Roy Moore accused of sexual assault

Deus X wrote:What would the reaction be if the sexes were reversed, if the comedian was a female and the observers male? I suspect that males would react differently than the two females in this instance--less outrage and more hysterical laughter, among males at least.

Why is the "outrage" reaction more valid than the "laugh about it" reaction? It seems to me that males have to understand and internalize the female reaction but females discount the male reaction. Why is one more right, more valid, than the other?

No one seems to want to answer this. Wonder why?

Deus X wrote:

Deus X wrote:What would the reaction be if the sexes were reversed, if the comedian was a female and the observers male? I suspect that males would react differently than the two females in this instance--less outrage and more hysterical laughter, among males at least.

Why is the "outrage" reaction more valid than the "laugh about it" reaction? It seems to me that males have to understand and internalize the female reaction but females discount the male reaction. Why is one more right, more valid, than the other?

No one seems to want to answer this. Wonder why?

A lot of it has to do with the level of threat. A man wouldn't be as intimidated by a woman doing it, because he knows if it's leading to something else, he's stronger and can probably overpower her. Even then, I doubt I'd start laughing, because I'd figure she's crazy. Crazy people are creepy, no matter if you can take them out or not. And masturbating in front of people just out of the blue is a crazy thing to do... you gotta figure, "Something's wrong with this person." It's not something our brains are used to handling.

What you have to picture is not a woman masturbating in front of you, but Mike Tyson doing it. If some guy who's 6' 8" and 280 pounds starts jerking off in front of you, then I bet you'll understand the woman's position more. Here's a guy who could kill you. Maybe he just wants to jerk off... maybe in the middle he decides he wants to do something more, and you're not going to be able to do a whole lot about it.

They cover it pretty well in this video:



And the other thing is... Louie knew this. Louie totally understood the position he had these women in... and he did it anyway. Here's proof:

Now you did it. You played a clip and I laughed at it. Yes, he obviously does know how a woman SHOULD feel today when she goes out on a date, and that's the pity of it all. I hate to sound like my parents, but even in the late 60's and early70's no man who went out on a date with a girl could assume he was going to get sex at the end of the night.
It was not portrayed on TV that way, or even in the movies as it is now. I'm  a reasonably suspicious person, but I went on a lot of first dates and wasn't scared they would end up with me being forced into sex with the guy. (Now someone will say that's why I had so many first dates only. I'll toss that one in before anybody else gets there.) But it's true that sex was just not as free as it is now.  By the end of the 90's that all changed. It seems that today dating is a considered by both sexes to be a way to find out how compatable  a prospective partner might be. It's very dangerous and a really stupid way for people in a civilized society to act, IMO.
And I'm sorry to the ladies out there again, but all  that didn't have to be. Men would have always liked it to be that way, but way back when the world was new women learned to say "no" if they didn't want to be pregnant. For awhile after the pill came around it was still that way, but the 80's and 90's changed all that with the women's empowerment movement that did not just involve going to work outside the home and having a house husband. It also involved the bedroom and the dating arena, and women decided to basically enjoy the same things on a date that men had been wanting but denied for centuries before. Now men are confused and don't know what to expect when they go out on a date either. Are they going to get a girl who wants to wait, who is willing to do "Some" things that she doesn't consider sex, or who is going to jump his bones at the end of the day. Hooray for men, but one more thing that separated us from the apes (the ability to WAIT) was gone. And it was women who tossed it away. Now I've really tossed the s--t into the fan, I know.

Even Sean Hannity has had it with Roy Moore, gives candidate 24 hours to explain ‘inconsistencies’


Fox News host Sean Hannity has given up defending Republican Senate candidate Roy Moore of Alabama, telling viewers Tuesday night the judge has “24 hours” to explain conflicting answers to the sexual misconduct allegations against him.

“You must immediately and fully come up with a satisfactory explanation for your inconsistencies,” Hannity said. “You must remove any doubt. If he can’t do this, then Judge Moore needs to get out of this race.”

Hannity’s escalated remarks came days after critics bashed the conservative host for appearing to defend Moore and suggesting that the accusations against him might be false. The wave of criticism prompted coffeemaker company Keurig and other sponsors to say they would no longer be advertising on Hannity’s Fox News show.

During a Thursday radio show, Hannity asked how one could “possibly tell, know the truth.” He appeared to imply that the alleged encounters were “consensual,” but later apologized and said he misspoke.

Speaking on his Fox News broadcast Thursday night, Hannity said “every single person in this country deserves the presumption of innocence” and that “none of us knows the truth of what happened 38 years ago.”

In an exchange with Hannity on his radio show Friday, Moore did not outright deny dating teenagers when he was in his 30s. When asked if he remembered “dating girls that young at that time” Moore responded “not generally, no,” and said he did not recall ever dating any girl without the permission of the mother.

Tuesday, a day after another woman went public in a news conference with accusations against Moore, Hannity seemed to change his tune.

Moore’s answers, Hannity said, now seemed “inconsistent.”

“You know I do not and will never rush to judgment, because we have seen the media and politicians get it wrong so many times,” he said. But Moore’s conflicting accounts demanded a full explanation, he said.





https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/11/15/even-sean-hannity-has-had-it-with-roy-moore-gives-him-24-hours-to-explain-inconsistencies/?utm_term=.a38d30f37f9a

Yep, when his sponsors started leaving him and his puny defense of Moore began to affect his bottom line, he suddenly changed his tune. It really is all about making a buck with the Republicans, whether it be taking money from lobbyists or from sponsors for their shows.
No core values at all except for the value they put on the dollar.

Moore may actually lose though. Just spoke with my sis in Alabama. She voted for Trump because her church convinced her to, but she says she isn't falling for Roy Moore's BS.She said one of her coworkers said today that she had woke up in the middle of the night and felt the need to pray for Judge Moore. My sis said it almost made her sick. So some fundamentalists in Alabama are wising up, at least some.

bigdog wrote: She voted for Trump because her church convinced her to, but she says she isn't falling for Roy Moore's BS.She said one of her coworkers said today that she had woke up in the middle of the night and felt the need to pray for Judge Moore. My sis said it almost made her sick. So some fundamentalists in Alabama are wising up, at least some.

"...her church convinced her to", the mind reels!

Fundamentalists (of any variety) wising up is an oxymoron. Fundamentalists of all religions are the cause of most of the sectarian strife in the world.

zsomething wrote:A lot of it has to do with the level of threat.  A man wouldn't be as intimidated by a woman doing it, because he knows if it's leading to something else, he's stronger and can probably overpower her.  Even then, I doubt I'd start laughing, because I'd figure she's crazy.  Crazy people are creepy, no matter if you can take them out or not.  And masturbating in front of people just out of the blue is a crazy thing to do... you gotta figure, "Something's wrong with this person."   It's not something our brains are used to handling.

This is a false analogy. It wasn't just one women, it was two and they decided to go together precisely because they would feel safe. If it was two male comedians, I suspect that when they walked out. there would have been a lot of eye-rolling and smirking, maybe disbelief, but it wouldn't have been shocked outrage and anger. A lot of "Boy, was that ever weird!" not "That was disgusting, how dare she!"

Men react to incidents of sexual misbehavior differently from women. Whenever a female teacher gets in a jam for screwing a 15-year old boy, in private most males make comments about that never happening to them and how they wish it would have. They don't say that in front of women, of course, but they do in private.

An example of the difference is in the show Iliza Schlesinger is pitching on the Rogan video, "Confirmed Kills".

Here's the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAdL2q6FhN0

She spends the first 20 minutes ranting about how much time and effort women go through to be attractive, with the subtext that it's somehow the male's fault. Then she gets onto being yelled at by guys--sexually harassed--and it's confusing. Here's an exact quote:

"Being sexually harassed it the worst."

"I'm sorry, let me rephrase that. Being sexually harassed by an ugly guy is the worst. [PAUSE] If he's hot, it's just plain old flirting." [LOUD APPLAUSE AND CHEERING]

Let me repeat that: BEING SEXUALLY HARASSED BY AN UGLY GUY IS THE WORST. IF HE'S HOT, IT'S JUST PLAIN OLD FLIRTING.

How the fuck is a man supposed to know what a female thinks of his looks? Personally, I think yelling at strange women is boorish and stupid NO MATTER WHAT YOU LOOK LIKE.

My point is that women like to be attractive to males and go to great lengths to become so. Then when they attract unwanted attention they get pissed. WTF!

zsomething wrote:What you have to picture is not a woman masturbating in front of you, but Mike Tyson doing it.   If some guy who's 6' 8" and 280 pounds starts jerking off in front of you, then I bet you'll understand the woman's position more.  Here's a guy who could kill you.  Maybe he just wants to jerk off... maybe in the middle he decides he wants to do something more, and you're not going to be able to do a whole lot about it.

This is another false analogy, you skip the asking part! Most males, if Mike Tyson or any other large male asked if it would be okay to masturbate in front of them, would say NO! The women didn't.

