Author Topic: Weinstein mess  (Read 4155 times)

yossarian22c

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #150 on: November 21, 2017, 09:37:10 AM »
Personally, I think the non-consensual kiss was worse.

Agreed, I hope Franken seriously considers resigning, although initial reports are that he is planning on staying on. This has gotten lots of publicity I wonder if more women will come forward, he certainly has a long enough history in show business and politics that if he is like Charlie Rose, Roy Moore, Bill Clinton, or Donald Trump there will be more reports of women coming forward in the days ahead.

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #151 on: November 21, 2017, 09:41:21 AM »
In the grand scheme I think his resigning would be silly. His moves are indicative of a comedian with typical gaps in judgement on occasion. Anyone who voted for him knew he was a comedian before a politician. He isn't a predator or a rapist, nor anything other than a 'sex offender' by an extremely stringent standard. Basically he's just a dumbass on occasion, would makes him a perfect fit for senator.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #152 on: November 21, 2017, 12:09:14 PM »
If Trump grabbed an ass at a photo op, would you be as forgiving, Fenring? Jeff Sessions? Mike Pence? For that matter, Barack Obama? Jesse Ventura? I don't see why Franken should get any more pass.

The grab was worse only because he did it as a Senator, which now gives the ethics committee a leg to stand on. My guess, he is censured but retains his seat.


Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #153 on: November 21, 2017, 12:30:00 PM »
Basically, being a jackass isn't the same as being a sexual predator, and yes, intent matters. I think many people in politics probably do dumb things that are "illegal" but when we're talking about being ostracized for unacceptable behavior this strikes me as reaching. "Aha! He's a sex offender too! Get rid of him!" It's one thing to uncover a pedophile ring or to expose systemic sexual abuse by people in power. It's quite another to point out that someone like Franken can be disrespectful at times. Grabbing a butt? Not cool, and if the person he touched wants to sue him civilly for emotional suffering I say have at it. It's happened to me, even made me angry, but heck I'd never accept that someone should have their career and life ruined over it. And it'd also be another thing if the senatorial position was relevant to the act, for instance if he made his secretary let him do that in order for her to have her job. But that's not what his deal is, he's just trying to be funny in an inappropriate way. Whoever is in the position to manage his career or office should yell at him and tell him to stop, and I think that's enough.

LetterRip

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #154 on: November 21, 2017, 02:10:21 PM »
Personally, I think the non-consensual kiss was worse.

It was consensual.  It was just not fully thought through consent.  They were to rehearse a kiss as part of a skit, he kissed her.  There should have been more and better communication, since clearly it wasn't what she thought she should expect.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #155 on: November 22, 2017, 11:37:29 PM »
It seems to me you're conflating two completely separate matters, one of which is whether to discourage supporting the man as a politician and a role model, and the other of which is to try to prosecute someone like this. One doesn't need to have any desire to do the latter to suggest doing the former. A person can be creepy without being a criminal, and it's enough to suggest someone is creepy to want to keep them out of the public sphere.

The problem is, that absent an option to take Moore off the ballot, our system doesn't give voters any real recourse.  The choice the voters in the heavily conservative and heavily republican district have is to vote for a poor role model that shouldn't be on the ticket or to vote to empower a person who will deliberately misrepresent them and undermine their political goals for his term of office.  It's not even close either, putting the Democrat into a Senate that is 52/48 and making it 51/49 pretty much ensures that none of their political goals will be achieved.  Has nothing to do with Moore himself.

yossarian22c

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #156 on: November 23, 2017, 07:42:58 AM »
It seems to me you're conflating two completely separate matters, one of which is whether to discourage supporting the man as a politician and a role model, and the other of which is to try to prosecute someone like this. One doesn't need to have any desire to do the latter to suggest doing the former. A person can be creepy without being a criminal, and it's enough to suggest someone is creepy to want to keep them out of the public sphere.

The problem is, that absent an option to take Moore off the ballot, our system doesn't give voters any real recourse.  The choice the voters in the heavily conservative and heavily republican district have is to vote for a poor role model that shouldn't be on the ticket or to vote to empower a person who will deliberately misrepresent them and undermine their political goals for his term of office.  It's not even close either, putting the Democrat into a Senate that is 52/48 and making it 51/49 pretty much ensures that none of their political goals will be achieved.  Has nothing to do with Moore himself.

They could write in Strange or Sessions. If the republican party gave a **** about decency one of these men would be out there organizing a write in campaign. Then the voters would have a choice.

Are you seriously arguing if the choice is sending a pedophile to the Senate or a Democrat that people are justified in sending the pedophile?

That really seems to be a damaging example to set for the country, there has to be some minimum standard for serving in elected office and if we can't agree to exclude pedophiles is there any line that shouldn't be crossed?

jasonr

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #157 on: November 23, 2017, 12:33:38 PM »
I don't think there is any evidence that he's a pedophile.

But regardless, it's naive to expect people to slit their own political throats in such a polarized environment. In the same situation, Democrat voters wouldn't be any different.

LetterRip

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #158 on: November 23, 2017, 04:30:37 PM »
I don't think there is any evidence that he's a pedophile.

