Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 201 to 290 of 290

Thread: The Needle - Allegations and Closure

  1. #201
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,010

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Another one that confuses me a bit is the whole Weinstein thing. Yeah, the guy is a creep and was exploiting young actresses, even rape, so he deserves what he is getting. But, why were young women choosing to go up to his hotel room, what did they think was going to happen there? The exploitation goes a bit both ways, yeah, creeps have been exploiting young actresses and actors to get ahead, but I think there are also situations of young men and women intentionally using their sexuality to get ahead / jump the line. Some want the part, and will do anything to get it, that's not going to change, there are a lot more beautiful people who want to be actresses or actors, than there are acting jobs available - I wonder if there is some selective memory happening.
    Using your position of power or authority to coerce women to have sex with you doesn't mean the victims did what they did because they wanted to get ahead. They do it because it was the only option to continue their career. Have sex with him or don't get to be in Hollywood. Not really a choice for those who want to be actors or actresses.

    You should get hired on merit and how you fit the part, not based on if you'll have sex with someone or not.

  2. #202

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by alkeli View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by alkeli View Post
    I don't need to. There are already victims of lies out there already. But carry on in your perfect little life of assumptions.
    I'm not suggesting that there are not people out there that do lie about these things. But there are far more cases of things going unreported, undisclosed, and hidden, than there are false allegations. Nearly every single women in your life has been sexually harassed or assaulted in some degree. I am by no means suggesting that that means anyone should lie about what has happened to them for their own gain. I am suggesting that your overreaction, thinking that nearly any women around you might accuse you of something and be lying about is just trying to keep that power away from women. FUD to make it seem as if the problem is with the victim, not the accused.
    Really? Nearly every single woman hey? Funny because since this has been going on and has been a topic, my mother, cousins, aunts, sister, wife and inlaws have all been shocked at all these accusations, and none have been harassed or assaulted according to them, even my wife said that people have joked about stuff, but no worse than anything she would also say. But hey, I guess they're all a bunch of liars huh?
    Many women are just numb to the things that have happened, because it's so prevalent, and don't consider them to be sexual harassment or assault. The women in the Louis CK story weren't sure that him masturbating in front of them was a problem right away, for multiple reasons. I don't know your family and what has or happened to them. But for you to say not one of your mother, cousins, aunts, sister or wife has ever been groped unwillingly, harassed at work, or the numerous other kinds of sexual violence that don't include straight up rape is unlikely.

    Yeah so they're all liars right? Okay, classy. Sorry but not all of us live in isolation.

  3. #203
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,010

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alkeli View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by alkeli View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by alkeli View Post
    I don't need to. There are already victims of lies out there already. But carry on in your perfect little life of assumptions.
    I'm not suggesting that there are not people out there that do lie about these things. But there are far more cases of things going unreported, undisclosed, and hidden, than there are false allegations. Nearly every single women in your life has been sexually harassed or assaulted in some degree. I am by no means suggesting that that means anyone should lie about what has happened to them for their own gain. I am suggesting that your overreaction, thinking that nearly any women around you might accuse you of something and be lying about is just trying to keep that power away from women. FUD to make it seem as if the problem is with the victim, not the accused.
    Really? Nearly every single woman hey? Funny because since this has been going on and has been a topic, my mother, cousins, aunts, sister, wife and inlaws have all been shocked at all these accusations, and none have been harassed or assaulted according to them, even my wife said that people have joked about stuff, but no worse than anything she would also say. But hey, I guess they're all a bunch of liars huh?
    Many women are just numb to the things that have happened, because it's so prevalent, and don't consider them to be sexual harassment or assault. The women in the Louis CK story weren't sure that him masturbating in front of them was a problem right away, for multiple reasons. I don't know your family and what has or happened to them. But for you to say not one of your mother, cousins, aunts, sister or wife has ever been groped unwillingly, harassed at work, or the numerous other kinds of sexual violence that don't include straight up rape is unlikely.

    Yeah so they're all liars right? Okay, classy. Sorry but not all of us live in isolation.
    The irony. Worrying that all women are liars so you have to avoid them all, then fully believing your family.

    Do you really know that your entire family trusts you enough to share those kinds of details with you? Are you that arrogant?
    Last edited by Channing; 05-12-2017 at 09:34 AM.

