Roy moore accusations

Did I? Kindly quote me, please. Where did I say that "female victims of sexual harassment" are not victims of sexual predators because there are female sexual predators too?

Quote me, or retract your libel.

So why are you bringing up a red herring?

Stopping me from what, precisely? Discussing something I didn't say?

Hm, how kind of you to emulate another member who resorts to nervous laughter when cornered.

No, a perfect example of this: In America, waving "hello" to someone, with palm open and towards the person, is a perfectly acceptable thing. In Greece, it is a highly offensive sign. Instead, you should wave with your palm in towards yourself.

Some typical Over the Counter medications in the US carry hefty fines, or even lifelong jail sentences, in parts of Asia.

I don't feel any need to cite examples of your red herring. Nice try though.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, you do have an obligation to cite examples at least since you are focused repeatedly on the aspect that it should not be based on gender with a pretense of bigotry against males.

so give examples of the other gender if that is what you want to discuss also or shut up. what is the problem?

it seems you are pissed most of the accused tend to be men just as this topic. your twist that women should feel guilty for that as if its unfair or unequivalent is illogical.

what? this is your example?

again, what? lol.

it's you with the red herrings.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I would have thought the sarcasm was evident. Apparently not.

Oh, it isn't? So you are comfortable with it then? No, obviously sexual harassment is not merely an "uncomfortable situation", and I did not say it was. What I said was that folks, like yourself, have seemingly made a game of saying someone is "avoiding the point" when they provide an example.

Just this morning, there was a discussion on the radio regarding consent and harassment; one of the things brought up was Clinton and Lewinsky, and the question of whether or not there can even BE consent between two people when there is any sort of power disparity.

Let that sink in a moment - how, pray tell, is someone to be 100% certain they aren't accidentally making someone feel like they are being prey'ed upon, when you can make someone fearful simply by engaging them in polite conversation? No wonder we have gotten away from the "village" mentality - people are starting to be afraid to even TALK to their neighbors, for fear of "harassment" of some sort.

Do you understand the problem with that mentality?

Perfect example Bells - the word "Gook". I had grown up knowing "gook" as referring to a gooey substance, such as "a gooky, gooey mess":

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/gooky
gooky
(ˈɡʊkɪ)
adj, gookier or gookiest
sticky and messy

However, "gook" is also a racist term for one of Philippine, Korean, or Vietnamese descent.

Hence, using the word "gook", in an entirely innocuous context, can insult someone.

Does that mean I have been racist my entire life, insulting those of Philippine, Korean, or Vietnamese descent without ever knowing it? Does that mean I have had malicious intent towards them?

Ah, "women" always know what sexual harassment is.

So, then, when a woman sexually harasses a man, the man is just, what... unaware? Once again, Bells - absolutes are dangerous.

Or, perhaps, someone who is aware of the fact that people can make mistakes without intending to make someone uncomfortable or otherwise harm them. That's why we have the distinction between manslaughter and murder, for example. You already know this, Bells. Quit pretending you don't.

As I figured I would - you have no support, and no argument.

Your misandry is showing with this:

Where, at all, did I say "not all men". Quote me, Bells, or retract your libel.

Actually, I do. Thanks for pretending to know me so well

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I never claimed my example was sexual harassment. Once again, you are attempting to poison the well. Pathetic, Bells, especially for someone who should know better.

Utterly false, please quote me where I said sexual harassment was merely an "uncomfortable situation".

Actually, what I took offense at was the misandry and shocking behavior both birch and yourself are showing. You are a disgrace, Bells, and you are doing irreparable damage to your own cause by acting like a fool.

T'would seem it was you attempting to escape from your perch, Bells. I am quite secure where I am, since your childish tantrum has zero ability to effect me.

It is - after all, you are the one that used the hashtag.

Go back and read it again, this time with your eyes open.

The entire point of the example was to show how, even for people who are good friends with one another, not everything is disclosed. I wasn't the only one that was unaware - the rest of our friends, and even his sister (who is incredibly huggy), were likewise saddened to hear we had ever made him uncomfortable.

