Let me see how quickly Stoid can back-pedal on this one:
Stoid on the “Clinton…What’s the beef” (Great Debates)thread, regarding the Paula Jones’ suit:
“Very, very male”? No. That would be very, very criminal.
Stoid, not only are you mistaken about sexual harrassment laws (yes, it IS a crime) but your opinion that a man exposing his dick and “requesting” a blow job from a subordinate is (wink,wink) “all in a day’s work” is flat-out ridiculous.
If you want to argue whether or not Jones’ allegations are credible, fine. But your opinion that this alleged incident should be, at worst, nothing more than an embarrassment to him is INDEFENSIBLE.
No, being caught picking your NOSE is embarrassing. Asking a woman to fellate you, in the presence of a police officer, is CRIMINAL.
Perhaps the sheer number of times you’ve been molested, raped, harrassed and assaulted has made you calloused to sexual impropriety. Or perhaps your job in the “sex work” field has made you believe that all men are pigs and shouldn’t be punished for their actions.
I’m a male. By making the above statement, **Stoid ** is more or less labelling me, and every other male on this Board. I’m very very male. I’m comfortable with my maleness. I’m also comfortable with the parts of me that most of society might brand “female”. It doesn’t make me a rapist. It doesn’t make me a sexual predator. It doesn’t mean my 9 year old daughter lives in mortal sexual terror and dread every single time she goes to sleep in the bedroom next to where I and my penis sleep. It just means I’m of the male gender. Period.
I am training to become a State Certified EMT. Because I am male, this *must * mean that if I treat a female patient who is not able to breathe and/or whose heart has stopped, that my hands would very well be placed on her chest to assist her medically, and might very well touch her breasts. I suppose that by Stoid’s rule of law, that would make me a perpetrator of sexual assault. Yes?
Exposing myself to another person-male OR female- and then requesting sexual contact is not “being male”. It’s called being sick. It’s a violation of laws, and it’s morally reprehensible.
So, I’m wondering where Stoid’s absolute proof is that committing that kind of act is simply proof of being “very very male”. Me, I am waiting for the proof.
AND, before this posting is percieved in ANY way as an attack, assault, harassment or vilification of any member of the SDMB community including but not limited to Stoid, let me say this: I think it’s atrocious that she’s been a victim. I stated the above thoughts without malice, and with no attempts to demean or lighten the portent of her history. I simply do not agree with her assessment of males. In NO way did I imply or intend to insult her past history, or her feelings on her own victimization. So, save the flames, I feel for her. I truly do. I just totally disagree with THIS portion of her argument.
Yours In My Malehoodliness,
Cartooniverse
" Packin’ A Small Penis And A Big Intellect Since 1962 "
Don’t know if I can add much, but from what I’ve read of her posts (as little as possible, actually), it seems every other issue is subordinate to her political position. I’d hazard a guess that if a similar claim had been made against Jesse Helms or Orrin Hatch or another easily caricatured republican candidate she would have jumped all over him for it. You’d think someone supposedly so “progressive” in her thinking would be the last person to be an apologist for such behavior. And I personally take offense at the “very, very male” line. Not all of us act like drunken frat brothers at every opportunity, fuckwad. In fact, some of us are actually individuals who have completely different attitudes toward sex and sexual harrassment than the easy and glib caveman characterization you seem to favor. Maybe you’re using your own personal bad relationships with the men in your life to make generalizations about all of us, I don’t know. But what if I said Paula Jones led him on by following him to that room, and that in so doing she acted like a tease, which was a “very, very female” trait? I’d get my ass kicked all over the pit, and rightly so, for such sexist bullshit. But what do you expect from Stoid? Everything I’ve ever seen from her is full of contradictions and double standards. And before you get it into your head that I’m out to get you for your political beliefs, Stoid, let me tell you I’m basically pretty far left of center in most of my ideology. That’s all for now - I’ll wait to read your excuses before posting further. But, IMHO, you’re really coming off like someone who doesn’t put much thought into what she says.
Did someone REALLY say that? What year is this? Have I accidentally walked into the wayback machine?
It’s not for us to say if someone else felt “traumatized.” And in some situations, it’s actually a WISE decision for a woman to choose not to be dragged through the court system and confronted with people who have exactly THIS type of attitude. The reason she waited three years was most likely because of women like the one who made that statement. Or maybe she was afraid of being ridiculed and further harrassed. These fears are certainly not unfounded.
Sorry, andros, but her “explanation” in that thread is the same kind of crap she’s been called on in her other pit thread: basically, she’s saying “I’m right, you’re wrong.” The way I read it, nobody else has any right to feel anything other than what Stoid considers appropriate. You can handle your boss wagging his dick at you and asking for head? Good for you. To some people Other people with different opinions do exist, BTW), it would be traumatic/upsetting/depressing/take your pick. I’ve yet to see her accept the validity of another’s reaction if it differs in the slightest from what her own would be. Self-centered and self-involved and lacking empathy, I think are the correct terms.
