No touching! - sexual impropriety thread

Post Reply
User avatar
Warren
Posts: 22015
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: No touching! - sexual impropriety thread

Post by Warren » 17 Nov 2017, 15:26

Jennifer wrote:
17 Nov 2017, 15:25
Dear Penthouse Forum: I never imagined I'd be writing you, but....
Is that still a thing?
THIS SPACE FOR RENT

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 20631
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: No touching! - sexual impropriety thread

Post by Jennifer » 17 Nov 2017, 15:26

I have no idea.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 20631
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: No touching! - sexual impropriety thread

Post by Jennifer » 17 Nov 2017, 16:45

I am disgusted -- but sadly not-surprised -- by the self-described self-deluded so-called "feminists" defending Al Franken via smearing his accuser, solely because the accuser was a Playboy model. Or a gun-rights supporter.



(Molesting a "bespectacled frump" is clearly beyond the pale, but a sexy-pictures model? Obviously she's available to any man, anyplace, anytime. And in Talibanland so is Vivian Copeland, for posting pictures of her sexy naked face and hair online where ALL THE MEN IN THE WORLD CAN SEE.)
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
fyodor
Posts: 6796
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:18

Re: No touching! - sexual impropriety thread

Post by fyodor » 17 Nov 2017, 17:14

the innominate one wrote:
17 Nov 2017, 10:44
WRT what Nicole quoted:

It seems to be an argument of the category "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good". I think there's a valid point there.
In general, I think "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good" is an important consideration to make regarding decisions about policy and much of politics.

But I don't know if it should apply, or at least not so readily, in cases involving wrongdoing, which are at least supposed to be based on hard and fast rules.

If you do apply it in such a case, you would at the least lose credibility in crying foul when the other Team does the same.
Your optimism just confuses and enrages me. - Timothy

User avatar
lunchstealer
Posts: 14674
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:25
Location: The Local Fluff in the Local Bubble

Re: No touching! - sexual impropriety thread

Post by lunchstealer » 17 Nov 2017, 17:32

Jennifer wrote:
17 Nov 2017, 16:45
I am disgusted -- but sadly not-surprised -- by the self-described self-deluded so-called "feminists" defending Al Franken via smearing his accuser, solely because the accuser was a Playboy model. Or a gun-rights supporter.



(Molesting a "bespectacled frump" is clearly beyond the pale, but a sexy-pictures model? Obviously she's available to any man, anyplace, anytime. And in Talibanland so is Vivian Copeland, for posting pictures of her sexy naked face and hair online where ALL THE MEN IN THE WORLD CAN SEE.)
Slut shaming ain't just a river in 'Vegas.
"The constitution is more of a BDSM agreement with a safe word." - Sandy

"Neoliberalism. Austerity. Booga booga!!!!" - JasonL

"Repeated headdesk is dangerous yo." - JasonL

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 11117
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: No touching! - sexual impropriety thread

Post by Eric the .5b » 17 Nov 2017, 18:52

lunchstealer wrote:
17 Nov 2017, 17:32
Jennifer wrote:
17 Nov 2017, 16:45
(Molesting a "bespectacled frump" is clearly beyond the pale, but a sexy-pictures model? Obviously she's available to any man, anyplace, anytime. And in Talibanland so is Vivian Copeland, for posting pictures of her sexy naked face and hair online where ALL THE MEN IN THE WORLD CAN SEE.)
Slut shaming ain't just a river in 'Vegas.
Ayup.

And the same line of thought probably had more than a little to do with Franken's thinking.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
"Cyberpunk never really gave the government enough credit for their ability to secure a favorable prenup during the Corporate-State wedding." - Shem

User avatar
dbcooper
Posts: 17886
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:40

Re: No touching! - sexual impropriety thread

Post by dbcooper » 17 Nov 2017, 21:43

Slip inside a sleeping bag.