  4. #204

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    When you look at all these famous (infamous) guys being charged with these offences you have to wonder what some of their parents are like. Really, what kind of upbringing brought them to think it's their right to be predatory towards women. Even worse, some of these guys who have been accused have daughters of their own. They really must have cess pits for minds. Who goes to work wondering who they are going to stalk that day and force themselves on. Got to be some kind of sickness right there. If not sickness one warped mind. Fantasize about it maybe, but actually pursue it, NO.
    Some of these situations are a little weird though, and some I think are very innocent.

    Take for example George Bush Snr in trouble for patting women on the bum. I mean, sure, that's bad, and you can't do it today, but I think he is from a very different generation.

    Another one that confuses me a bit is the whole Weinstein thing. Yeah, the guy is a creep and was exploiting young actresses, even rape, so he deserves what he is getting. But, why were young women choosing to go up to his hotel room, what did they think was going to happen there? The exploitation goes a bit both ways, yeah, creeps have been exploiting young actresses and actors who want to get ahead, but I think there are also situations of young men and women intentionally using their sexuality to get ahead / jump the line. Some want the part, and will do anything to get it, that's not going to change, there are a lot more beautiful people who want to be actresses or actors, than there are acting jobs available - I wonder if there is some selective memory happening.
    You'll notice that most of the cases were from actresses new in their Hollywood careers, not after they'd been around for a while. Some cases there was someone else present.

    And if you believe Hollywood, rich important people have top-floor suites will a full size office, several personal assistant, meetings one after another.... not much different from the main floor meeting facilities, only with a much better view.
    There can only be one.

  5. #205

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Another one that confuses me a bit is the whole Weinstein thing. Yeah, the guy is a creep and was exploiting young actresses, even rape, so he deserves what he is getting. But, why were young women choosing to go up to his hotel room, what did they think was going to happen there? The exploitation goes a bit both ways, yeah, creeps have been exploiting young actresses and actors to get ahead, but I think there are also situations of young men and women intentionally using their sexuality to get ahead / jump the line. Some want the part, and will do anything to get it, that's not going to change, there are a lot more beautiful people who want to be actresses or actors, than there are acting jobs available - I wonder if there is some selective memory happening.
    Using your position of power or authority to coerce women to have sex with you doesn't mean the victims did what they did because they wanted to get ahead. They do it because it was the only option to continue their career. Have sex with him or don't get to be in Hollywood. Not really a choice for those who want to be actors or actresses.

    You should get hired on merit and how you fit the part, not based on if you'll have sex with someone or not.
    It should be merit based, but I don't think its ever been that simple and I don't think it ever will be in these industries. People will exploit their sexuality to get ahead, just as people will exploit the sexuality of others. I'd like to see a case where someone complains about an actress or actor "offering up" their talents to get ahead / jump the line, as those cases happen as well.

  6. #206
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,010

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Another one that confuses me a bit is the whole Weinstein thing. Yeah, the guy is a creep and was exploiting young actresses, even rape, so he deserves what he is getting. But, why were young women choosing to go up to his hotel room, what did they think was going to happen there? The exploitation goes a bit both ways, yeah, creeps have been exploiting young actresses and actors to get ahead, but I think there are also situations of young men and women intentionally using their sexuality to get ahead / jump the line. Some want the part, and will do anything to get it, that's not going to change, there are a lot more beautiful people who want to be actresses or actors, than there are acting jobs available - I wonder if there is some selective memory happening.
    Using your position of power or authority to coerce women to have sex with you doesn't mean the victims did what they did because they wanted to get ahead. They do it because it was the only option to continue their career. Have sex with him or don't get to be in Hollywood. Not really a choice for those who want to be actors or actresses.

    You should get hired on merit and how you fit the part, not based on if you'll have sex with someone or not.
    It should be merit based, but I don't think its ever been that simple and I don't think it ever will be in these industries. People will exploit their sexuality to get ahead, just as people will exploit the sexuality of others. I'd like to see a case where someone complains about an actress or actor "offering up" their talents to get ahead / jump the line, as those cases happen as well.
    So just straight up victim blaming is how you're going to play this?

  7. #207

    Default

    ^No, I'm saying there can be victims both ways, it isn't always the ugly people exploiting the beautiful, sometimes the beautiful exploit the ugly to get ahead. I think both feed on each other, both are wrong, but both happen.

  8. #208

    Default

    A few points;

    I wonder how familiar people are to consent not being possible when impaired under the influence of alcohol.