He pursued a woman who was 14, and engaged in behaviour that meets the definition of sexual molestation with her, and hung out at the mall trying to pick up high school students while he was older than 30.  He hasn't pursued prepubescent girls that we know of.

So he meets the popular usage of the word pedophile, but not the DSM diagnostic criteria for a pedophile.

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #159 on: November 23, 2017, 04:45:55 PM »
So he meets the popular usage of the word pedophile, but not the DSM diagnostic criteria for a pedophile.

The popular usage is stupid and dangerous. Conflating people who lust after babies and children with those who enjoy younger women only perpetuates dishonest notions of what 'real people' actually want. It's not abnormal to lust after young women, and some of them look older than their age. The ethics of doing so is a completely different matter, because not everything that's 'natural and normal' should be endorsed or accepted. There is nothing deviant about being attracted to 16 year olds, even though there's something wrong in pursuing them. Calling such a person a pedophile when his real problem is a lack of maturity and boundaries is just mangling the language and trying to make people into boogeymen. The word is totally loaded and its use is intentionally designed to villify anyone so labelled.

It's enough to suggest this isn't a good guy, and that he has problems, without also having to paint him as a monster.

yossarian22c

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #160 on: November 24, 2017, 12:46:12 PM »
True, pedophile probably isn’t the right word. Attempted statutory rapist and sexual assaulter of teenage girls is more accurate.

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #161 on: November 24, 2017, 02:17:54 PM »
True, pedophile probably isn’t the right word. Attempted statutory rapist and sexual assaulter of teenage girls is more accurate.

That's a marginal improvement, but still along the same lines of villification. Why can't it be enough to say of the guy "Ugh, he's a creep" without having to call him an attempted rapist? It's fairly clear that someone aiming for 16-17 year olds who occasionally fouls up and ends up pursuing a 15 year old isn't "attempting rape", even though he must know he runs the risk of crossing the law on occasion and apparently doesn't care. Why must everything be overkill when, in the case of the actually nefarious people out there, we barely even see underkill? When I see public outrage as some of the serious wrongs that are systemically perpetuated I'll take more seriously calls for pitchforks against ethically challenged people like Moore.

NobleHunter

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #162 on: November 24, 2017, 02:24:48 PM »
Going after Moore is part of correcting systematic wrongs. The whole point of the cascade of accusations is dismantling the system of privilege that let people get away with sexual assault and rape. Giving Moore a pass because "he's a creep" is the same line of thinking that let Weinstein and Spacey get away with their assaults for so long.

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #163 on: November 24, 2017, 02:30:58 PM »
Going after Moore is part of correcting systematic wrongs. The whole point of the cascade of accusations is dismantling the system of privilege that let people get away with sexual assault and rape. Giving Moore a pass because "he's a creep" is the same line of thinking that let Weinstein and Spacey get away with their assaults for so long.

I never said give him a pass. I suggested not calling him a pedophile when in fact he's just an a**hole who takes advantage of young women. That should still be criticized and brought to light.

LetterRip

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #164 on: November 24, 2017, 04:50:40 PM »
Fenring, he is well beyond a 'creep' and 'a**hole' - he is an accused child molestor.  He wasn't 'taking advantage of young women' but of children.  14 years old is a child.  He wasn't looking for young women at the local college; he was looking for grade schoolers at the local mall.

yossarian22c

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #165 on: November 24, 2017, 05:28:22 PM »
True, pedophile probably isn’t the right word. Attempted statutory rapist and sexual assaulter of teenage girls is more accurate.

That's a marginal improvement, but still along the same lines of villification. Why can't it be enough to say of the guy "Ugh, he's a creep" without having to call him an attempted rapist? It's fairly clear that someone aiming for 16-17 year olds who occasionally fouls up and ends up pursuing a 15 year old isn't "attempting rape", even though he must know he runs the risk of crossing the law on occasion and apparently doesn't care. Why must everything be overkill when, in the case of the actually nefarious people out there, we barely even see underkill? When I see public outrage as some of the serious wrongs that are systemically perpetuated I'll take more seriously calls for pitchforks against ethically challenged people like Moore.

I used the term statutory rapist for that reason. He specifically targeted young women, at least some of whom were below the age of consent. If the girl had not stopped him he would have been a statutory rapist.

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #166 on: November 24, 2017, 11:47:28 PM »
Fenring, he is well beyond a 'creep' and 'a**hole' - he is an accused child molestor.  He wasn't 'taking advantage of young women' but of children.  14 years old is a child.  He wasn't looking for young women at the local college; he was looking for grade schoolers at the local mall.

