Originally Posted By friendofdd Sorry, onlyme, if you are referring to my post, I didn't intend to imply my comments were for your post. I was referring to the general tone of the comments about the originator of the topic. Please accept my apology.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh I find it funny that Gadzuux thinks this is no big deal when he thought the Republican leadership in the House should step down when a similar thing happened last fall. Apparently, sending kinky e-mails is much worse than groping someone.
Originally Posted By melekalikimaka Yeah, I briefly looked for that thread because I wanted to check to see if any of our reactions were different.
Originally Posted By DlandDug Actually, Gad's position has been pretty consistent. As I recall, he took a moderate position on the activities of Mark Foley. I still disagree with his characterization of this as simply a fumbled pass.
Originally Posted By gadzuux My position on the foley case was that it was a failure of the GOP leadership, and a case of deliberately ignoring hard evidence over a period of several years. The reason for this sellout of integrity was votes and money, which is all they care about. And yeah - it's a fumbled pass - that's exactly my take. The "first move" is often awkward, no matter who you are. Add in the fact that these are a couple of hayseeds in a motel bed on a cold dark night on the frozen tundra of the dakotas - what two adults do (or don't do) is just not our business. It does have it's lurid appeal as a sex scandal, and I can enjoy those as much as anybody, but I also can't help but have some empathy for them - I think we should leave these two people alone to sort out their own situation.
Originally Posted By TALL Disney Guy <Add in the fact that these are a couple of hayseeds> LOL <It does have it's lurid appeal as a sex scandal, and I can enjoy those as much as anybody,> Again, LOL
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>...these are a couple of hayseeds in a motel bed on a cold dark night on the frozen tundra of the dakotas...<< No, this concerns an elected official and a young man who had a reasonable expectation that the older man could be trusted. >>...what two adults do (or don't do) is just not our business.<< Unless, of course, one of them charges the other with assault. >>I think we should leave these two people alone to sort out their own situation.<< I would agree if the young man in question had not himself invited this scrutiny. Surely you are not suggesting that every case of sexual harassment is just a little misunderstanding between two potential partners?
Originally Posted By DlandJB If the kid had wanted the advance he wouldn't have gone to the authorities about it. He was groped and harrassed without his consent. That is wrong.
Originally Posted By melekalikimaka <<it was a failure of the GOP leadership, and a case of deliberately ignoring hard evidence over a period of several years.>> Well gee, if it was just a guy making fumbling passes at other, younger guys (also known as "the world of adult behavior") exactly what should the GOP have done about it? Hm, maybe we should just leave them alone to their own business, let them sort out their own situations?
Originally Posted By gadzuux With foley, it WAS predatory behavior - and directed at minors. I think 'assault' might be overstating it. The advance may be been unwelcome, but harrassment indicates an ongoing pattern of behavior against someone. There's no evidence of that. People are trying to make a federal case out of this, just as they did over the lewinsky matter. It's just sex - it isn't that shocking.
Originally Posted By DlandJB It's just sex - it isn't that shocking.>>> No it isn't. It is harrasment, even the first time. That's like saying the first rape doesn't count. An unwelcome advance is harrassment. Read your office policy on sexual harrasment if you don't think so. An unwelcome sexual advance by a boss is not about sex. It is about dominance. Lewinsky...that was consensual. That IS different. I think it is despicable that you can't tell the difference.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>The advance may be been unwelcome, but harrassment indicates an ongoing pattern of behavior against someone.<< No, not at all. Groping someone without their consent just once constitutes harrassment. If the kid overreacted, that's his prerogative. When Sutton made his move, he opened himself to this kind of scrutiny, and ultimately charges if the young man so desires. >>There's no evidence of that.<< There is a great deal we do not know about this case. But based on what has been reported, a sexual assault occurred. >>People are trying to make a federal case out of this, just as they did over the lewinsky matter.<< The consensual sex that took place in the White House would not have become a federal case if one party had not chosen to lie about it under oath. >>It's just sex - it isn't that shocking.<< Sex imposed on someone against their will is shocking. And wrong.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Apparently, sending kinky e-mails is much worse than groping someone.> Is there any evidence at all that the Dem. leadership of SD knew this guy was a groper for years, and then did nothing about it? No? Apple and orange, then. But yes, gadzuux, I'm afraid you're on your own on the "fumbled pass" thing. I know where you're coming from, but if it's unwelcome, it's unwelcome. And if they'd been two unrelated guys, that would indeed be the end of it, but they weren't - they were essentially boss and subordinate. That's what makes it (potentially - there's plenty we don't know) harrassment.
Originally Posted By barboy Facts according to the "victim" 1) The two adults not only shared a private room but the same bed. 2) The "victim" did not communicate to the "perp" after 30 seconds to stop and remove his hand from his non genital areas. I view these two facts as "prima facie" (meaning on the surface or face value) evidence of consent. I see no criminal conduct here based on what has been released- much ado about nothing. Now, as for sexual harassment in the civil arena( a nice looking intentional tort which I'll bet this "victim" will exploit fully)--- just maybe. Universally(including military) the threshold for sexual harassment is based on the victim's view. An asinine way to do business, generally, if one feels harassed then he was harrassed. But that feeling has to be reasonable. Also, the mechanics of a superior/subordinate relationship could play heavily.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "1) The two adults not only shared a private room but the same bed. 2) The "victim" did not communicate to the "perp" after 30 seconds to stop and remove his hand from his non genital areas. I view these two facts as "prima facie" (meaning on the surface or face value) evidence of consent. I see no criminal conduct here based on what has been released- much ado about nothing." Exactly. But let's post about it only because it involves a Democrat.
Originally Posted By onlyme friendofdd, I just, now, read your post. Now, I feel dumb. I neglected to use the at the end of my post. I wasn't angry, just being 'silly'- Not a very manly term, but it's all I could come up with. But, thank you for being a gentleman.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Is there any evidence at all that the Dem. leadership of SD knew this guy was a groper for years, and then did nothing about it?> There was no evidence of negligence by the Republican leadership in the Foley matter, but that didn't stop some. It's clearly a double standard.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Ahh yes, let's compare the lack of Republican leadership in Congress with Democrats in the Dakotas, then pretend it's a valid thing to do.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh You go ahead. I compared a liberal's reaction to a Republican sex scandal to a liberal's reaction to a Democrat scandal, which was a perfectly valid thing to do. You can pretend there's no double standard going on, but you're just fooling yourself.
