IMO, the abuser should resign. Spouses shouldn’t be held responsible for the sins of their spouse. Only their own actions (which may be relevant here, I’m not sure about the details).
The abuser should suffer consequences. The spouse should only suffer consequences if the spouse aided, partook in a cove-up or otherwise tried to knowingly shield the spouse from justice.
No telling what the voters will do, but the party should not punish a person for actions that are solely those of the spouse.
I don’t see how anyone can “make sure” of this.
I agree with this. It’s extremely easy.
The people who have issues of this sort are not accidently touching people. The problem people like Franken have is that they’re in a world where the boundaries are somewhat blurred.
The abuser has no position to resign from. He used his connection to his spouse to accumulate political power of his own, and thereby intimidate the targets of his abuse.
[What may be confusing you is that both spouses here are male.]
So, if I’m an equal opportunity butt-grabber (I just like to fuck with people, regardless of their gender), then that’s OK.
I guarantee you’re exaggerating. Most people aren’t butt grabbers, and know not to grab butts. For the few that do, or the maybe larger group that thinks about “getting kind of close”, if they feel like the need to ratchet things back, then MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.
I think the problem is that gropers’ gonna grope. I was rebutting the idea that going forward all men are somehow going to be afraid to be around women. I think the only ones that might be afraid are the ones with urges to grope and touch inappropriately, and such men being afraid sounds like a good thing to me.
Okay, I misunderstood. The abuser should cease abusing and be prosecuted (assuming he broke the law) or otherwise held accountable (probably fired if he has a job, and sued by the victims). The spouse who didn’t abuse doesn’t have to do anything, unless he also behaved badly, in which case he should also be accountable.
Maybe it’s a California thing, be we hug a lot (men and women acquaintances). My hugs are brief (a second or 2), arms at shoulder height, and you don’t press chests against each other. It’s not unlike the European style kiss:kiss:kiss with the cheeks. You lean forward, and you keep it above the table. Almost always, the woman initiates the hug.
I will continue to hug in the same way, and I anticpate much hugging during the holiday season. I have no fears that I am crossing the line.
You hug your lover a certain way and you hug your acquaintances a different way. If you hug the latter like you hug the former, you’re doing it wrong (and vice versa!! 
).
I see no reason from experience or knowledge of psychology to attempt to predict a person’s motivations in a circumstance like playing a prank on a friend versus taking a photo with fans and admirers. Let’s turn it around, he could have easily grabbed her chest in the photo, but refrained from doing so, why didn’t he if he’s such a groper?
Sounds like you’ve ignored how the two young women interpreted the events, you’ve made my situation a fast one without much planning time, but given Franken a supernatural ability to pose with just about any person with any clothing with any body type on top of having lots and lots of time to line things up. How many times do you think I’ve picked up my daughter from another person? 100s? 1000s? Why are you giving me the benefit of the doubt in an ambiguous situation?
I don’t know either, but I imagine if you mix in a few false reports like Republicans have already been caught doing it’s a possibility. Anyway, I was just making an observation.
Well, gee, what could possibly have held him back? I’m sure he wasn’t at all concerned with waking her, since the whole point seems to have been to get a picture. And what a great picture that would have been with her awake?
Perhaps he didn’t “refrain from grabbing her chest” because it never occurred to him. Maybe he actually was making a joke, even his facial expression is a parody. Some guys are like that, make a lot of jokes. Not all of them are liberals, but few are conservative, because what good is a watering can to a cactus?
Which reminds me: anybody ever find out what happened to the photographer? No one went to the trouble to find him/her? Weird.
Are you referring to the witness? 
I assumed from the moment I first saw it that this is what I was looking at, but then you have to ask yourself “Why this joke” and “Why this target”? An interpretation that is relatively innocuous is he was making light of the protective effect of the flak jacket: There’s no boob to grope there. An interpretation that is resign-worthy sexual harassment is he had known Tweeden was upset about his behavior toward her and he wanted to stick this photo of her being groped while sleeping as a prank, but it’s more of a threat.