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 11117
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: No touching! - sexual impropriety thread

Post by Eric the .5b » 17 Nov 2017, 21:46

Oh, newsmedia. Two short paragraphs that there's an alleged crime, a quick bio, and cut-and-paste of press releases.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
"Cyberpunk never really gave the government enough credit for their ability to secure a favorable prenup during the Corporate-State wedding." - Shem

User avatar
Fin Fang Foom
Posts: 8990
Joined: 05 May 2010, 22:39

Re: No touching! - sexual impropriety thread

Post by Fin Fang Foom » 17 Nov 2017, 22:58

I can't imagine that guy's number is anywhere near fifty given how tone deaf that is. It suggests a lack of smoothness. Though I suppose he could have been an Adonis in his youth.
Saudi Arabia is doing something potentially harmful to America? Oh, hell. Does that mean we're going to invade Iraq again? - Jennifer

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 11117
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: No touching! - sexual impropriety thread

Post by Eric the .5b » 17 Nov 2017, 23:36

The first time I read over that tripe, I interpreted the phrase "a gorgeous personal secretary to Senator Bob Taft" as "I fucked people ranging from X to Y". I thought he was outrageously taking the piss. Pity.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
"Cyberpunk never really gave the government enough credit for their ability to secure a favorable prenup during the Corporate-State wedding." - Shem

User avatar
Painboy
Posts: 3198
Joined: 18 Feb 2013, 11:33
Location: Seattle

Re: No touching! - sexual impropriety thread

Post by Painboy » 18 Nov 2017, 00:55

I thought the whole thing was a joke. It sounded pretty tongue in cheek.

User avatar
the innominate one
Posts: 12006
Joined: 17 May 2011, 16:17
Location: hypertime continuum

Re: No touching! - sexual impropriety thread

Post by the innominate one » 18 Nov 2017, 09:38

Mo wrote:
17 Nov 2017, 11:01
I don't agree with Chait on all of this, but he makes a defensible case for opposing the Clinton impeachment as it occurred rather than what he should have been impeached for. I was in high school for the majority of this case, so my contemporary knowledge was pretty thin. For example, I did not recall that the Ds wasnted to censure Clinton.
I didn't RTFA, but to give you young'uns the dubious benefit of my rapidly failing and likely inaccurate memory, one of the things that took the wind out of the sails of the Republican morality & impeachment machine was the revelation of several affairs by some Republican leaders thanks to Hustler publisher Larry Flynt.

Refreshing my memory on Wikipedia, the net loss of five Republican House seats played a role as well.
In November 1998, the Democrats picked up five seats in the House, while the Republicans still maintained majority control.[13] The results were a particular embarrassment for House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who, prior to the election, had been reassured by private polling that Clinton's scandal would result in the Republican Party gaining as many as thirty House seats.[13] Shortly after the elections, Gingrich, who had been one of the leading advocates for impeachment,[14] announced he would resign from Congress as soon as he was able to find somebody to fill his vacant seat;[13] Gingrich fulfilled this pledge and officially resigned from Congress on January 3, 1999.[15]

Impeachment proceedings were initiated during the post-election, "lame duck" session of the outgoing 105th United States Congress. Unlike the case of the 1974 impeachment process against Richard Nixon, the committee hearings were perfunctory, but the floor debate in the whole House was spirited on both sides. The Speaker-designate, Representative Bob Livingston, chosen by the Republican Party Conference to replace Gingrich as House Speaker, announced the end of his candidacy for Speaker and his resignation from Congress from the floor of the House after his own marital infidelity came to light.[16] In the same speech, Livingston also encouraged Clinton to resign. Clinton chose to remain in office and urged Livingston to reconsider his resignation.[17] Many other prominent Republican members of Congress (including Dan Burton[16] of Indiana; Helen Chenoweth[16] of Idaho; and Henry Hyde[16] of Illinois, the chief House manager of Clinton's trial in the Senate) had infidelities exposed about this time, all of whom voted for impeachment. Publisher Larry Flynt offered a reward for such information and many supporters of Clinton accused Republicans of hypocrisy.
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." -E Benn

"No shit, Sherlock." -JsubD

"now is the time to go fuck yourself until you die." -dhex

User avatar
the innominate one
Posts: 12006
Joined: 17 May 2011, 16:17
Location: hypertime continuum