We're splitting hairs about what exactly to call such a person. The point is that we should probably assume any 14 year olds that got into the mix were girls he probably thought were 16 (not much of a saving grace) because they looked mature for their age. Or maybe that's not the case and he secretly wanted the 'young ones' too, I have no idea. But what I've read made it sound like he was aiming for the 16-17 range and on a few occasions fouled up and got someone younger than expected. That's exactly why even attempting to do this kind of thing is irresponsible and potentially illegal, because sometimes even if you're trying to stay within the legal limit you can't tell the real age and they can even have fake ID's. So best not to even try, putting aside how creepy and wrong it is. But again I think it's wrong-headed to insist on calling them 'children' when they most likely looked like physically mature women, just to make it sound scarier. The whole point I'm making is there's a difference between someone attracted to a physically developed woman who's on the young end of the spectrum versus someone who's attracted to people who specifically do not look like they're sexually mature. Both pedophilia and pederasty properly refer to the latter, where the lack of physical development is exactly what the person wants, and *that* is the area where extreme concern is certainly warranted. There is nothing unnatural or wrong about being attracted to physically developed people, but again the issue of ethics then comes into play where going after the very minimum legal age within that probably means there are psychological issues at play that need addressing. I hate the idea of it, I don't approve, and yet I can recognize that at a base level there's nothing deviant going on with someone who finds that attractive. It's not pedophilia.

I used the term statutory rapist for that reason. He specifically targeted young women, at least some of whom were below the age of consent. If the girl had not stopped him he would have been a statutory rapist.

What you said was that he was an "attempted statutory rapist." My point is that he was attempting to get with those girls, and that it would have been statutory rape, but that he was not (to our knowledge) attempting to commit statutory rape. In other words, he didn't say to himself "this girl is underage, it's illegal, let's do this." At least, not as far as I read. He probably didn't put much attention at all into whether the girl happened to be a year too young, which is certainly negligent but it doesn't necessarily mean he was desirous of committing rape. I make this specification because as of now I think the word rape is thrown around so much that at times it might be good to reflect on its precise meaning. As an analogy, if someone simply doesn't care if they hit someone with a bat or not and they swing it around haphazardly, and they do hit someone who dies, the swinging wouldn't have been attempted murder, it would have criminal negligence.

DonaldD

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #167 on: November 25, 2017, 06:58:29 AM »
Quote
We're splitting hairs about what exactly to call such a person. The point is that we should probably assume any 14 year olds that got into the mix were girls he probably thought were 16
Why should we assume that? The man was targeting minors at the mall, among other places.  He was also at the time an ADA, responsible for prosecuting people who were accused of breaking the law.  More than anybody else in society, and assuming he was not actively pursuing her because she was 14, he would have been aware of the likelihood of some of his conquests being below the age of consent. 

It would be more fair to assume he targeted her because of her age, or that he simply did not care that she was below the age of consent, given that he knew very well the risks, was not ignorant of the law, and was at least nominally intelligent given his position as an ADA at the time.

jasonr

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #168 on: November 25, 2017, 09:03:33 AM »
I'm with you Fenring in terms of misuse of the "P" word. But as someone who just interviewed a few 14/15 year olds recently for babysitting jobs let me say that I find it hard to fathom the idea of pursuing one in that way at my age and being anything but deviant. Not saying it is impossible to be fooled in certain cases but wow - if he was even swimming in that pool...

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #169 on: November 25, 2017, 10:36:20 AM »
I'm with you Fenring in terms of misuse of the "P" word. But as someone who just interviewed a few 14/15 year olds recently for babysitting jobs let me say that I find it hard to fathom the idea of pursuing one in that way at my age and being anything but deviant. Not saying it is impossible to be fooled in certain cases but wow - if he was even swimming in that pool...

Having worked in a summer camp for over 10 years, yes, there's generally a significant difference between what a 14 year old and a 16 year old look like. I can't make any positive claims about what Moore really wanted. I'm just saying that if we're to interpret what we've read charitably then perhaps he wasn't intentionally going after 14 year olds but ended up with the odd girl who looked a couple of years older than her age. I'm talking about the look of the person, not the age of the person, when I suggest that being attracted to someone with the physique of a 16-17 year old shouldn't be called deviant. Acting on it is, though, and should be censured in some way, but in a way other than slapping the monicker "sex offender" on someone. The matter changes if he does, indeed, end up with someone underage, and so "sex offender" would apply. But I want to reiterate that doesn't mean he's in the same category as people who abuse babies.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #170 on: November 25, 2017, 10:59:33 AM »
True, pedophile probably isn’t the right word. Attempted statutory rapist and sexual assaulter of teenage girls is more accurate.

That's a marginal improvement, but still along the same lines of villification. Why can't it be enough to say of the guy "Ugh, he's a creep" without having to call him an attempted rapist? It's fairly clear that someone aiming for 16-17 year olds who occasionally fouls up and ends up pursuing a 15 year old isn't "attempting rape", even though he must know he runs the risk of crossing the law on occasion and apparently doesn't care. Why must everything be overkill when, in the case of the actually nefarious people out there, we barely even see underkill? When I see public outrage as some of the serious wrongs that are systemically perpetuated I'll take more seriously calls for pitchforks against ethically challenged people like Moore.

I used the term statutory rapist for that reason. He specifically targeted young women, at least some of whom were below the age of consent. If the girl had not stopped him he would have been a statutory rapist.

With how many of these laws came into being in the first place, and how widely variable, arbitrary and often capricious those "lines" often were, and still remain. I'm leery of "open fire"/"fire at will" practices regarding flinging around "pedophile"/"statutory rapist" labels without due consideration of what people are actually saying. I'm more concerned about the DSM definition of pedophile than the legal one, and let us not even get into the matter of how a 16 year old can legally be labelled as a pedophile for sexually pursuing a 14 year old.