    Basically everybody that is not celibate, or does not consume alcohol or substances has exposed themselves to allegations of non consensual sex. Technically basically any of you can be charged with rape at a later point in time. As the law is presently laid out. This is interesting as the vast majority of "hooking up" occurs while impaired under the influence and is non consensual.

    Further, there is allowance for an alleged victim to change their mind at a later point in time and retroactively perceive that there was no consent. Next, consent needs to occur at every junction of passionate activity. Kissing, holding, foreplay, intercourse and consent can be repealed, at any stage without using the word no at any time. Men are supposed to pay attention to any "subtle non verbal signs" throughout.

    Think about that a moment. A man in the throes or coitus is supposed to pay attention to subtle non verbal signs. To put this in perspective the male of the species, most species, can't think of much of anything else while engaged in sex. Two dogs could be screwing in the middle of a highway and the last thing the male will think about is getting hit by a vehicle. A male preying mantis will keep copulating as its head is being chewed off by the female mate. The male sex response is not ideally formed to pay attention to "subtle non verbal cues" while at the height of passion.
    Finally, "subtle non verbal cues" is a very subjective thing and are unclear, for instance being "non verbal" and "subtle". The standard definition of consent and non consent being so vague due to this that interpretation could occur in nearly every sexual encounter. Note that even if you had a written agreement to engage in sex signed and dated it would be meaningless.
    Last edited by Replacement; 05-12-2017 at 10:16 AM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  9. #209

    Default

    Age of consent.

    Completely irrelevant where there is no consent, but evaneo doesn't seem to understand.
    There can only be one.

  10. #210
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,010

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^No, I'm saying there can be victims both ways, it isn't always the ugly people exploiting the beautiful, sometimes the beautiful exploit the ugly to get ahead. I think both feed on each other, both are wrong, but both happen.
    This has nothing to do with beauty and everything to do with power or authority over someone else.

  11. #211

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^No, I'm saying there can be victims both ways, it isn't always the ugly people exploiting the beautiful, sometimes the beautiful exploit the ugly to get ahead. I think both feed on each other, both are wrong, but both happen.
    This has nothing to do with beauty and everything to do with power or authority over someone else.
    But someone can use their sexual power to gain control over someone as well. I think some of these ugly behaviors are learned. A man or a woman becomes a powerful industry producer or director, and all of a sudden people start offering things to get parts. In time, those people in power start demanding those things.

  12. #212
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    asia
    Posts
    2,324

    Default

    Moa wrote:

    "Take for example George Bush Snr in trouble for patting women on the bum. I mean, sure, that's bad, and you can't do it today, but I think he is from a very different generation."

    END QUOTE

    I'm sure I am not the only Canadian who remembers the controversy over John Turner patting women's bottoms in the 1984 election. He got a bit of a roasting over it, but it wasn't regarded as an irredeemable transgression warranting his permanent exile from public life, much less criminal charges. In fact, he was considered sufficiently unblemished to stick around for the '88 election, when he likely got quite a bit of votes from the Liberals usual following of middle-class feminists.

    That said, times change, and if someone did that today, I'd have no problem drumming him out of public life. Not sure I'd see the point in criminal charges, but I guess that's up to the victim.

  13. #213

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Another one that confuses me a bit is the whole Weinstein thing. Yeah, the guy is a creep and was exploiting young actresses, even rape, so he deserves what he is getting. But, why were young women choosing to go up to his hotel room, what did they think was going to happen there? The exploitation goes a bit both ways, yeah, creeps have been exploiting young actresses and actors to get ahead, but I think there are also situations of young men and women intentionally using their sexuality to get ahead / jump the line. Some want the part, and will do anything to get it, that's not going to change, there are a lot more beautiful people who want to be actresses or actors, than there are acting jobs available - I wonder if there is some selective memory happening.
    Using your position of power or authority to coerce women to have sex with you doesn't mean the victims did what they did because they wanted to get ahead. They do it because it was the only option to continue their career. Have sex with him or don't get to be in Hollywood. Not really a choice for those who want to be actors or actresses.

    You should get hired on merit and how you fit the part, not based on if you'll have sex with someone or not.
    It should be merit based, but I don't think its ever been that simple and I don't think it ever will be in these industries. People will exploit their sexuality to get ahead, just as people will exploit the sexuality of others. I'd like to see a case where someone complains about an actress or actor "offering up" their talents to get ahead / jump the line, as those cases happen as well.
    But in the case of Hollywood was it first old movie moguls or sex crazed starlets that established the "get ahead of the line" Tell all biographies are very mixed on this. Hollwood Babylon is an interesting starting point read on the sordid male/female relations in Hollywood.


