You’re really touching on a problem I don’t know how to fix. It’s basically impossible to prove things that leave little physical evidence and happen almost exclusively behind closed doors. Which means victims either have to accept the fact that we will never, ever see justice, or we have to speak the truth anyway, absent any sort of compelling evidence, risk our own reputations and credibility, and hope somebody will believe us.
It’s fucking shitty.
It was the picture. No picture, no resignation. Democrats didn’t want to see that picture in the 2018 midterms, and I don’t blame them. Franken posed for the picture, apparently on purpose, and he has no one but himself to blame. He did it at a time when he must have known he was going to run for the Senate – it was less than 2 months before he made his announcement to run. The other accusations certainly set up the narrative of a pattern, but the picture is something no one can hand-wave away (despite some folks, even in this thread, trying to do so).
A photo of a plainly-unaware-of-the-camera man, hands outstretched over the breasts of a woman not wearing body armor—yes. That would be evidence of misconduct.
The Franken photo isn’t that. The Franken photo is evidence of bad taste. Photos using sleeping or passed-out people as props are never as funny as those posing for them appear to think they are. But of course those photos, like the Franken one, are intended as jokes.
The jokes are stupid and unfunny; I can’t think of a single ‘posed with a passed-out person’ frat-house-style photo that was actually witty or that filled me with admiration for those posing in them.
Franken has apologized for the unfunny, poor-taste, attempted-joke photo.
But the unfunny, poor-taste, attempted-joke photo is not “groping”. It’s a failed crack at a joke. It’s in no way evidence of sexual misconduct.
Basically, though, it’s all you anti-Franken people have. So I suppose it’s not surprising that you’d cling to it so desperately.
You’ll have to take that up with Franken. You claim it was intended as a joke, but he says he doesn’t know what was going through his head. Pardon me if I believe him as opposed to some anonymous poster on a MB.
But the odd thing is that you think it would be OK if he thought it was just a joke. That just shows that he’s totally clueless about what inappropriate behavior is, so no wonder he “remembers things differently” than other people.
Call me anti-Franken all you want, but its’s not true and it’s nothing more than an ad hominem. If that’s all you got, then I guess that’s all you got.
Somehow you managing to read all that as “it would be okay.” ???
To reasonably-skilled readers, it was clear that I was not saying “it would be okay.” I was saying it’s “not groping”–which is not the same thing as claiming that it was “okay.” I said that the failed, unfunny joke was a failed, unfunny joke (rather than being evidence of sexual misconduct)–again, not the same thing as saying it was “okay.”
Do you see all failed, unfunny jokes as being evidence of sexual misconduct? If someone drops a banana peel in a hallway and yuks it up when someone falls, do you accuse them of sexual harassment or groping?
Eh. If it’s “not misconduct”, then I’m not seeing what’s wrong with calling it “OK”. Bad taste, not funny… those do not preclude something being “OK”.
But you can take that out of my post if you like, and the point remains: You say it was a joke, Franken says he doesn’t know. I’ll believe him, not you. But even if it was a joke, it’s no excuse. It just show’s he’s clueless about what is “misconduct” and what is not. It might, however, explain why he remembers things differently from the women who accused him. He thinks thing are jokes that most women do not think are jokes.
Better to be contrite and understand your mistakes than to be clueless about them. Fortunately, Franken doesn’t subscribe to your hypothesis, so he doesn’t fall in the latter category.
Because it would be “okay” as a joke. Do you not watch TV? Sexual jokes of that nature are commonplace. As long as he didn’t actually touch her, which is how it appears, he didn’t do anything hugely bad.
Sure, it’s crass, but no more so than those college pranks where they draw things on you when you pass out. It’s right in line with the comedy at the time. I’ve been watching episodes of Craig Fergussen’s old show, and even that is pretty sexual. And this is further back than that.