Re: No touching! - sexual impropriety thread

Post by the innominate one » 18 Nov 2017, 09:39

Painboy wrote:
18 Nov 2017, 00:55
I thought the whole thing was a joke. It sounded pretty tongue in cheek.
That was my interpretation also.
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." -E Benn

"No shit, Sherlock." -JsubD

"now is the time to go fuck yourself until you die." -dhex

User avatar
Shem
Posts: 6648
Joined: 27 Apr 2010, 00:27

Re: No touching! - sexual impropriety thread

Post by Shem » 18 Nov 2017, 12:45

I missed the "to" and thought he was confessing to fucking Bob Taft when he was a Secretary.
"VOTE SHEMOCRACY! You will only have to do it once!" -Loyalty Officer Aresen

User avatar
fyodor
Posts: 6796
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:18

Re: No touching! - sexual impropriety thread

Post by fyodor » 18 Nov 2017, 13:25

Shem wrote:
18 Nov 2017, 12:45
I missed the "to" and thought he was confessing to fucking Bob Taft when he was a Secretary.
I caught the "to" but misinterpreted it and thought he was supposed to be fucking Taft, too! (think "a to z")

Um, I completed figured it was a joke as a result, not sure what I think now....
Your optimism just confuses and enrages me. - Timothy

User avatar
the innominate one
Posts: 12006
Joined: 17 May 2011, 16:17
Location: hypertime continuum

Re: No touching! - sexual impropriety thread

Post by the innominate one » 18 Nov 2017, 13:52

"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." -E Benn

"No shit, Sherlock." -JsubD

"now is the time to go fuck yourself until you die." -dhex

User avatar
Mo
Posts: 21289
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Re: No touching! - sexual impropriety thread

Post by Mo » 18 Nov 2017, 20:06

So I had a random thought about Franken as related to a general rule. Let’s say Franken gets the boot over this. What is the incentive to come clean, repent and make peace with the past accuser. It basically shows that your best bet is to fight, no matter how long the odds because coming clean gets you literally no benefit. I don’t know if this is the right answer, but part of me feels like we should reward coming clean off the bat and repenting over stone cold denial.
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex

User avatar
Highway
Posts: 12233
Joined: 12 May 2011, 00:22
Location: the Electric Ocean

Re: No touching! - sexual impropriety thread

Post by Highway » 18 Nov 2017, 20:26

Mo wrote:
18 Nov 2017, 20:06
So I had a random thought about Franken as related to a general rule. Let’s say Franken gets the boot over this. What is the incentive to come clean, repent and make peace with the past accuser. It basically shows that your best bet is to fight, no matter how long the odds because coming clean gets you literally no benefit. I don’t know if this is the right answer, but part of me feels like we should reward coming clean off the bat and repenting over stone cold denial.
It's hard to come up with a 'reward' for it. Just like everything that's a crime, how much can you reward someone for admitting they committed a crime? They should still get punished for the crime.

Yeah, we're not necessarily talking about the criminal justice system in most of these cases, but we're still talking about how people respond to dire accusations. And the 'reward' probably can't come for years, when one guy who hasn't ever acknowledged what he did was wrong doesn't get work anymore, but, say, an actor who does what you say - actually repent and seek forgiveness and change their behavior - has his reputation not sullied by the accusations.

On the other hand, like you say, the NCAA has taught us the lesson "Always stonewall, always deny, never admit, never help."
"Sharks do not go around challenging people to games of chance like dojo breakers."

User avatar
the innominate one
Posts: 12006
Joined: 17 May 2011, 16:17
Location: hypertime continuum

Re: No touching! - sexual impropriety thread

Post by the innominate one » 18 Nov 2017, 20:35

Denial worked for Bill Clinton.
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." -E Benn

"No shit, Sherlock." -JsubD

"now is the time to go fuck yourself until you die." -dhex

User avatar
Mo
Posts: 21289
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

No touching! - sexual impropriety thread

Post by Mo » 18 Nov 2017, 22:01

Doesn’t the criminal justice system tend to go easier on criminals that admit and express genuine remorse vs fighting to the end? I think punishment is appropriate, but like there are gradations of crimes there also are gradations of punishment.
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 24566
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: No touching! - sexual impropriety thread

Post by thoreau » 18 Nov 2017, 22:13

I see your point about Franken and incentives, but as a dude working in academia there's no goddamn way I'm making that argument.