I'm not saying what Louis did was okay--it's offensive--what I'm saying is that the women have a part in this they don't want to acknowledge. Everything is not always JUST the man's fault. Their motives for acquiescing are as confused and screwy as any man's for being sexually offensive. It's not a black-and-white problem. Women are as loopy about sexual matters as men, just in a different way.

Well, and now we have the "oh so virginal" Leeann Tweedy claiming that Al Frankin sexually abused her back in 2005 when he was a comedian. She claims she was asleep and he grabbed her boobs, and she even has a PHOTO of him grabbing he boobs. Yes, she does, except that you can tell in the photo that he is actually not touching them, but pretending to do so as a joke for whoever is taking the photo. And when she woke up, she was given the photo to keep, which she did for at least 10 more years. She also claimed he kissed her without her permission because he wanted to "rehearse" for a skit they would be doing later and it was all "wet and slimy."
This sweet innocent lady posed on the cover of Playboy magazine with the intent of seducing men into buying the magazine. There is no other reason to pose on the front of Playboy that I can think of. She has also been a guest commentator on Sean Hannity's show on several occasions.
I wonder  if anyone might have any reason to doubt that she brought this out now because she was so embarrassed after all these years. That's what she said. But you know, if you left the picture in your photo box, you might not have to be embarrassed about it now, would you? Or could it possibly be about getting the liberals because they got Roy Moore? Since the recent objects of these revelations have mostly been men who are democrats and who have actually advocated for women's rights in the past, I hate to say it, but I am just a little suspicious. And the women hold the power in these cases too because after all, those poor little ladies would never even CONSIDER lying to get some publicity, would they? They're the VICTIMS, after all.  And Leann Tweedy was the most victimized of all. She had to keep a picture of herself  ALMOST being groped while she was asleep for 10 years-EVEN THOUGH  SHE WAS WEARING A FLAK JACKET IN THE PICTURE AND UNLESS FRANKEN HAD FINGERS OF SOLID STEEL THERE'S NO WAY HE WAS TOUCHING HER BOOBS. But she kept the picture. I'll bet because up until last week, she thought it was funny.

That's odd. Only certain victims have credibility?

PkrBum wrote:That's odd. Only certain victims have credibility?

Yes, the democrats are credible and all republicans are liars. Perfect liberal jackassery.

A woman who has a flak jacket on who is claiming someone felt her up through the jacket has no credibility. Also, when she puts pictures out in the public and you can see space between the man's hands and the flak jacket, plus a smiling guy with some other person taking the picture, it's pretty obviously a joke. Maybe a bad joke, but definitely done as a joke.

And in my opinion, maybe not in anyone elses but in mine, a woman posing on the front of Playboy magazine or posing in the nude in any other public arena gives up her rights to being an innocent victim from then on.

I don't care what her political party is.  And I don't care what the man's political party is either.
But men are not always to blame. I think maybe women who have raised sons have a slightly more understanding view that all men are not dogs than do women who have no children or all girls.  I'd like to see a poll sometimes of people who believe all these accusations and those who doubt them, and just see what the family make up of these people might be.  Some sociologist should do that sometime soon.


And BTW Pkr, real victims do have credibility but liars don't. There are more liars out in the world than there are victims. I don't think you're really that naïve.

It must be coincidence that dems carry water for dem sexual predators. Go figure.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/11/17/sarah-silverman-on-louis-c-k-can-you-love-someone-who-did-bad-things/?utm_term=.00d8ee318cc0

On the Franken thing, I believe Tweeden's account of what happened, and I believe she didn’t like it. At the same time, I also think that, being a buddy of Hannity’s, she thought, “Hey, I have something here I can capitalize on” and that's likely a factor in her coming forward with it. The reason I think this is that Roger "Zippy" Stone had advanced knowledge of what she was going to do, and the Piltdown-skulled fuckwit stupidly showed his cards in advance. He just couldn't wait. So there at least seems to be a "hit job" factor involved here, as a distraction from the Roy Moore situation... although I don't discount what she's saying, either.