    A different way to look at that is that some women, who engage in this casting couch advancement can arguably set the tone for this nature of interactivity and prescribed arrangement. So that other women that follow on the actress path are following into an industry where many men an women have furthered Hollywood sex. Some of the more notables, Mae West, Jean Harlow etc have even been described as, and agreed that they were, sexual addicts.

    Now this statement is sure to elicit the rote "blame the victim" respondents but the Human sexual act is largely an act of reciprocity. Most times its arguably engaged in willingfully and further to connecting, relationship building, or just for plain good fun. Given that, and in the relationship between Starlets, and Moguls it could even stated that both, historically, have groomed the behavior of each other.

    Additionally in numerous biographies across countless fields, male Professors, Athletes, Actors, Politicians, Astronauts, even Chess players have reported feeling very surprised, and in essence groomed, when females started throwing themselves at their feet. Many of these males being complete innocents and many reporting being virgins prior to their position of fame, power, and being seduced.

    So the inconvenient truth is probably closer along the line of established male female protocol and interaction than it is about specifically blaming the male of the species for being exploitive pig dogs in any and all endeavor.

    Further, is it "victim blaming" to hilite that females in history have sometimes set tones for established sexual interaction and protocol and in which subsequent females have been ensnared and groomed?
    Last edited by Replacement; 05-12-2017 at 10:34 AM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  14. #214
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,010

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^No, I'm saying there can be victims both ways, it isn't always the ugly people exploiting the beautiful, sometimes the beautiful exploit the ugly to get ahead. I think both feed on each other, both are wrong, but both happen.
    This has nothing to do with beauty and everything to do with power or authority over someone else.
    But someone can use their sexual power to gain control over someone as well. I think some of these ugly behaviors are learned. A man or a woman becomes a powerful industry producer or director, and all of a sudden people start offering things to get parts. In time, those people in power start demanding those things.
    The person in the position of power or authority has the duty to not have sex with a person they have that power or authority over. Because you can't legally give consent to someone who has a position of power or authority over you.

  15. #215
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,010

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    But in the case of Hollywood was it first old movie moguls or sex crazed starlets that established the "get ahead of the line" Tell all biographies are very mixed on this. Hollwood Babylon is an interesting starting point read on the sordid male/female relations in Hollywood.


    A different way to look at that is that some women, who engage in this casting couch advancement can arguably set the tone for this nature of interactivity and prescribed arrangement. So that other women that follow on the actress path are following into an industry where many men an women have furthered Hollywood sex. Some of the more notables, Mae West, Jean Harlow etc have even been described as, and agreed that they were, sexual addicts.

    Now this statement is sure to elicit the rote "blame the victim" respondents but the Human sexual act is largely an act of reciprocity. Most times its arguably engaged in willingfully and further to connecting, relationship building, or just for plain good fun. Given that, and in the relationship between Starlets, and Moguls it could even stated that both, historically, have groomed the behavior of each other.

    Additionally in numerous biographies across countless fields, male Professors, Athletes, Actors, Politicians, Astronauts, even Chess players have reported feeling very surprised, and in essence groomed, when females started throwing themselves at their feet. Many of these males being complete innocents and many reporting being virgins prior to their position of fame, power, and being seduced.

    So the inconvenient truth is probably closer along the line of established male female protocol and interaction than it is about specifically blaming the male of the species for being exploitive pig dogs in any and all endeavor.

    Further, is it "victim blaming" to hilite that females in history have sometimes set tones for established sexual interaction and protocol and in which subsequent females have been ensnared and groomed?
    Let's change your example to altar boys and priests. Or school kids and their teachers. What's the difference between those cases and this? The inconvenient truth is that there is no difference, people in positions of power and authority need to not have sex with those they have power over.