There are many other interpretations in between, perhaps Tweeden had been vocal about her concern of being groped so she announced she wore a flak jacket to protect her from the men, not shrapnel.
Perhaps they were making jokes about her wearing the armor all the time when nobody else ever did (Franken isn’t wearing anything) and one of the jokes was grope-protection.
Whichever interpretation we agree with, it’s mostly just a reflection of our personal feelings concerning the people involved, not the facts.
What I do know is Tweeden felt abused by some of Franken’s behavior and he made a thorough apology for his actions, is submitting to an investigation, is accused of something pretty mild, and has had his apology accepted by Tweeden. That’s good enough for me given I can never really know what happened.
Now contrast that with Moore, who is about to win the Alabama senate race, his behavior is to take a 14-year-old girl and get her to rub his dick. When that didn’t work out, he went back to the mall.
Y’know, I’m starting to wonder how come I have been for a quarter of a century actively involved in the political and communications world, and managed never to grab the ass/junk or stick my hand up the shirt of a member of the staff or public uninvited (never mind not coming on to any minors). And that’s mostly within what’s usually considered a touchy-feely culture… because even then that’s not what you do casually.
It’s not credible to me, by any means, that Franken’s actions (all of them!?) could be accidental. A massive conspiracy that recruited multiple women who had had interactions with him over the last 15 years, including recruiting a photographer/instigator on a USO tour, is more likely to me, than that these groping incidents were just innocent mistakes.
Yeah, that’s a good defense. You should send it to Franken and recommend that that he use it.
He may not have actually grabbed titty (we can’t say for sure) in this one instance where he was photographed (he may have only come a fraction of an inch from doing so with a sleeping woman), so that’s good evidence that he didn’t grab ass in other encounters. Yeah, that’s the ticket!!
Problem is that as long as the abuser is married to that politician, he has vicarious political power. And it’s this very political power that he uses to intimidate his victims. So what you’re suggesting is that nothing at all (short of criminal prosecution) be done about this situation, which has already resulted in several instances of abuse.
Wow. That is a complete mischaracterization of what you just quoted. But just out of curiosity, what do you suggest should be done, and how does that contrast with that of what andy just posted?
Not sure why you would say that. Are you referring to “fired if he has a job, and sued by the victims”? Those are suggested actions by private citizens and are of a punitive or tort nature. My post was about actions by the authorities in dealing with the situation.
I don’t know. I could see a consequence for the politician being appropriate, if he continues to enable the situation. Similar to how supervisors are sometimes held responsible for the actions of people who work for them, if they could have done something and didn’t.
But it’s a sticky issue.
If the non-offending spouse is “enabling”, then he’s “behaving badly”, which I included as a possibility, and should therefore be held accountable (if he’s breaking the law, prosecute; if he’s behaving unethically, remove him from office; etc.).
But he’s enabling by omission versus commission.
Spouses of powerful political figures using their proximity to accumulate political power of their own is pretty common. What he’s doing in this case is allowing the spouse to roam around discussing politics and the like with all sorts of lobbyists and activists, who are afraid to tick him off for fear of offending the officeholder. As long as he stays married to the guy, it will be difficult if not impossible to change that dynamic.
As I suggested, it’s as if you have a guy reported for egregious sex abuse/harassment, and the supervisor refuses to fire the guy. That would be a pretty serious failure on the part of the supervisor. But in this case there’s no official position, and “fire the guy” amounts to “divorce the guy”, because that’s the only way to remove the offender from his unofficial position. But are you prepared to sanction a politician for refusing to divorce his offending spouse?
I don’t believe that’s the only possibility. There are lots of ways he might or might not be enabling him aside from just remaining married. If he is enabling him in any way, actively or by failing to act, then that would be unethical and deserve sanction.
How much did he know (about his spouse’s political activities), and when did he know it, and what did he do about it?