Incredulous seems to be your default position of late.

Once again - where did I claim it was?

So you claim that an example of how someone can miss unspoken queues in Situation A renders the fact that people can miss said queues in Situation B irrelevant. Interesting... I wonder how that kind of (non)logic would hold up in court.

And yet again, you are attempting to put words into peoples mouths.

Jesus Christ Bells... you really do have a problem, and to be frank - that problem is entirely internal to you.

 

Is it? I guess if he were to resign and remove himself from the public eye, it would simply be an attempt to "save face" then?

Face it, Bells. You would not be satisfied by anything he could do. You would find something to bitch about.

So, because the system itself is flawed, him submitting to the system that we do have is insufficient. Excellent - you have proven my point succinctly.

You. Would. Not. Be. Satisfied. Period.

 

Ah, more misandristic buzzwords. Hi-larious.

And further bullshit. Bells, sorry, but your house must be brown at this point, for all the shit you are spewing.

You have proven my point. Men are scum. Nothing we do or say matters, because we are always simply trying to downplay what happens. None of us are on "your" side in this. Boo hoo, woe is you.

Sorry, Bells, but I don't buy it. What you want isn't equality, it's superiority. I would suggest you find Wonder Woman and ask to move in with her tribe.

Sexual Harassment isn't just about women, Bells. Women can sexually harass men. Men can sexually harass other men. Women can sexually harass other women. Guess what - it's still sexual harassment.

This isn't even worth responding to, and honestly just show how utterly hysterical you are.

You cannot, because I never said it was sexual harassment. Get the doughnut out of your ear.

This isn't about me, Bells. It's just rather sad to watch you rant and rave like this.

Actually, my point is already proven. Your desire to play the fool is your problem, not mine. However, it is further evidence that you are unstable and incapable of arguing in a rational manner.

If anything, it is folks such as yourself, on both sides of the gender line, that prevent anything from being done. You are the problem, Bells. Enjoy knowing that you are helping ensure the next sexual predator goes free.

 

Your own words Bells. You are, right now, refusing to address the whole thing. Why? What are you afraid of? Why do you refuse to look at the entire picture right now?

You are blaming Franken for this; is he able to control the rest of their statements? No, that doesn't fucking excuse what he did... but as I've already asked you several times (and you have yet to reply), what does he need to do to make things right? What punishment is sufficient, and what is due process?

You are bloodthirsty, Bells, and you are throwing due process to the wind in order to get whatever it is you want (which, honestly, I don't think you even know what you want).

Maybe that's why I have such a hard time taking anything you say right now seriously... because if we followed what you seem to be proposing, we'd be back to gouging out peoples eyes for looking at you the wrong way, and lopping your hand off at the wrist for stealing a loaf of bread.

I get it - you feel some connection with birch, and now you feel the need to defend her from a perceived threat.

I feel the need to remind you that birch is the one that attacked me; she is the one that said

and

I guess that's OK in your book, though, since she was attacking a man.

It's kind of funny, in a sad sort of way... y'all go on about "mansplaining"... yet when a woman acts the same way, you are justified. How about both genders quit the bullshit hashtag warrior fuckery and actually sit down and figure out a way to solve the issue?

Or... is solving the issue not the actual point anymore... because right now, Bells, that seems to be the case. You want blood, not a solution; that is the perception you are giving. That's why examples from women are fine, but examples from men are to be disregarded. It's why any attempt by a man to explain a possible pitfall results in a screeching of "not all men" bullshit, when in reality it's just that - an attempt to have both sides heard.

You don't want both sides heard, Bells. To you, there is your side, and the wrong side. That's it.

That mindset is going to see this problem continue for a long, long time, because you are going to push away anyone and everyone who wants to see the problem(s) resolved.

You know what, though? It's all A-OK.

birch - I am sorry for getting personal with you. Yes, many of your comments got under my skin (as I've no doubt was the intent). Many of them, I found, were belittling or insulting, and so I responded in kind. I am sorry for that. I should have simply ignored those comments.

 

Well let's see what you said in the same post.