While I don’t think that Paula Jones is very credible, I think Stoid’s claim that it’s no big deal if your boss whips out Mr. Happy and asks for a blow job is ridiculous and insulting. If one of my managers did that, I’d kick him in the shins, tell him to go to hell, and you can bet your bunions I’d report the bastard. That’s just crass.
Hell, what if a teacher did that to a student? You don’t think a student would have the right to complain?
We don’t know for sure if Clinton did it or not, or the situation, since it’s been so twisted and screwed with and messed up. But if he did, that doesn’t exactly make him such a great guy. A skilled politician, and a guy who did some good things for the country maybe, yes. A guy I’d wanna be friends with? Hell no. But, I have my doubts about Paula Jones. Just because of all the crap that was slung around-it sounded like a publicity stunt.
As far as trauma, at the very least, it would be hella embarassing. Also, I don’t get what the appeal is about Clinton. I don’t find him goodlooking.
Good lord, I wonder what Stoid’s reaction would be had Bush done this.
Funny… for some reason I thought Stoid was a guy. Obviously, I don’t keep track of her posting. For me, I agree with her. For someone else, it’s not up to me to say. Who knows, maybe Paula Jones was so sensitive that this sort of thing could have easily traumitized her. I’m not. The manager of the restraunt where I got my first job used to try to lock me into the walk-in freezer with him. After carefully explaining that not only was I bigger than he was, but so was his wife, he left me alone. Hardly traumatized, just mildly irritated. But once again, that’s just me. I’m not going to say that every other female should act the same way.
It’s not so much whether Paula Jones was “traumatized” (I sure wouldn’t be, I’d be embarassed and pissed, but not traumatized.") It was more Stoid using the old “boys will be boys” excuse.
hate to wade in here. Agree for the most part with statements about bosses whipping it out etc.
Bill was the governor of the state, and in some respects the ‘boss’ of all state employees. However, if Arkansas is set up like Michigan, the governor while having the title would not have any real power of ‘bossness’ over the average state employee.
THe governor of MI has the ability to hire etc his own staff, and the department heads, but the general staff of the state serve under the Civil Service agreements, not the governor.
So, in any real practical sense, I don’t really agree that he was her ‘boss’ unless she worked in the governor’s office directly. I couldn’t find anything more direct about her employment other than “state employee”. Anybody got any more info on that?
If it happened the way Paula says, Were his actions deplorable? yes. Harrassment by a supervisor? I’m not convinced. Criminal? Not certain - since I’m unfamiliar with Arkansas laws, under MI laws, I don’t think so.
If a guy came to my house, unzipped, asked for a blow job and left after I refused him, I’m not sure that a criminal charge is possible. He wouldn’t have been trespassing. He wasn’t exposing himself in a public setting. He did’t threaten me. etc. (as a matter of fact, this exactly DID happen to me. It was in a house that was divied up into apartments, he knocked at my door asked if we could get together, I said “nope”, he left, returned a few moments later, naked, knocked again asked if I was sure, I said “yep, still not interested”, he left. I didn’t feel then that a criminal act had occured).
WTF, O??!!
Talk about setting sex-relations back a generation. I’m male. My wife has called me very male. It sure as hell wasn’t because I’m criminal! The association of my gender with assumed criminality to be one of the stupidest, most bankrupt generalizations I’ve ever heard.
I’ll speculate that stoid is desensitized, but when I put this to my wife’s vote, she (whom shares some of stoid’s experiences <yes, I got her permision before saying this> ) about had a stroke. Her response, once she regained her composure?
I second that: Piss off, stoid
wring, the charge would be indecent exposure, also a sex crime.
Um, don’t think so if it’s not in a public place. If you believe so, please show me. Cause as far as I know, it’s not illegal to drop your pants in a private residence.
** the cite specified the law you sugggested had been broken. To me,the relevant piece was ‘public’ area. Jones/Clinton did not occur in a public place. the other tid bit, we’d have to let the lawyers drag out, but I’d submit that the fact he was never charged, and instead a civil case was instituted suggests that criminal charges weren’t considered to be warranted in this case.
In any event, I don’t agree with Stoids assessment of ‘males acting like males’ . I agree that Mr. Clinton, if he did what Paula claims, was guilty of being a class A jerk. Did not feel that there was a boss/employee relationship, therefore no harassment issue. Others obviously disagree.
The facts of the individual cases in no way resemble each other, but that doesn’t mean that the same law doesn’t apply.
Part ‘b’ of the circumstances has nothing to say about public, and in fact, appears to be aimed at ‘other than public’ places, which would then apply in this aleged case. I’m pretty sure about that, but we’d need a AR lawyer to be absolutely sure.
Hi, Opal!
I think you’re probably right, here. I still think the guy’s liable for a ‘flasher’ rap. As for Civil v. Criminal charges, well that only means that Criminal charges weren’t pressed. Nothing about the action or it’s criminality (or lack thereof) can be determined by that, without much more info.