There is a massive social disconnect between the social/legal views(legal views often being a consequence of social views) regarding sexuality and adolescents and the psychological side of it all. The physiological side is relevant as well, but at present I think it is fairly safe to say no government on the planet has addressed the issue either rationally, impartially, or in anything resembling a healthy manner even if they cite "health reasons" as the basis for certain policies, because other related policies have no such basis. (Or that the "health basis" for the policy may be based on feedback of a more dubious nature than they care to admit. Anecdotal evidence from "people on the front lines" isn't always the best place to start--when their line of work focuses on the "unhealthy outcomes" their personal data set is going to be rather skewed, and oblivious to the healthier outcomes.)

That said, a guy in his late 20's pursuing people in their mid-teens is pretty creepy, and it does leave one to wonder about a number of things regarding any person who goes about doing so. Of course, that said, a number of years back I've been party to "young adult" gatherings where the grouping was 18 to 30 years old, and being there as the 30 year old. So I know full well the disconnects that are present between a 29/30 YO and even an 18 or 19 year old, never mind younger. They're in almost completely different worlds, but knowing my own family history, I have to be mindful of not speaking ill of a set of grandparents where, IIRC, a ~29YO widower with 2 kids married this girl fresh out of high school(my grandmother) during the Great Depression(where they remained married until his death from cancer after their 50th wedding anniversary). Never mind other examples that can be found looking further in my own family tree, on all sides of it.

Obviously, there is a social component that exists alongside the psychology part and outside of the biology sphere of things. Whether or not we find something personally creepy is immaterial to what should be the primary consideration in play: Was/Is it pursued in a "healthy" manner? No doubts exist about how relationships where there is a clear "senior" in the relationship are open to abuse(and by definition are "unhealthy" once abuse happens), but that doesn't mean every such relationship is abusive/unhealthy.

People need to be very mindful that at least where this topic is concerned, there is definite concern about "Slippery Slope" running in both directions on this matter in particular. Where it just happens that the prevailing direction in recent decades has been towards more restrictions, not less. Even if specific acts(such as those in regards to (male) homosexuality) have become permissible in the interim.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #171 on: November 25, 2017, 11:06:15 AM »
While I'd like to think the voters would refuse to vote for him, the "just write-in another candidate" is asking a lot.  In all seriousness can you envision a write-in winning here?  If I were a Republican, which thankfully I'm not as they seem to have these types of problems disproportionately,  ;D  I'd probably vote for him, trusting that he'd quickly be tossed out on his ass and replaced procedurally by another Republican at the first possible opportunity. 

The likely hood of that happening would probably not be scrutinized very hard as long as I had a rational to NOT vote Democrat for the reasons Seriati mentioned.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #172 on: November 25, 2017, 11:26:07 AM »
I'm talking about the look of the person, not the age of the person, when I suggest that being attracted to someone with the physique of a 16-17 year old shouldn't be called deviant. Acting on it is, though, and should be censured in some way, but in a way other than slapping the monicker "sex offender" on someone. The matter changes if he does, indeed, end up with someone underage, and so "sex offender" would apply. But I want to reiterate that doesn't mean he's in the same category as people who abuse babies.

So what about the reverse case? When a woman in late 20's can present the appearance of somebody around the age of 16 or 17? (Or the matter that Hollywood loves to employ those types for many of their "teen" movies)

Do we need to start stigmatizing any adults who would dare pursue a woman who appears to be "barely legal" or even slightly under? Actually scratch that, it's already happening in some countries, where people are finding themselves on sex offender registries for having naughty pictures of their 20-something SO and having a judge declare "she looks underage."

You're also ignoring thousands upon thousands of years of natural processes in play here. Even from a physiology standpoint, most 16/17 YO's have just entered the stage where they're physically capable of carrying children to term without significant risks of harm to themselves. From a biology stand point, that is Grade A Prime territory right there. So if we're going by "What's natural" than from the perspective of most of the rest of the rest of the animal kingdom, every male member of the human race that isn't already paired off(or building a harem) would be nuts NOT to pursue them. But now we're talking about biology vs psychology vs society and social norms.

What is natural is for males to be interested, and to at least consider pursuit for the purpose of mating.

What is "normal" in society today is another matter. And on this front, it is perhaps even arguably unhealthy as well, because the current narrative is that anybody over ___ years of age who finds persons under (21/18/17/16/15/14) years of age, but evidently at of very near to sexual maturity as being sexually appealing are sick in the head. Talk about giving people anxieties for no discernible reason? Taking a natural reaction and turning into one of the worst things a person could conceivably do certainly ranks up there.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #173 on: November 25, 2017, 11:43:10 AM »
Good points.  Dads and moms out there, invest in burka now!  Protect your daughters from men acting naturally.

DJQuag

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #174 on: November 25, 2017, 12:02:11 PM »
Fenring, he is well beyond a 'creep' and 'a**hole' - he is an accused child molestor.  He wasn't 'taking advantage of young women' but of children.  14 years old is a child.  He wasn't looking for young women at the local college; he was looking for grade schoolers at the local mall.