What Franken did — while awful — seems more like awkward-human-interaction/misunderstanding than sexual assault. She did say “okay” when he wanted to rehearse the kiss. Now, perhaps she felt pressured into that because Franken was intimidating or something — I don’t know, and I don’t discount that possibility. And maybe Franken didn’t do a good read on her reluctance to do the rehearsal… maybe he thought “okay” meant “okay.” And he may not have realized how repulsed she was by him and went at the kiss more aggressively than she liked. In any case, I do think she got more than she bargained for. That doesn’t mean it’s an assault — it means that human interactions are complicated things and people interpret the same situation differently (something I’ve always thought of as “the Rashomon effect” — if you’ve ever seen the Kurosawa movie, you’ll know what I mean). I’m not sure if Franken really forced himself on her, or was just an oblivious jerk and more enthusiastic about the “rehearsal” than she was. I also don’t discount that it can be made into political hay and she decided to go for that. That, of course, doesn’t mean she’s lying that she was grossed out — I'm sure she's telling the truth about that — but it could mean she decided to “weaponize” an incident she no doubt found unpleasant but had shrugged off as not terribly important... until it became useful.

But, I could be wrong about that — I don’t know her mind. I’m just thinking this could be the case since since Roger Stone, and InfoWars, were involved before the fact.. This all does seem like it was part of a “plan” or hit-job, more than just a “me too” moment. “Me too” moments don’t get political operatives involved. I'm not questioning her credibility, just her motivation.

Now, the photo is an obvious attempt at a “joke.” He’s not actually groping her (she has a flak jacket on so that’d be hard to do even if he tried - those things have ballistic plates in 'em, it'd be like groping the top of a table), he’s just miming it. That said, it’s still an incredibly stupid, vulgar thing to do, and there’s no excuse for it. None. Zero. Any adult should know that pretending to grab a woman’s boobs is not funny, and it’s just fucking juvenile and stupid. It’s not “sexual assault,” but it is demeaning, degrading, and harrassing behavior and Franken’s due a trip to the woodshed for it. He’s right to apologize, and submit to an investigation… which he’s done. I’d hate to see him lose his seat over this, because he’s one of our best senators, and President Trump got away with far worse and has paid no price for it… but, if Franken is ousted for this incident, I won’t say it’s unfair. He did something stupid and stupid’ll cost ya.


But, if he does get ousted -- and even if he doesn't -- then Trump’s transgressions need serious revisiting, because what Franken did was one dumb incident, not a pattern of behavior, and he regretted it. Trump, meanwhile, bragged about doing this stuff all the time, and has over a dozen accusers and lawsuits, including accusations of raping a 13-year-old..

If what Franken did deserves punishment (and it does, of some degree or other), then Trump deserves far more. And that’s not “what about”-ism… one thing doesn’t excuse the other, at all. It just means justice should be done fairly.

Trump's getting away with things because he Gish-gallops his awfulness. He does so many horrible things it's like a Jackson Pollock painting -- it's hard to focus on one spot because it's all just splatters of dreck. It's hard to address his business corruption because there's also the racist-pandering to tackle, and then there's the constant lying but there's also the Russian collaboration, and the childish name-calling gets forgotten amidst the attempts to become a dictator, etc. There's just so much fucking awful around Trump all the time, people give up and he gets away with all of it. It's like walking into the kitchen and finding your kid's killed and dismembered the dog, smashed all the plates, painted the walls with dung, set the trash on fire, carved swastikas in the kitchen table, wrote profanities on the refrigerator, clogged the sink with a dead possum he found in the road, and beat his friend with a hammer. Amidst all of that, you're going to be too distracted to get around to addressing the fact that he put gum in his sister's hair.

This can serve as a reminder that Trump has unfinished sexual-impropriety business of his own to deal with... and he has zero fucking credibility, after bragging about it. So, let's deal with all of that, from Franken and Roy Moore on up, and let the bodies fall where they may. I'm ready and willing.

But I doubt Trump supporters will be willing to play by those terms. It damnsure won't end well for them if they do. And if Alabama elects Roy Moore, their party is fucked as far as being able to claim they're any kind of "moral bastion." That's been a huge lie for decades, anyway, but electing Roy Moore would take a big neon orange highlighter to it. That happens, the "Jesus party" horseshit is done.

I'd be happy to have ONE set of standards, rules, laws. Apply blind justice and let the heads roll.

Here's my set of standards and it's very simple. If you can see the shadow of a man's hands between him and a woman's breasts, he's not groping her. He's not even really touching her.
If you can't tell this was a joke then it's you that has lost all sense of perspective.
For the press to call it assault is outrageous.
And he asked if he could kiss her. She didn't like the way he did it.
Being a woman I can promise you that some men are just not that good at kissing.

Let's make that a crime, right?
You're not that stupid Pkr.

Oh wow. Now the great pussy grabber is speaking out against Al Franken's non-touching of a woman's breast.But he isn't saying one word about Roy Moore being accused of actual sexual assault.

