Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Africa]

I guess it comes down to whether or not the women in question actually requested the photographs of Weiner's, erm, weiner. If so, then he's just a regular sicko, which I guess isn't actually hurting anything. If not, then it's at the very least sexual harassment, which if I'm not mistaken is criminal.

The thing is, this runs into the same kinds of problems as determining if consent was given, in order to figure out if a sex act was rape or not. At least one of the women was openly talking about sex with him (quoted on Jon Stewart) and if you're already openly discussing sex, or even sending each other suggestive remarks, then abruptly sending dick pix is no more criminal than if you're flirting with a women in a private area and suddenly dropped your pants. Smooth? Hell no. Likely to get you laid? Of course not. But criminal? I can hardly see how, because then where do you draw the line between that and when you get naked in order to have sex?

I'm not sure what, exactly, indecent exposure consists of, but I'd assume it's something to do with PUBLICLY displaying your junk. In a situation where you're alone with another adult (which is sort of analogous to internet contact) and already having suggestive conversation, I can't imagine that suddenly showing up naked would be considered illegal. If so, then the law needs to change. Otherwise, a woman who invites a man to her place from the bar, waits for him to go to the bathroom, and when he comes back is laying naked waiting for him, could be just as well prosecuted.

If the standard for whether it's sexual harrassment is that the recipient has to have formally said "please send me pictures of your gentials," well....that's just like saying that sexual consent can only come in the form of saying "I consent to sexual intercourse with you."

[freeformschooler]

I'm not sure what, exactly, indecent exposure consists of, but I'd assume it's something to do with PUBLICLY displaying your junk. In a situation where you're alone with another adult (which is sort of analogous to internet contact) and already having suggestive conversation, I can't imagine that suddenly showing up naked would be considered illegal. If so, then the law needs to change.

I think there's a law called "indecent exposure" that makes it illegal to just show up somewhere public naked around here. I only know because of some idiot who went around knocking on people's doors and then pulling down his briefs when they opened the door got arrested for it.

[Nikov]

I really don't understand why you're defending him.

[freeformschooler]

I really don't understand why you're defending him.

Where's that baffled shrug face emoticon when you need it?

[Cheese]

I always thought we needed a thread about wang.

[Nikov]

I really don't understand why you're defending him.

Where's that baffled shrug face emoticon when you need it?

Someone post a .gif of Pinkie Pie shrugging. It is appropriate and timely this moment and this moment only.

[Angel Of Death]

I always thought we needed a thread about wang.

People who want threads about wang are usually total dicks.

*BA DUM TSHHH*

[Grakelin]

But not the vomitoriums

A vomitorium is the part of a theatre where the performers can walk between the audience seats to get on stage.

Romans seem less cool now somehow.

Romans didn't name it. They just invented it.

[Flying Dice]

He should start frequenting Kael's Terraria server.

[Africa]

I really don't understand why you're defending him.

What me?

If so, once again you're displaying a remarkable inability to grasp what I'm ever talking about.

[Nikov]

I really don't understand why you're defending him.

What me?

If so, once again you're displaying a remarkable inability to grasp what I'm ever talking about.

Your last post was a big spiel about how if Weiner did anything criminal then the law needs to be changed. That's some pretty high-order apologetics. Also here's a protip for debate; when someone asks for clarification, it isn't an opening for personal snark about how feeble your opponent's mind is.

Regardless of how right or wrong you think he is, Pelosi has ordered an ethics probe, and he already admitted to using his congressional office phone for some good old-fashioned phone sex. He has without a doubt broken House ethics rules. He is, frankly, screwed. The longer he resists the inevitable the worse it will be for him and his party, so I'm being nice and post-partisan here. And hopefully the Daniels will decide the country is all sex-scandaled out (and falsely so) and decide to run in spite of their imperfect family life. I mean, compared to this what's a divorce where the canidate's wife runs off for a few years leaving the kids with the politician husband, who later takes her back when she returns in remorse? It sounds like a Disney movie compared to this.

Also here's an article from a Washington Post / MSNBC contributor (shame I have to cross-check authors to avoid well-poisoning fallacies of "oh that guy's on fox he's an automatic liar") that spells it out.

[Africa]

I really don't understand why you're defending him.

What me?

If so, once again you're displaying a remarkable inability to grasp what I'm ever talking about.

Your last post was a big spiel about how if Weiner did anything criminal then the law needs to be changed. That's some pretty high-order apologetics. Also here's a protip for debate; when someone asks for clarification, it isn't an opening for personal snark about how feeble your opponent's mind is.

No it wasn't; that's not what I said; no it's not; and given how you readily take everything I post in the completely wrong way, I can only assume you're doing it on purpose to be obnoxious.

[Bohandas]

..You don't see an issue with him sending pictures of his dick to people?

No. I don't. This isn't the 1950's.

[scriver]

There was an implied "unsolicited" there I did not think needed mention.

Also, why are you replying to a post made 4 days and 250 posts worth of discussion - explaining why this is worth seeing as an issue - ago?

[Bohandas]

It seems a question of loyalty. A man who is disloyal to his wife, which in many opinions is the highest loyalty to uphold, puts into doubt his loyalty to lesser obligations. And a man who lies to hide his disloyalties puts his word into doubt.

This actually illustrates an important point about something that seriously, SERIOUSLY wrong with America. I think that you are correct about the mindset that leads to this kind of thing being considered relevant; despite this guy being an federal elected official, there are many people out there who, for some reason that I cannot even begin comprehend, consider his loyalty to his wife more relevant and more important than his loyalty to his country and to his constituency.