We're splitting hairs about what exactly to call such a person. The point is that we should probably assume any 14 year olds that got into the mix were girls he probably thought were 16 (not much of a saving grace) because they looked mature for their age. Or maybe that's not the case and he secretly wanted the 'young ones' too, I have no idea. But what I've read made it sound like he was aiming for the 16-17 range and on a few occasions fouled up and got someone younger than expected. That's exactly why even attempting to do this kind of thing is irresponsible and potentially illegal, because sometimes even if you're trying to stay within the legal limit you can't tell the real age and they can even have fake ID's. So best not to even try, putting aside how creepy and wrong it is. But again I think it's wrong-headed to insist on calling them 'children' when they most likely looked like physically mature women, just to make it sound scarier. The whole point I'm making is there's a difference between someone attracted to a physically developed woman who's on the young end of the spectrum versus someone who's attracted to people who specifically do not look like they're sexually mature. Both pedophilia and pederasty properly refer to the latter, where the lack of physical development is exactly what the person wants, and *that* is the area where extreme concern is certainly warranted. There is nothing unnatural or wrong about being attracted to physically developed people, but again the issue of ethics then comes into play where going after the very minimum legal age within that probably means there are psychological issues at play that need addressing. I hate the idea of it, I don't approve, and yet I can recognize that at a base level there's nothing deviant going on with someone who finds that attractive. It's not pedophilia.

I used the term statutory rapist for that reason. He specifically targeted young women, at least some of whom were below the age of consent. If the girl had not stopped him he would have been a statutory rapist.

What you said was that he was an "attempted statutory rapist." My point is that he was attempting to get with those girls, and that it would have been statutory rape, but that he was not (to our knowledge) attempting to commit statutory rape. In other words, he didn't say to himself "this girl is underage, it's illegal, let's do this." At least, not as far as I read. He probably didn't put much attention at all into whether the girl happened to be a year too young, which is certainly negligent but it doesn't necessarily mean he was desirous of committing rape. I make this specification because as of now I think the word rape is thrown around so much that at times it might be good to reflect on its precise meaning. As an analogy, if someone simply doesn't care if they hit someone with a bat or not and they swing it around haphazardly, and they do hit someone who dies, the swinging wouldn't have been attempted murder, it would have criminal negligence.

The word pedopile has become a political term. The definition of it makes people think Roy Moore was trying to bang eight year olds.

Except he wasn't. We all accept that the mind doesn't always match up to the body. And that's why the onus is on the elder  to shut that crap down. It's why we have a crime of statutory rape.

Statutory rape is serious, and in the case of the 14 year old he attempted it. I agree. For those flinging around deprecations, though, I'll point out that he could have been in a state where the age is 18, and all four accusations would have looked much worse. Where is the line drawn? And why?

How is it logical to label someone trying to have sex with a person with developed breasts and hips and all the rest, the same as someone who wants to have sex with children?
« Last Edit: November 25, 2017, 12:05:50 PM by DJQuag »

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #175 on: November 25, 2017, 01:22:51 PM »
Statutory rape is serious, and in the case of the 14 year old he attempted it. I agree. For those flinging around deprecations, though, I'll point out that he could have been in a state where the age is 18, and all four accusations would have looked much worse. Where is the line drawn? And why?

The one compelling case in regards to statutory rape I will agree with is the medical case regarding patient outcomes vs age in regards to child birth, where the "risk of complications" for mother and/or child basically start's hitting greatly diminishing returns in the early twenties. That said, there are plenty of 16 YO's out there right now that are medically capable of carrying a child to term with minimal risks to themselves or the child, while there are some 20 year olds who would be best advised to give their body "A little bit longer" to finish that last little bit of development. Except that opens up all kinds of different cans of worms. If the law exists to minimize danger to the mother, then the law either needs to have the age hiked up into the early 20's, or be altered on a "case by case basis" which opens up things up to extremes on the other end.

Quote
How is it logical to label someone trying to have sex with a person with developed breasts and hips and all the rest, the same as someone who wants to have sex with children?

Because we now live in a society where physical development and/or physical state of being is irrelevant, and psychological state(development) only matters when it is convenient. Further, socially we're now reaching the point where we actually do have 25 year-olds with perfectly functional IQ's that aren't functionally much different from their 16 to 18 year old counterparts. In fact, if you find the right people, they'll even happily move the goal posts on you and tell you that a 24 year old "is a child" and should be protected as such. So for them it doesn't matter if she looked 18, 24, or 28. They're still children in their book. Physical development doesn't matter.

"Moral Majority" types who like to pretend sex doesn't exist before marriage also help in this regard, as they somehow think that raising the legal age of consent will somehow protect the "virtue" of their fully grown children.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #176 on: November 25, 2017, 01:37:12 PM »
Good points.  Dads and moms out there, invest in burka now!  Protect your daughters from men acting naturally.

Of course, I also have to laugh at this one from my LDS background, as after all "The Natural Man is an enemy of god." Which at least by personal interpretation means the guy who decides to behave like a hypersexual poodle isn't excused from doing so simply because "it's natural" to be that way. We're beings of reason, not instinct, we should comport ourselves accordingly.