There’s a reason I said upthread that the picture is a bunch of nothing. It’s just too easily dismissed. It’s the allegation that was important. Granted, given her politics and the nature of the claim (one where it could just be a misunderstanding), it was possible to not think it was a big deal. (Though I still say he should have quit right then.) But there are now more accusations.
Democrats have been pretty clear that multiple accusations fall into the “where there’s smoke, there’s fire” category. And Republicans are really big on the hypocrisy claim.
I have to agree that it’s weird that you’re focusing on the one thing that isn’t that big a deal. It’s the accusations that matter, not a photo that could be taken by any frat member.
Do Franken defenders think he was an amazing comedian or something?
Franken says all the allegations are either false or happened differently than he remembers. Except the photograph, which can’t be denied. That’s the difference.
Much worse than just ‘bad taste’; bad taste is something like making a sexual joke that’s too much for your audience. There’s simply no excuse for using an unwilling passed out woman as a prop in sexual pics for amusement, especially when she’s someone you’ve already had conflict with. But don’t take my word for it, ask a soon-to-be-former senator: “I don’t know what was in my head when I took that picture, and it doesn’t matter. There’s no excuse. I look at it now and I feel disgusted with myself. It isn’t funny. It’s completely inappropriate. It’s obvious how Leeann would feel violated by that picture. And, what’s more, I can see how millions of other women would feel violated by it—women who have had similar experiences in their own lives, women who fear having those experiences, women who look up to me, women who have counted on me.”
It is sexual misconduct. Posing unwilling, unconscious women to make sexual jokes is very clearly sexual misconduct, and I feel sorry for any women unfortunate enough to sleep near anyone who thinks that using their bodies as props for sexual pics (even as a ‘joke’).
Using unconscious women who you know are unwilling to participate as props for sexual ‘jokes’ is not actually just a joke, it’s fucking wrong and not something that should be tolerated at all. Especially since in this case it’s not just a ‘joke’, but a mild form of revenge porn against someone who he was in conflict with. He did something hugely bad, EVEN HE ADMITS that he did something hugely bad, I’m not sure why people defend the behavior.
No, only the ones that involve using an unconscious, unwilling woman’s body as a prop for a sexual joke. If he made the joke with someone who voluntarily posed for the picture, no problem. But posing the unconscious body of a woman that you’ve had a conflict with for a sexual ‘joke’ picture that you know she wouldn’t agree to if she was awake? Yeah, the problem here is not that the joke wasn’t funny.
OK, so groping women when taking pictures is fine, as is using the unconscious body of a woman in a sexual pic for the sake of a ‘joke’ as part of a conflict with her? When you said ‘more concrete’, I thought you meant more concrete evidence. If you just mean that you think that groping and using unconscious women to make sexual jokes is cool, that’s a different position.
You can ascribe to me any motivation you wish. That’s the important take away of this entire story.
[nitpick] I agree that taking the photo was a dickish thing to do, particularly if it was indeed intended as revenge, but as far as I know, Tweeden has never claimed that she was passed out or unconscious at the time. She was asleep, but that is different from unconsciousness.
[/nitpick]
Perhaps he forced her to watch tape of his career on SNL, and rendered her comatose so he could work his dark and perverted plan upon her? Is career destruction and public humiliation too lenient, perhaps he could be broken on the wheel?
Maybe they could force him to recreate the picture with him as Tweeden with the Republican who will win the seat in 2018.
The SDMB, the only message board where people will argue that a closed-hand strike is not a punch, that being aware that another person took an action does not mean you know they took the action, and that someone asleep is not unconscious. Fortunately I don’t get into absurd semantic debates, I just point out that you’re making an absurd language claim not backed by the link you provided, and continue using ordinary English
A Republican Senator from a state where over 60% of the population lives in the Twin Cities metro area, in this hyper-partisan era? Surely, you jest.
HRC barely won the state, and Franken had to go to a recount to win his seat. It’s certainly possible.