Talk about making it about politics- the POTUS you folks elected is trying to make it so. I don't know how they are covering it on Faux News, but CNN is replaying interviews with women who have accused Trump of molesting them. He's opened a big can of worms with his tweets.
But what's new?

The man's a complete fool.

He grabbed the back of her head and forced his tongue into her mouth. No excuses. Is that ok?

I'm not saying that it's a hanging offence... just trying to determine whether that's acceptable behavior.

Leave the politics and emotions aside. Let's see what we can agree to as parameters.

This is a woman who made a very profitable career from allowing herself to be marketed as a sex object and now she's complaining about being treated as--wait for it--    A SEX OBJECT! By an uberNerd! Gimme a break.

She told him he could kiss her. No, no crime there, and if sloppy kisses are illegal I know a LOT of men who should lose their jobs, have their children taken away from them, and forced into hard labor on the side of the road. She said he could do it. Do you not get the difference?

And NO, Al Franken is not Bill Clinton. This is a situation where Republicans are so desperate to keep a Senate seat they will make every act of a sexual nature exactly the same. Rape is as bad as slobbering in a woman's ear, right? I don't think so.I defended Clinton because he was a damned good President and the first thing Monica did when she met him was show him her underwear. That's a fact that nobody has denied. And if what he had was an affair, we've had a lot of extremely good presidents, Kennedy, Roosevelt, Eisenhower and Reagan who had affairs during their lifetimes. None of them lost their jobs over it. Jefferson had a special room built at his house for his slave wife and without Jefferson there would be no America as we know it today.
I saw that picture again on the news tonight. Al Franken was not even CLOSE to touching the flak jacket that woman was wearing. She let Roger Stone know about the picture before publishing it because she is a shill for the Republican party. And nobody in the history of American politics has lost his job over a kiss, so you might as well give up hope on that one. Kevin Spacey and Louis CK may be a completely other issue- they both had a lot of rumors swirling around them in the past, but Al Franken has been known as being a good husband, a good family man and a good father. And that's for as long as he's been in the public eye. He doesn't deserve to be attacked by this bitch for a 10 year old childish joke that didn't hurt anyone. I guarantee you, that half naked women in the picture above was not disturbed by that picture at the time it happened, and not now either. Yeah, go ahead and spend taxpayer money on an investigation of him- he'll end up on top because he's done nothing and Ms Leeann will just have her naked reputation dirtied up a little bit more. Because if there's an investigation, she WILL have to testify. And that photo will be scanned over and over until all you can see is the obvious shadows proving she was never so much as touched.

He likely was aggressive and exploited her sexuality in that picture. That's ok?

Again... not a hanging offense... and the ethics committee is a joke. I just don't get the defense of it.

He was SO aggressive she didn't even wake up.
She was never touched so she did not wake up.
And who kept the picture for 10 years? She did. How did she get it? He gave it to her.
He thought it was funny at the time.

If a male friend of mine had taken a picture (without touching me) when I was asleep, exactly like that one, I would have laughed when I woke up and saw it. Then I'd say "give me that picture, I don't want you showing it around because I don't want anyone to think I'd let the sorry likes of you even pretend to grope me in my sleep." And he would give me the picture. And guess what-he gave her the picture.


You know PKR, If I really thought you believed this was not a joke and if I really thought you felt it was a serious thing to argue, I'd stay on the forum this evening to entertain you. But I've seen you on here for years and I know you know better.

I've said that I didn't think it was a big deal. He's a comedian and I don't like pc bs censoring them. I mainly just want to set standards... based on facts. I believe that Moore is a scumbag... that there's a preponderance of accounts. But I wish that they had come out earlier... he was a judge for a long time. Btw... the aggressive reference was to the kiss... but even that likely was not a sexual assault. He was probably goofing around.

Ok?

https://www.vox.com/culture/2017/11/9/16629400/louis-ck-allegations-masturbation

We've heard from several sources that this shameless funnyman whips [his penis] out at the most inopportune moments, often at times when his female companions have expressed no interest in watching him go at it. A representative example: At the Aspen Comedy Festival a few years ago, he invited a female comedy duo back to his hotel room. The two ladies gladly joined him, and offered him some weed. He turned it down, but asked if it would be OK if he took his dick out.

Thinking he was joking (that's exactly the kind of thing this guy would say), the women gave a facetious thumbs up. He wasn't joking. When he actually started jerking off in front of them, the ladies decided that wasn't their bag and made for the exit. But the comedian stood in front of the door, blocking their way with his body, until he was done.