You are implying that if I tell a sexual joke, for instance, to a woman and she tells me that it is inappropriate and I never do anything of the sort again then it was not sexual harassment. I think that would be sexual harassment.
We disagree on whether that would be sexual harassment - seems like a gray area, right?

Edited to add:
It seems like I always look at this issue like I am at work. In a social setting a sexual joke is probably not harassment but it depends on the joke - hey, another gray area!

 

Actually, no. I don't demand you address it right now. I just want it addressed at some point.

Lets dissect this Bells, and showcase to the community just why I have issues with your behavior here:

BroHug - where is this coming from? I certainly never used the term bro-hug in what I said - it seems like an attempt at gender-based insult.

Actually, I'm generally good with social queues. Again, you are distorting what was said in order to avoid something that doesn't fit your narrative. I will explain it to you, yet again - the entire point was to show how, even with folks you know very well, it is possible to completely and utterly miss something important. Now, expand that to the logical next step - with a stranger you don't know at all, how can you be sure you aren't going to potentially insult them, make them feel threatened, or otherwise upset them, short of simply not interacting with them in any manner whatsoever?

For crying out loud, Bells, this should be easy for you...

Where the flying fuck did I say, or even imply, any of that? It seems to me that you don't have an actual argument to stand on, so you are taking to ad hominem insult to fill the gap... actions you yourself have issued infractions to others for, Bells.

Bells - honest question. Are you capable of debating with someone without resorting to (not so subtle) insults? Do you put these barbs into your posts to incite an emotional response so you can then feel justified replying in kind?

Pleasant dreams.

Yet again, you just have to make it a matter of me being male... are you incapable of arguing the premise on actual, rational facts?

Ah, excellent.

My wife worked as a certified massage therapist for quite some time. Tell me, Bells, what is the deciding factor in whether her giving someone a back rub is sexual harassment or not?

I would wager your immediate response is consent, is it not?

Now, think about it for a moment Bells - can you possibly see how my story fits into this regarding consent? Surely you can put the pieces together here.

Re moving goalposts - we have reached a point where, in general, it is accept that a minor cannot give consent to an adult, due to the difference in maturity, power held, et al. Now, though, we are starting to ask questions about whether or not a person who is under another can give consent at all, because of the balance of power question.

Are we really to assume that our subordinates are so weak as to be unable or unwilling to say "no"... because that seems pretty damn insulting. Or are we simply assuming that all people in power are swine and will do anything to get in someone else's pants? What is the intent here, and how do we ensure a safe and level playing field for everyone?

Now, if you are done trying to vilify someone who is actually in your corner on all this?

 

The parallels you give here--"gook" and murder/manslaughter--are more akin to someone, say, accidentally brushing against someone's boob. No one is suggesting that something accidental would be sexual harassment, and accidents are, by definition, unintentional, and therefore,not malicious.

Grabbing someone's butt--with foreknowledge... well, there's intent and it's malicious, insofar as it is unwelcome and uninvited--in a manner of speaking, it puts someone "in their place."

 

And this was exactly the point I was attempting to make. Referencing back to my tale about my buddy, for years I was unintentionally making him uncomfortable, and I wasn't even aware of it. One could make the claim of intent because I didn't "accidentally hug him", yet the intent was never to make him uncomfortable.

Is it impossible to fathom a situation where people are comfortable around one another to the point of dropping some of their usual walls that could result in leaving one of them feeling as though they may have been taken advantage of or otherwise disrespected?

Is it impossible, given Bells provided example of sexual harassment (profanity, off colour jokes, leering) that someone could cross that line without malicious intent, and be genuinely sorry that they have left someone feeling like they were sexually harassed?

I'm not trying to claim someone who intentionally "grabs em by the pussy" has "accidentally" sexually harassed someone, though it seems Bells is intent on making it seem like that is what I desire to say... but intent matters.

To reference back to the whole thing with Moore and Franken - what was their intent? Well, lets take a look at a different scenario: Ozzy Osbourne had a radio show that had all kinds of stupid and, honestly, demeaning contests - often of a sexual nature. Yet, people flocked to it in an attempt to win various prizes.