My bigger issue here is the crowd who have confused "socially abnormal"/"socially abhorrent" with "unnatural" in particularly as it regards to adolescents in particular. Where many of the issues involved are perfectly natural in nature, they're just not necessarily conducive to maintaining a well ordered and functional society.

Denying such things by declaring they are "not natural" however, comes with its own set of perils because it actually IS.
Denying it as such simply sets people up for failure and even bigger problems growing from there when they "cannot control" those natural impulses. (And this actually sounds a lot like boilerplate in regards to homosexuality and people telling them that being homosexual is "unnatural")

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #177 on: November 25, 2017, 03:47:18 PM »
 :o
Thanks TheDeamon
I think you helped me reach an all time record here for self editing and deleting comments before posting them.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #178 on: November 25, 2017, 10:10:11 PM »
:o
Thanks TheDeamon
I think you helped me reach an all time record here for self editing and deleting comments before posting them.

It's a very complicated issue, and anyone who starts trying to unravel it best be prepared to encounter all kinds of unpleasant stuff from all sides. There is no "delicate" way to speak on it, which us why most people prefer to talk around it and move on. Lest they step into something that'll end up following them for a very long time.

Honestly, there is no "clean solution" for it either, ultimately it comes down to deciding where you want to draw an arbitrary line in the sand, knowing full well you're taking a position that either "goes against nature," or goes against where most people would prefer society to be, if not both. However self-deluded someone's particular "vision" may be.

Obviously the "natural answer" doesn't work in today's preferred social context, particularly in relation to behaviors observed in pack/herd dynamics among mammals. There are some that come into the general neighborhood, but they're still very different from how most human societies have structured themselves. The mammal tendency towards "Alpha...and everyone else" in particular is a non-starter for the vast majority of people, never mind what animals will do to each other in the sex department, they don't distinguish on age. If a female is "in season" it's on, physically mature or not.

Which cycles us both to Weinstein ("Alpha..and everyone else") and Moore, who was playing awfully close to the "if she's 'in season' it's on" line. Neither "natural extreme" is or should be considered acceptable behavior on the social side. But people do need to keep it in the back of their mind that acceptable or not, there is a natural/evolutionary impulse behind that, and it needs to be addressed, putting your head in the sand and ignoring it won't make it go away no matter how much you try.

Of course, also related to Moore's activities as a 30YO with teens. What about the 60 year olds with college coeds? Or the 40-somethings with an early/mid 20's "trophy wife" thing going on?

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #179 on: November 26, 2017, 12:03:39 AM »
Not complicated at all.  I like the society where sick *censored*s are called out as such and ruined.  I like that these cautionary tales can drive other sick *censored*s into repressing their urges out of fear when they lack decency.

:)

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #180 on: November 27, 2017, 07:50:53 AM »
Not complicated at all.  I like the society where sick *censored*s are called out as such and ruined.  I like that these cautionary tales can drive other sick *censored*s into repressing their urges out of fear when they lack decency.

The issue here is the only true "ick" factor on Moore is the (now) underage girls. Beyond that, from what I'm seeing, the moment you remove the "under 18" from the equation, there would be nothing worth reporting. Further, from what I've seen on this forum, if his date had been over 18, it would have put him on the "OK" side of the column for most people. Now what it says about his former preference for playing in the shallow end of the dating pool is another matter.

Weinstein on the other hand. You have threats, bribery, and all kinds of other not so pleasant factors in play which nobody is going to be able to spin positively.

What Moore did wasn't good, but it isn't even in the same league as what Weinstein was getting up to. Further to Moore's credit, nobody has fronted any evidence that he has continued doing so over the intervening decades. Weinstein on the other hand? He was still going at it as recently as a few years ago.

Yeah, they're both fruity enough to bake a fruitcake, and both of their issues revolve around sex, but they're still apples and oranges all the same.

DonaldD

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #181 on: November 27, 2017, 10:57:38 AM »
They may be apples and oranges, but what Moore did (if we are to believe the evidence provided by the then 14 year old and the people corroborating her story) was straight up criminal, and he was and still is on officer of the court.

I'm not saying what Weinstein is accused of is not worse, but minimizing what Moore is accused of by comparing his actions to those Weinstein has been accused of is what-about-ism of the worst kind.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #182 on: November 27, 2017, 01:02:26 PM »
Not complicated at all.  I like the society where sick *censored*s are called out as such and ruined.  I like that these cautionary tales can drive other sick *censored*s into repressing their urges out of fear when they lack decency.

:)
Personally, I’m not a fan of witch hunts where accusations are the only proof needed.

yossarian22c

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #183 on: November 27, 2017, 01:29:29 PM »
Not complicated at all.  I like the society where sick *censored*s are called out as such and ruined.  I like that these cautionary tales can drive other sick *censored*s into repressing their urges out of fear when they lack decency.

:)
Personally, I’m not a fan of witch hunts where accusations are the only proof needed.

Neither am I, but the level of evidence* available publicly shows a high probability that the vast majority of these claims are true. There isn't enough to convict him in a court of law but there is way more than enough that I would never leave a teenage girl alone in a room with him.