If women want to make it, go for it.
"The first rule of Grylliade club is 'Why are we talking about Grylliade club?'"
--Jake

User avatar
Highway
Posts: 12233
Joined: 12 May 2011, 00:22
Location: the Electric Ocean

Re: No touching! - sexual impropriety thread

Post by Highway » 18 Nov 2017, 22:34

Mo wrote:
18 Nov 2017, 22:01
Doesn’t the criminal justice system tend to go easier on criminals that admit and express genuine remorse vs fighting to the end? I think punishment is appropriate, but like there are gradations of crimes there also are gradations of punishment.
It does in some cases, but some of that is not really because of rewarding someone for their forthrightness, but rather whether you make a deal with the prosecutor. And sometimes that can be a requirement, such as people who are stuck in prison because they insist they are innocent, and some places' parole requires admitting guilt and being remorseful.

And again, that's the criminal justice system. There's a gate there: if you're going through the gate, you're kind of screwed anyway. Then we're back to things like this where sexual harassment's not going to be prosecuted, so what's the 'reward'?
"Sharks do not go around challenging people to games of chance like dojo breakers."

User avatar
the innominate one
Posts: 12006
Joined: 17 May 2011, 16:17
Location: hypertime continuum

Re: No touching! - sexual impropriety thread

Post by the innominate one » 18 Nov 2017, 22:39

FWIW, I agree with Mo about what the incentives, but Clinton showed that's not how things work because of the psychology of the masses.
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." -E Benn

"No shit, Sherlock." -JsubD

"now is the time to go fuck yourself until you die." -dhex

User avatar
Warren
Posts: 22015
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: No touching! - sexual impropriety thread

Post by Warren » 18 Nov 2017, 22:40

Highway wrote:
18 Nov 2017, 22:34
[quote=Mo post_id=400033 time=<a href="tel:1511060504">1511060504</a> user_id=59]
Doesn’t the criminal justice system tend to go easier on criminals that admit and express genuine remorse vs fighting to the end? I think punishment is appropriate, but like there are gradations of crimes there also are gradations of punishment.
It does in some cases, but some of that is not really because of rewarding someone for their forthrightness, but rather whether you make a deal with the prosecutor. And sometimes that can be a requirement, such as people who are stuck in prison because they insist they are innocent, and some places' parole requires admitting guilt and being remorseful.

And again, that's the criminal justice system. There's a gate there: if you're going through the gate, you're kind of screwed anyway. Then we're back to things like this where sexual harassment's not going to be prosecuted, so what's the 'reward'?
[/quote]

The angry mob will move on to the next target and you’re allowed to step outside your front door?
THIS SPACE FOR RENT

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 11117
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: No touching! - sexual impropriety thread

Post by Eric the .5b » 19 Nov 2017, 00:06

Mo wrote:
18 Nov 2017, 20:06
So I had a random thought about Franken as related to a general rule. Let’s say Franken gets the boot over this. What is the incentive to come clean, repent and make peace with the past accuser. It basically shows that your best bet is to fight, no matter how long the odds because coming clean gets you literally no benefit. I don’t know if this is the right answer, but part of me feels like we should reward coming clean off the bat and repenting over stone cold denial.
Sure, but part of the problem is that there is no chance of Franken getting the boot or facing more than an ethics committee saying, "Yup, looks like you were an creeper back before you were ever a senator, Al, and none of us are surprised. Let's all get something to drink, now." Nobody's going to lean on him to quit "for the good of the party". People don't remotely care enough for that to be a thing.

I suspect the route things will go is Republicans will deny, Democrats will apologize, and unless there's a dead girl or boy involved, neither will face any repercussions.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
"Cyberpunk never really gave the government enough credit for their ability to secure a favorable prenup during the Corporate-State wedding." - Shem

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests