In the case at hand, let’s agree to leave out any liability for what’s already happened, and focus on what to do going forward.
Right now the politician-spouse obviously knows about it. If he does not divorce his spouse, he has little ability to otherwise control that person’s actions. So if he refuses to take that step, then what do you do about it? Do you treat the guy like a supervisor refusing to fire an abusing employee? Or do you let him get away with “Uh, I’ll give him a stern talking to and make sure he understands he can’t keep on doing that …”?
Why is divorce the only thing he could do? He (or other state officials) could state publicly something to the effect of “I love my spouse but he should not be meeting with anyone for political purposes; he does not represent my political office or position; anyone meeting with him for political purposes should cease doing so and/or make it public;” etc. There are tons of things he could do (or the political institutions of the state could do) to restrict the ability of the spouse to inappropriately influence people.
As long as he’s married to that guy, and no matter what anyone publically states, everyone dealing with the guy will know that if they cross him there is a serious danger that he will bad-mouth them to his spouse which will likely harm them and their cause.
Being able to pose for pictures with people without grabbing their butts or chest is not a supernatural ability. Really, it’s not. I have managed it hundreds (maybe thousands?) of times in my life without much effort. I really can’t believe that someone is seriously arguing ‘it’s completely unreasonable to expect a man not to grab a woman’s butt or boob if he poses for a picture with her’. And family picture time must be EXTREMELY awkward at your house if this is true.
He’s done it 1000s more times than you, with perhaps 4 mishaps.
Contrast that to mall hunter Moore, where every woman and girl working there under a certain age could expect to be hit on. Or President Bush who grabbed women’s butts during pictures so often and egregiously he had a joke for it coupled with warnings to potential victims from his security detail.
Right, so you stated that if there’s an additonal witness testifying to groping behavior, you’d be more inclined to think that his butt-grabbing is not intentional, as long as the witness is male. So more witnesses = you think it’s not intentional, which doesn’t actually follow - Franken could simply enjoy grabbing guy’s butts too, even if he’s not sexually into them he may enjoy their discomfort. Or it could even be unintentional on the guy, but he slipped and groped a guy butt because he’s so used to grabbing butts it’s just reflex. Again, the idea that ‘more witnesses to the behavior means it’s more likely to be unintentional’ isn’t reasonable, and leads to the ‘everything anyone says, positive or negative, is a defense of my guy’.
No, it doesn’t mean that at all, no matter how much sexual harrassment defenders repeat that lie. And I’d love to put money against you on your guarantee, because I’d gladly drop a few thousand dollars on a bet of “politicians in general will continue to pose for pictures hugging people (some individuals may stop, but the majority will keep doing so)” vs “we will not be seeing any politicians hugging people to pose for a picture again”.
It’s perfectly fine to continue hugging to pose for a picture IF YOU DON’T GROPE THE PERSON. I’m not really sure what’s hard to understand. Don’t grab the butt, or boobs. It’s not hard to do either, I have bad coordination but there are decades of pics of me posing with my mother, cousins, and other female relatives in which I somehow manage to not grab their boobs or assess despite having an arm across their shoulders or around their waist, and I think most people have such pics. There are also decades of pictures of me posing for pics with female friends in which I gasp manage to not grope them. I even have lots of pics of me posting with women who I was involved with at the time, where they would not object to me grabbing their boobs or butt, but in which I didn’t because it wouldn’t be appropriate to the picture!
We aren’t talking about anything remotely close to a ‘witch hunt’, as I pointed out in my last post and you ignored. This is a case where a man has multiple credible accusers, one of whom has photographic evidence, so it’s not just a single uncorroborated accusation. And he’s not being forced into some sort of trial by torture, he’s getting investigated by an ethics committee LIKE HE REQUESTED. If the Salem witch trials actually required photographic evidence, and were investigated by a body that the alleged witch freely requested investigate the claims, no one would have been found guilty of witchcraft.
That’s a strawman scenario that bears no resemblance to reality that you made up out of whole cloth.
Well, not you, John, you’re non-partisan. But others in this thread have claimed the photo is positive and irrefutable proof of felonious invasion of boob. And have used that certain bedrock to bolster further accusations. “He’s guilty here, must be guilty over there”
You, by comparison, make no such claims, now or ever. As clearly evidenced by your quotes above. Might have sarcasm, don’t know, smoke is rising from my detector, and it is whimpering in pain.
I’m not interested in discussing me in this thread, but I’m honored by your attention, elucidator. Thank-you, but I must demur. We’re trying to focus on Franken, not yours truly. And I can’t, in good conscious, claim to be unbiased about moi.
I’m assuming neither you nor Fotheringay-Phipps has been in a marriage with a manipulative emotional abuser. In a healthy marriage, standing up in public to say those things would probably mean divorce; in an abusive marriage, it might well mean worse. There’s always the possibility the spouse is tortured by what his husband is doing and his own inability to stop it from happening.
Nitpick here, but yes, they might well have been found guilty of witchcraft. Puritans in Salem believed a witch could send his or her spirit to do the dirty work. It was regarded as spectral evidence. Photographic evidence, had it existed, wouldn’t have precluded a guilty verdict.
I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear. iiandyiiii says the innocent spouse has the moral obligation to divorce his immoral partner; if he doesn’t not, he’s complicit. You say it wouldn’t take a divorce, that the innocent spouse has only to stand up and say, in effect, my spouse is immoral and dangerous, so avoid him. I’m saying they’re both pretty simplistic.
Condemnation by extension–You’re married to this person, so if you don’t divorce or denounce him, you’re also guilty–is tricky business. I’d argue that a spouse who’s been abused isn’t necessarily culpable if he doesn’t report the sexual conduct of his partner.
When I was 21 at a summer job they made me the assistant supervisor of a small corndog stand. There was a female employee who felt as if she should have been promoted instead. In part not to make things even more awkward I twice invited her out drinking with coworkers. She declined and never indicated to me she felt this was inappropriate yet she went to our boss and claimed I was sexually harassing her.
At the time I was convinced she was doing this out of spite but perhaps there was a misunderstanding. I had an immature sense of humor and was certainly not opposed to flirting with coworkers. I’m glad our boss didn’t have the simplistic black and white attitude toward these situations that you are displaying. I can’t imagine what my life would have been like if I had been fired. That was the summer I met my wife.
Inviting a female employee to go out and have a drink with the group is not necessarily harassment. It could be, if a quid pro quo was on the table, but just “Hey, a bunch of us are meeting up for a drink later; would you like to join us?” is pretty tame. If she said “no”, and you asked her again every day for a month, that might be another matter.
I think what he was getting at is that it’s easy to not sexually harass females. It’s a lot harder to avoid a faux pas that could be interpreted as harassment.
