Funny…I’ve never heard of the poet So long, dumbwad. Is that an Indian name, Pakistani…what?
Generally, they are public. And the Ryans’ records were public initially. But later, after Ryan decided that maybe he would want to run for office some day, he went to court and asked a judge to seal them. The judge agreed, although he had misgivings and said he feared Ryan was just trying to protect a political career.
After Ryan won the Republican nomination despite rumors about just what was in those files, a TV station and newspaper sued to get access to the files. Turns out the rumors, despite what Ryan was telling the public, were more or less true.
Trying to get her to one of those clubs once is nothing, but doing that three or more times after she expressed discomfort, is being, at best, a cad. After the first time he knew that she was not into that and yet he insisted that she go to these places. At best it shows that he was putting base desires ahead of his wife’s feelings.
To me this together with the statement made by Jeri Ryan’s mother reveals a worse character flaw. Sharon Zimmermann stated, “Jeri Lynn told me that she was tired of being told what to eat, how to sit, what to wear, tired of being criticized about her physical appearance and told to exercise.” His need to control her to the point that he drove her away is scary. It seems emotionally abusive. It makes me wonder if the reason he took her to those clubs was to try to make her do something she did not want, that the fact that she did not like it may have been the turn on. To me, needing to control someone like that is far worse than wanting to have sex in a public place.
He also indicated that they had the records, records that are normally public, sealed for their son’s sake. I wondered if it was perhaps that their son wet the bed or had some other problem, and the Ryans were each dissatisfied with how the other wanted to deal with it, and so it was mentioned in the divorce. Hiding your behind your child in order to hide your indiscretions is cowardly.
Also, he could not in good faith say that these were not embarrassing revelations. Many Illinois republicans are quite conservative concerning sexual values. He has to know this would not be received well and that the sexual nature of these allegations would embarrass many of his supporters, even if he was not personally embarrassed. He gambled that he could weather this storm, a gamble that the republicans might not have wanted to take if they had know before the primary. This taken together with the camera stalking of his opponent makes me think that we are very much better off without this man in public office of any kind.
This is not a simple matter of the press hounding someone over what is their private activities. First, having sex in a public place is by nature not private. Secondly, these were records that are normally public. Last of all, his having his opponent stalked with a camera so that he could not even have a private conversation indicates that he feels that a candidate’s actions warrant close scrutiny and they should have no privacy. It is hard to feel bad that he had normally public divorce record exposed to the public when he tried to deny his opponent the privilege of keeping privat even actions normally expected to be private.
While Jack Ryan may have behaved badly towards his wife, I have to wonder what her problem is:
The sight of people having sex makes her physically ill? I’m not buying it.
Hmm, a Hollywood actress dramatically embellishes her story to get what she wants in a divorce proceeding. Sounds more likely, to me.
Have you seen the people who go to swinger clubs?
Does this remind anybody else of Gary Hart telling reporters, “No hanky-panky here: follow me around and see”?
Another vote for “He’s a bonehead.”
No, I haven’t, but I imagine that Jack and Jeri wouldn’t be too hard to look at. Still, what is she crying and getting physically ill about?
See, over there? The really, really fat, hairy and pimpled naked guy with the cheap cigar breath and the dime-store cologne? He likes you.
You do? I’m flattered, or something.
Let me get this straight.
You want to take a woman, against her will, into a place where people have sex in public, expose her to the individuals, and ask why she gets upset?
Sharp. Real sharp.
I never said I wanted to take her into such a place. I still don’t believe her story, though. How many people in the real world get physically sick upon seeing someone have sex?
You’d be surprised.
Forcing someone to watch sexual acts can have profound psychological effects, in children and adults.
And your qualifications to make such a pronouncemnt are what, exactly?
Yours first, doctor.
None, in other words. :rolleyes:
SO, you’re saying that subjecting children and unwilling adults to sexually perverse images results in no ill effects and is a perfectly acceptable thing to do?
Who are you to decide what’s sexually perverse, as far as adults are concerned?
So you’re saying its OK?
Yes, whatever two adults do in their marriage is OK.
Even when one is forced to do it against her will?
Glad I’m not married to you.