Print

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

[Vector]

. . .

Yeah, I care.  The popup ads have no ability to sexually assault me.  Their state of undress says nothing about their next potential action.  The social norm exists, and in the context of that norm random dudes getting near you and showing off their junk has an entirely different meaning.

[Criptfeind]

Consent.

That's why.  It's not about infidelity so much as it's about sexual harassment and a lack of consent.

Where was the lack of consent?

Or, for that last post. Where was this anything about him getting near anyone? He was exactly as close to them as said popup adds.

[Darkmere]

Where was the lack of consent?

When you find it, I'd like to know too. I've seen plenty of fingerpointing, rage, and penis jokes, not enough evidence to make a valid decision either way.

[Glowcat]

Where was the lack of consent?

Or, for that last post. Where was this anything about him getting near anyone? He was exactly as close to them as said popup adds.

From various news articles it seems he basically started talking with them about politics and then SURPRISE DICKSHOT'd them. He wasn't physically close but pop-up ads aren't people interacting with you on a human-to-human level.

[Bauglir]

I thought the woman who got the photo that kicked this whole thing off specifically said it was unsolicited? At least, that's what I've seen in every report that mentions her, which isn't really a bad piece of evidence, even if many only parrot it to boost ratings. And, honestly, surely you have to ask "Where's the consent?" If you honestly think the burden is to prove that there was no consent... well. I'm not entirely sure what to say to that, so I'll wait for you to hopefully point out why that's not the implication.

[Bohandas]

Where was the lack of consent?

Or, for that last post. Where was this anything about him getting near anyone? He was exactly as close to them as said popup adds.

From various news articles it seems he basically started talking with them about politics and then SURPRISE DICKSHOT'd them. He wasn't physically close but pop-up ads aren't people interacting with you on a human-to-human level.

A lot of spam headers seem to be designed to make you think that you are though. But then when you open them there's a link to some porn site or an order form for imitation viagra...

[Bohandas]

I thought the woman who got the photo that kicked this whole thing off specifically said it was unsolicited? At least, that's what I've seen in every report that mentions her, which isn't really a bad piece of evidence, even if many only parrot it to boost ratings. And, honestly, surely you have to ask "Where's the consent?" If you honestly think the burden is to prove that there was no consent... well. I'm not entirely sure what to say to that, so I'll wait for you to hopefully point out why that's not the implication.

Nothing was done that requires consent. He just sent some racy photos, he didn't actually touch anybody or anything. That just makes him kind of a dick, not some kind of sexual predator.

[Fenrir]

If you honestly think the burden is to prove that there was no consent... well. I'm not entirely sure what to say to that, so I'll wait for you to hopefully point out why that's not the implication.

If you make an assertion, the burden is upon you to prove it.

Of course, I do not really care if there was consent; the man clearly lacks the emotional maturity and intellectual capacity to be holding a position that influnces the public in any great measure.

[Vector]

So, the way I see it there's a couple of things going on.

Dude being a douchebag, possibly illegally, possibly in an issue of consent
Dude appropriating funds/phone lines/etc.

These problems are kind of separate.

He should get kicked for #2, regardless.  That's being investigated right now.

I feel very unhappy about his character due to #1.  I cannot provide evidence.  But seriously, let's put it this way.  You're talking to a dude at a bus stop about random stuff.  Video games, politics, whatever.  Then he pulls his pants off, grins at you, and says "you and me... what do you say?"  As implied, that's basically what he did.

This is about implied leveraging of power.  In the real world, the power is the power men often have in this society to rape.  It's different on the internet, where the implied power is political.  Against any one woman, in private conversation, her word vs. his, he has immense leverage over her.

The reason why anyone can do anything is because he took it a step too far, by accident.

Nothing was done that requires consent. He just sent some racy photos, he didn't actually touch anybody or anything. That just makes him kind of a dick, not some kind of sexual predator.

Sexual harassment is about context.

So far as I can tell, this was sexual harassment.  That harassment does not require touch.

[Bohandas]

So, the way I see it there's a couple of things going on.

1.)Dude being a douchebag, possibly illegally, possibly in an issue of consent

2.)Dude appropriating funds/phone lines/etc.

These problems are kind of separate.

He should get kicked for #2, regardless.  That's being investigated right now.

Ok, if he was using a government issued phone to send those pictures than that IS, technically, abuse of his office and I would totally be ok with him being booted for that.

[Darkmere]

So, the way I see it there's a couple of things going on.

Dude being a douchebag, possibly illegally, possibly in an issue of consent
Dude appropriating funds/phone lines/etc.

These problems are kind of separate.

He should get kicked for #2, regardless.  That's being investigated right now.

I feel very unhappy about his character due to #1.  I cannot provide evidence.  But seriously, let's put it this way.  You're talking to a dude at a bus stop about random stuff.  Video games, politics, whatever.  Then he pulls his pants off, grins at you, and says "you and me... what do you say?"  As implied, that's basically what he did.

This is about implied leveraging of power.  In the real world, the power is the power men often have in this society to rape.  It's different on the internet, where the implied power is political.  Against any one woman, in private conversation, her word vs. his, he has immense leverage over her.

The reason why anyone can do anything is because he took it a step too far, by accident.

Sexual harassment is about context.

So far as I can tell, this was sexual harassment.  That harassment does not require touch.

Agreed on the appropriation of public funds/areas/etc. Agreed that the actions are untoward for a person whose life will be scrutinized every election year.

What I don't agree with is the "implication" being taken for "proof" that in every case this was an entirely unsolicited, out of the blue occurrence. I haven't seen evidence for or against that assertion. I find it unsettling that gender bias seems to be the culturally acceptable method of proof.

I find it unsettling for exactly the same reason it's easy for a woman to skip birth control and guilt a man into marriage from pregnancy. Or skip birth control, dump the man, and demand child support payments. Or have random children by many fathers and be eligible for more welfare.

I'm not saying what happened was proper conduct, I just haven't seen any proof that it was entirely unfounded, just undisclosed conversations and pointed fingers. At best, it's the socially accepted "truth" of what happened. At worst, it's partial guilt being shifted by playing on cultural gender bias.

[Vector]

I'm not replying to your post because parts of it make me too angry and I want to enjoy my chocolate in peace.

So, maybe later.

[Criptfeind]

Also, I am unsure about the 'leveraging of power' on a person over fifteen hundred miles away.

[Vactor]

I think it might be important to point out that consent and solicitation are two distinct things. 

To solicit something is to request it, to consent is to agree to it.

While it may or may not apply to this situation, I think its helpful to remember the distinction.

[freeformschooler]

I find it unsettling for exactly the same reason it's easy for a woman to skip birth control and guilt a man into marriage from pregnancy. Or skip birth control, dump the man, and demand child support payments. Or have random children by many fathers and be eligible for more welfare.

This is the point where I'd be calling you out for something if I didn't live so close to the bad part of town where I (regularly) see every one of these things except for the last one become true.