Does sexually humiliating someone count as sexual harassment? I would think it does... but what about when they have willingly agreed to it before hand? Well, now we're into the subject of consent... and the subject of power disparity.

Was the picture Franken took where he was pretending to cup her breasts acceptable? I don't believe it was. Is it as bad as coercing a minor to perform sexual acts? I think not - a tasteless joke from a comedian seems like a far cry from physical sexual abuse, and I think one needs a much harsher punishment than the other.

Or, maybe not - maybe they should both be punished the same. If that's the case, fine - we have some work to do with the law to make that the case.

 

Still, two very different scenarios are presented:

Accidentally brushing against someone's boob. There is absolutely NO intent there.

Doing something--touching, leering, commenting--but, ostensibly, without the intent to cause harm, make someone uncomfortable, etc. is markedly different from my preceding example. That the person did not intend such does not exonerate them (as far as harassment goes), rather, it simply demonstrates their ignorance or obliviousness to such.

I suppose where I might disagree with Bells is with respect to "malice." Intent? Definitely. Malice? Honestly, I don't know. Some people are just so goddamned ignorant about, well, pretty much everything that it's kinda difficult to ascribe "malice" to them--but then, that's kinda the perennial question, eh? Stupid or evil?

 

Indeed.

So if, to propose a hypothetical example, you mentioned to someone that you found them beautiful and asked them on a date, but they took it as sexual harassment because they felt you held some power over them, your intent is irrelevant, and you should be punished the same as someone who knew they held power over a subordinate and attempted to use that position?

Obviously the physical situations (where touch is involved, or leering) are far more cut and dry.
What about a shy and sheltered young lad who is averse to eye contact, and feels his manger is leering at him when she talks to him when, in reality, she simply makes eye contact with the person she is talking to? Should she be more aware that she is making her subordinate uneasy - of course. Is it sexual harassment? From her point of view, highly doubtful. From his point of view? He could very well feel intimidated, like a piece of meat being gazed upon by a predator, and get the wrong idea that she is leering at him.

Stupid, evil, or naive may be more accurate.

 

Hanlon's Razor - never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

 

Number one cause of "brain hurt." Or, at least in the top five.

 

I suppose a lot more context would be needed for such a scenario, but there are still some clear cut guidelines: Has some sort of exchange or conversation already commenced, or is this completely out of the blue? What sort of power differential--employer/employee, etc.?

He certainly has a right to claim such, of course, and the appropriate course of action for the manager would be to acknowledge his contention.

Further than that... damn. I don't know. I think an apology would be appropriate regardless.

The law seems to be a lot more forgiving with respect to stupidity, as opposed to ignorance--I mean, with respect to congenital stupidity, that is, not just the, erm, plain, ordinary, everyday variety. But, yeah, it's an important distinction.

 

Which I agree with - there is an entire backstory to this that is unknown, so trying to pass judgement on it is rather difficult.

And once again, I agree - he has the right to make his concerns known, and at the least an apology would seem appropriate, as well as the manager taking steps to ensure she isn't inadvertently making him feel that way in future interactions.

Now, lets draw this over to some of the 'comedy' that happens in the US (and I use quotes because I find most of it to be anything but funny). If part of a comedic act involves a person, who has already agreed to it, being humiliated in some way, especially a sexual way (the Family Guy parody of Ozzy with the hot dog cannon comes to mind) - is that sexual harassment?

I actually would say yes, yes it is. However, for a number of years, it was considered just fine, because the person agreed to it - they gave consent. This notion seems to be changing. I'm not averse to that change - it is all too easy for people with power to abuse it to 'get what they want' from those under them.

At the same time, we need to make sure that someone's life isn't ruined because they unintentionally made someone feel like they were being harassed (much like the "tough laws" we have regarding drugs now have seen non-violent offenders locked up for long stretches of their lives).

Case in point - my example about OTC medications. In the US and Europe, no problem. In some parts of Asia - life in prison. That... that is a terrifying thought.