

[Redbirds Fan]

As someone who would define himself as an Evangelical Christian and probably more right than left (unless I'm talking to a Tailor, ba dum, ching!), I don't embrace Trump, and I know many similarly afflicted that do not embrace him either. And, therefore, I can say with some amount of certainty, "They" do not now embrace Moore. While I understand what you're trying to say, I think broad generalizations are not helpful, and while you didn't say it, I implied it from your comment (God, I hate when people try to read my intent and are very wrong, so if I am wrong, I apologize). I believe that the obvious or implied uses of absolutes, such as; always and never, feed into stereotypes and at best are lazy and at worst are dangerous. If you want to say "large numbers of" or "many" or "polls say 83%", I'm probably good. Not that you asked! But several posters use absolutes and that is bothersome to me, particularly when talking about the GOP.

The "800 pound Gorilla in the room" is the balance of power in the Senate. While Moore's behavior is despicable, anyone who expects the GOP to simply hand this seat to the Democratic is delusional. Wasn't this our friend Steve Bannon's guy? Trump I believe endorse Luther Strange, but this is who the Alabama GOP voters chose. Shouldn't they have known better? Its my understanding that the reality of the situation is that the agency running the election in AL has indicated that time has passed in which Moore can even removed from the ballot. As such, he can't be replaced and if he drops out, any votes cast for him would be uncounted. So to drop out, he would hand the seat to the virtually unopposed Dem, Jones. Obviously people can write in Luther Strange or another Republican, but that's not likely to happen in large enough numbers. The GOP has to swallow a boat load of crap on this one, just how much is tolerable before puking, is the question. Shitty reason, but it politics and its reality.

Hey, it's a figure of speech. It's sort of like when people say "implied" when they really mean "inferred".

I understood what you were trying to say. But pointing out that broad generalizations aren't helpful has the effect of deflecting attention from the point, whether that was your intention or not. And that point is that way too many good Christians have shown hypocrisy in their fawning over a man whose personal life and business practices have been antithetical to the fundamental tenets of Christianity.

My suggestion to Evangelical Christians would be that if they do not want to be lumped in with people like Franklin Graham, they should stand up and say "hey, this guy doesn't speak for me", because he appears to think that he does.

[Bernie Brewer]

Hey, it's a figure of speech. It's sort of like when people say "implied" when they really mean "inferred".

I understood what you were trying to say. But pointing out that broad generalizations aren't helpful has the effect of deflecting attention from the point, whether that was your intention or not. And that point is that way too many good Christians have shown hypocrisy in their fawning over a man whose personal life and business practices have been antithetical to the fundamental tenets of Christianity.

My suggestion to Evangelical Christians would be that if they do not want to be lumped in with people like Franklin Graham, they should stand up and say "hey, this guy doesn't speak for me", because he appears to think that he does.

Touche! Exactly, what I meant. That happens when you edit a thought but forget to change context!

[Redbirds Fan]

Touche! Exactly, what I meant. That happens when you edit a thought but forget to change context!

Of course, my post mentioned not evangelical Christians, but the 'evangelical right'. We could argue the semantics of it, but what I had in mind did not include you, who I would characterize as more of a Christian Moderate. A CM can have some very conservative views on items, but they tend to be rational and prinicpled. CMs are generally conservative in their personal lives, with compassion for their fellow man.

(In the Venn Diagram of my friends and family, the C/M intersect would probably be the most populated.)

[The Feral Slasher]

Jeez. If nobody noticed, this isn't a news article, it's an opinion piece from the socialist magazine Jacobin. They've got such a hard-on for Bernie and are still so pissed off at Hillary they can't even get their eyes un-crossed. So this is their point of view, but their haphazard recitation of Clinton "facts" is reason enough to be skeptical of their editorial opinions.

The claims by the Clinton accusers have been litigated ad nauseum, but I'm happy to go through them all, date-by-date, line-by-line if anyone likes...not because Clinton deserves to be defended, but because too many people have made political hay out of his sexcapades. I'd rather talk about the sixty people he has murdered.

And again, here is a big difference...with many sex cases the dispute is 'consensual vs. non-consensual'. In Moore's case, that is not an issue. At 14, there is no legal possibility of consent. And, even if it was some state where a kid could consent at 12, is it still disgusting enough that a 32-year old prosecutor was dating a 14-year old in secret?

(BTW, Michael Steele, former GOP chairman, just said in an interview that when Clinton was the accused he didn't even get the benefit of the "if these allegations are true" doubt. In other words, Steele is saying that the facts are the opposite of what your post and the Jacobin opinion piece suggest, namely that Moore is being held to an unfairly high standard. He's saying that Clinton was assumed to be guilty and that everyone went from there. Interesting, huh?)

ok then, good to know that Bill is innocent, thanks for clarifying. Glad I could get input from such an unbiased source unlike them damn socialists

edit: so just to be clear, anyone who doesn't believe Bill is an innocent victim is a disgruntled socialist with an axe to grind or a right wing conspiracy theorist who thinks the Clintons murdered 60 people ? there is absolutely no reason to consider or be concerned that he may actually have assualted any of the women who accused him ? And Bill Clinton is a victim of people who assume him to be guilty ? There is no gray area or legitimate concern, he's just a victim, do I have that right ? And all the Dems who give him a pass are just well informed folks with no bias whatsoever ?

[Gregg]

I have a 14 year old daughter, any 30 year old that attempts to "date" her is going to learn what it is like to be on the other side of an imbalance of power and what "non-consentual play" is like for the non-consenting

additionally, is the need to masterbate in front of women "a thing", I don't get it, seems distinctly not hot, and completely full of downside risk, if I was a woman, I'd immediately shift into "laughter and mockery" mode if some dude pulled that (ha ha) in front of me

Yep. I agree on both points.

[Sour Masher]

And, Soul Masher, while I find myself disagreeing with you often, as we definitely come to our views from different perspectives, I want to tell you that I am finding your posts to be very thought provoking and informative. It challenges my beliefs and gets me thinking. Red Birds is well-respected around here (and by me) and you are getting close to his lofty perch in my mind. I appreciate the way in which you respond when someone offers a counter-view. Just thought you should know.

Very kind of you to say Bernie. I appreciate the sentiments. I don't always agree with you, but I respect your perspective and the manner in which you express yourself. I am a fan of legit dialogue with people sincerely interested in discussion with folks that don't see things just like they do, so I'm glad we have different perspectives on here. I also recognize that there are more left-leaning folks on here than right-leaning, so that makes things tougher for you and others on the right, and I admire you sticking around and engaging.

[swampdragon]

some fine Alabama republicans

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics...ma-gop-defend/

[revo]

Richard Dreyfuss the latest to be accused of Sexual Harrassment. Anthony Edwards latest actor to voice that he was sexually harrassed.