*Multiple independent claims, supporting statements from people they have told about this years ago, Moore being banned from the local mall for aggressively flirting with teenage girls, and the yearbook signature. If one woman had come forward with a claim that he had dated her or hit on here when she was 16 there would be reason to doubt the claim but the preponderance of evidence at this point is that 30-something Roy Moore aggressively pursued relationships with teenage girls.

NobleHunter

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #184 on: November 27, 2017, 01:39:00 PM »
Not to mention Moore's inability to have a day in court to prove or refute these accusations is a natural result of creating an environment where victims are afraid or unwilling to make timely accusations. All there we get are accusations because the system is designed to prevent actual proof.

You want justice for the accused? The first step is getting justice for the victims.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #185 on: November 27, 2017, 01:48:47 PM »
Well, in that case .... BURN THE WITCH!!!

Oh, wait.  Let’s be clear on that. Conyers, Franken, Clinton, et al are not to be persecuted. They’re good sexual assaulters, up to and including serial rape.

BURN THE REPUBLICAN WITCH!!!

That’s better.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #186 on: November 27, 2017, 01:49:37 PM »
I'm defiantly in the camp of innocent until proven guilty from a legal stand point.  Someone being asked (or forced) to resign from public office or removed from a position by share holders is different. 

When this issue first started to gain momentum, a derailment by one or more high profile (provably) false accusations seemed all but inevitable. 

I think one of the first fixes is to somehow (no good ideas to offer) break the system where people settle allegations out of court for pay outs.  The problem is this can be unfair to either or both parties. 

From an "I'm innocent!" standpoint, this system makes anyone with power and money susceptible to false allegations.  Paying to have an extortionist go away with legal assurances it's a settled matter can be attractive compared to a long battle both in public and in the courts.   

From a "I'll pay you to keep this quiet." standpoint, this system allows the rich and powerful to threaten further humiliation or a large amount of money to someone they harassed, coerced or assaulted. 

In either case, while either option does have something to offer to the victim, society loses.  Either extortionists or sexual predators are getting away with something. 

But that doesn't address similar cases where wealth doesn't play as much a factor if any I suppose. 

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #187 on: November 27, 2017, 02:02:01 PM »
Nah, you can burn them all Crunch.
Though I'm not sure what more needs done with Clinton.  That investigation kinda already happened right?   I honestly don't know about Franken.  He's copped to some behavior I find unacceptable but not criminal.  Should he resign?  I don't know.  I'd lean towards yes but it's a soft yes.  But this is owing more towards valuing a zero tolerance stance on this issue higher than what he offers the party.  (but he's not MY representative)  Can't say I know anything about Conyers.  Just heard this one mentioned this morning.

What he did in and of itself seems to not amount to an automatic "give him the boot" but politics is optics.  IMO it says a lot about the current state of things that Democrats seriously consider drawing the line at very different points while Republicans refuse to acknowledged there even is a line.  Well, that's not true.  They know it's there because they use it to deflect attention away from them.

They know an allergy to hypocrisy is a common trait among Democratic voters.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #188 on: November 27, 2017, 02:06:05 PM »
So then, since Clinton was never proven guilty from a legal standpoint, we should ignore everything known about his activities?

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #189 on: November 27, 2017, 02:15:50 PM »
We didn't ignore them.  It was kinda a big deal.  Or did I imagine all that?

yossarian22c

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #190 on: November 27, 2017, 02:20:12 PM »
Oh, wait.  Let’s be clear on that. Conyers, Franken, Clinton, et al are not to be persecuted. They’re good sexual assaulters, up to and including serial rape.

Fraken to this point has the least egregious allegations against him. None of the women where in his employ or positions otherwise subordinate to him. They also only involve single instances of groping. I still think the allegations against him are approaching the point where he should resign. The accusation against Conyers is much more serious, a women in his employ who was paid out a settlement. Also his current and former female staffers haven't been nearly as supportive of him as they were of Franken. If another settlement is uncovered and/or more former staffers come forward to give more evidence of the account I will also be calling for his resignation or expulsion from the congress. Let's face it all of these allegations contain very different behaviors, power dynamics, and levels of evidence. But hey, lets boot them all out; and we may want to include Trump, "grab 'em by the *****", in our purge of sexual harassers/assaulters from positions of public leadership.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #191 on: November 27, 2017, 02:28:57 PM »
DW, your statement seems to imply we should have ignored complaints against Clinton.

"I'm defiantly in the camp of innocent until proven guilty from a legal stand point"

Clinton was never proven guilty of anything from a legal standpoint, so I'm assuming you are defiantly in support of him also for his unfounded allegations.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #192 on: November 27, 2017, 02:42:17 PM »
Quote
so I'm assuming you are defiantly in support of him also for his unfounded allegations.
What are you asking specifically?  Seriously, I'm not trying to be all wishy-washy on this.  Do I think he's a misogynist?  Yep.  An awful husband?  Assuming they didn't have an "open but don't be an idiot about it" political partnership; absolutely.  Do I think he did anything criminal?  Not really no. 

Does that answer the question?

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #193 on: November 27, 2017, 03:06:06 PM »
DW, I straight up misread your statement. You were differentiating legal standards from other standards, I had it wrong.


Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #194 on: November 27, 2017, 05:38:48 PM »
They could write in Strange or Sessions. If the republican party gave a **** about decency one of these men would be out there organizing a write in campaign. Then the voters would have a choice.

That's not a real recourse.  The same could have been done in the Presidential election, could it have not?  Yet all that would have been doing was helping the person you thought was worse to win, by splitting your vote.

Quote
Are you seriously arguing if the choice is sending a pedophile to the Senate or a Democrat that people are justified in sending the pedophile?

Well no, but there's no reasonable interpretation of Moore as a Pedophile.  Why not make up another claim about him?  Why not accuse him of giving aids to orphans?  Or selling minorities to cannibals?  Do you have any reason to believe he's attracted to pre-pubescent children?

Quote
That really seems to be a damaging example to set for the country, there has to be some minimum standard for serving in elected office and if we can't agree to exclude pedophiles is there any line that shouldn't be crossed?

Well, an example of a line that shouldn't be crossed is calling someone a pedophile without evidence.

But to the main point, which was my point, there doesn't appear to be any recourse for the voters, when a candidate refuses to back out despite being unsuitable.  I hate to bring it up, again, but there weren't calls to have a write in for Hillary Clinton when her severe issues with handling of national security came to light, nor when she potentially was (and should have been) going to be indicted on felony charges. 

There's definitely some line in the sand that gets crossed.  Weiner was forgiven for his first indiscretions, even ran for office again, but couldn't stop trading naked texts with underage girls.  Spitzer, with his prostitute had his carreer tanked pretty quickly. 

Moore though is creepy.  It sound's like only one of the acts was potentially illegal, and that was apparently voluntary until he took it too far and was asked to stop.  Should that have happened?  No.  Should he be held to account?  Yep, this is one of those cases where having a statute of limitations prevents justice.

But calling someone a pedophile for being attracted to 14 and 16 year olds?  Nonsense, in a country where 14 and 16 year old models are on the covers of magazines every year.  Fact is, people in that age range are attractive, and the "liberal bastions" of Hollywood and the entertainment industry exploit that every single day.  If Roy Moore is creepy, aren't all of us for watching those shows and looking at those magazines? 

It's not just about attraction here, it's about believing, correctly, that there's something fundamentally flawed about an adult that finds someone much younger than themselves to be romantically (not physically attractive) or finding it exploitive to date that far out of the age range.  If that's the case, why is it okay to date an 18 year old?  Or a 21 year old, or even a 35 year old when you're 25 years older than them?  Should all may-december romances be made illegal?  Hefner was creepy to most of America when he was in his 70s, but was that true when he was in his 50s?  It certainly wasn't when he was in his late 30s and 40s.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #195 on: November 27, 2017, 06:52:42 PM »
Quote
But calling someone a pedophile for being attracted to 14 and 16 year olds?  Nonsense, in a country where 14 and 16 year old models are on the covers of magazines every year.  Fact is, people in that age range are attractive, and the "liberal bastions" of Hollywood and the entertainment industry exploit that every single day.  If Roy Moore is creepy, aren't all of us for watching those shows and looking at those magazines?
  Not to single you out here, but I've seen this argument a few times and it freaks me out.  I can't argue that kids this age aren't sexualized by the fashion industry and its satellite industries... but it just makes me want to shout out "You ARE creepy if you find it arousing."

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #196 on: November 27, 2017, 07:56:47 PM »
You are certainly creepy if your response to seeing a fashion magazine is to start trolling a mall.

Hey, do you come to Orange Julius often? Let me buy you a smoothie.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #197 on: November 27, 2017, 08:37:14 PM »

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #198 on: November 28, 2017, 09:14:16 AM »
It still astonishes me that anybody puts credibility in O'Keefe's garbage.

They really should have tried this with CNN, it probably would have gone on the air within 4 hours.
« Last Edit: November 28, 2017, 09:22:18 AM by TheDrake »

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #199 on: November 28, 2017, 09:51:43 AM »
Quote
But calling someone a pedophile for being attracted to 14 and 16 year olds?  Nonsense, in a country where 14 and 16 year old models are on the covers of magazines every year.  Fact is, people in that age range are attractive, and the "liberal bastions" of Hollywood and the entertainment industry exploit that every single day.  If Roy Moore is creepy, aren't all of us for watching those shows and looking at those magazines?
  Not to single you out here, but I've seen this argument a few times and it freaks me out.  I can't argue that kids this age aren't sexualized by the fashion industry and its satellite industries... but it just makes me want to shout out "You ARE creepy if you find it arousing."

It's not creepy to find humans of the sex that you are attracted to, who have gone through puberty to be attractive.  Puberty is a biological process, not a chronological one, though the two are generally linked.  Why do you believe that humans, out of sexual animals should operate on a different basis of attraction than biology would dictate?

Actions, not attractions, are what is the issue.  There are still states, including, for example, very blue suburb of NYC, Connecticut, where the age of consent is 16. Many places in the world people are married at that age.  It's not inherently creepy, it's creepy in context.  In our culture, we keep young adults in a childlike state (with no real responsibility) for a really long time and that impedes their emotional growth.  If you were really serious on this issue, you'd be less fixed on an arbitrary age of consent, and look for some kind of subjective determination of readiness.