  16. #216

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^No, I'm saying there can be victims both ways, it isn't always the ugly people exploiting the beautiful, sometimes the beautiful exploit the ugly to get ahead. I think both feed on each other, both are wrong, but both happen.
    This has nothing to do with beauty and everything to do with power or authority over someone else.
    But someone can use their sexual power to gain control over someone as well. I think some of these ugly behaviors are learned. A man or a woman becomes a powerful industry producer or director, and all of a sudden people start offering things to get parts. In time, those people in power start demanding those things.
    The person in the position of power or authority has the duty to not have sex with a person they have that power or authority over. Because you can't legally give consent to someone who has a position of power or authority over you.
    So you are basically saying, that bands who sleep with groupies, are abusing their position of power? I think that's a bit naïve. For a lot of people, one of the reasons to work hard at your career, or be successful in your chosen hobby, to dream to be a sports or music superstar, is to be able to attract a better, or more, mates. Its, "sex, drugs and rock and roll", for a reason. That isn't abuse, its human nature, a homeless guy isn't going to easily attract Cindy Crawford to be his wife. I am not going to defend people who abuse young men or women - its wrong, but I do think there is a double standard sometimes, where young women and men prey on people with more wealth or power than them for personal benefit, I think in places like Hollywood its a rampant two way street, and we are only seeing one side of it at the moment.
    Last edited by moahunter; 05-12-2017 at 10:59 AM.

  17. #217

    Default

    No, there's no particular relationship there. There's also a difference between the relationship between a teacher and some random person who happens to be a student, and a teacher and their own student.
    There can only be one.

  18. #218
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,010

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    So you are basically saying, that bands who sleep with groupies, are abusing their position of power? I think that's a bit naïve. For a lot of people, one of the reasons to work hard at your career, or be successful in your chosen hobby, to try hard and become a sports or music superstar, is to be able to attract a better, or more, mates. Its, "sex, drugs and rock and roll", for a reason. That isn't abuse, its human nature. I am not going to defend people who abuse young men or women - its wrong, but I do think there is a double standard sometimes, where young women and men prey on people with more wealth or power than them for personal benefit.
    Bands with groupies is less clear of a position of power or authority than compared to a boss and and an employee.

    Go ahead and get good and attract all the mates you want. Just they have to be not someone under your authority. Or the mating has to wait until they are not under your authority.

  19. #219

    Default

    ^so the Beatles weren't in a position of "power or authority" over the groupies they slept with? I don't accept that, they had more power over those young women than anyone anywhere would have. My whole point is its just as bad to go to someone and offer your body to get a job, as it is to demand someone give you their body for a job. Both are equally wrong.

  20. #220
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,010

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^so the Beatles weren't in a position of "power or authority" over the groupies they slept with? I don't accept that, they had more power over those young women than anyone anywhere would have. My whole point is its just as bad to go to someone and offer your body to get a job, as it is to demand someone give you their body for a job. Both are equally wrong.
    No, the power lies only with the person who can say yes or no to giving you the job. They're the ones with the duty to say no.

  21. #221

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    No, the power lies only with the person who can say yes or no to giving you the job. They're the ones with the duty to say no.
    I don't think life's that simple, I think "sexual power" can be every bit as strong, if not stronger, than "job power", and I think has just as much moral obligation.
    Last edited by moahunter; 05-12-2017 at 11:34 AM.

  22. #222

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by alkeli View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by alkeli View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by alkeli View Post
    I don't need to. There are already victims of lies out there already. But carry on in your perfect little life of assumptions.
    I'm not suggesting that there are not people out there that do lie about these things. But there are far more cases of things going unreported, undisclosed, and hidden, than there are false allegations. Nearly every single women in your life has been sexually harassed or assaulted in some degree. I am by no means suggesting that that means anyone should lie about what has happened to them for their own gain. I am suggesting that your overreaction, thinking that nearly any women around you might accuse you of something and be lying about is just trying to keep that power away from women. FUD to make it seem as if the problem is with the victim, not the accused.
    Really? Nearly every single woman hey? Funny because since this has been going on and has been a topic, my mother, cousins, aunts, sister, wife and inlaws have all been shocked at all these accusations, and none have been harassed or assaulted according to them, even my wife said that people have joked about stuff, but no worse than anything she would also say. But hey, I guess they're all a bunch of liars huh?
    Many women are just numb to the things that have happened, because it's so prevalent, and don't consider them to be sexual harassment or assault. The women in the Louis CK story weren't sure that him masturbating in front of them was a problem right away, for multiple reasons. I don't know your family and what has or happened to them. But for you to say not one of your mother, cousins, aunts, sister or wife has ever been groped unwillingly, harassed at work, or the numerous other kinds of sexual violence that don't include straight up rape is unlikely.

    Yeah so they're all liars right? Okay, classy. Sorry but not all of us live in isolation.
    The irony. Worrying that all women are liars so you have to avoid them all, then fully believing your family.

    Do you really know that your entire family trusts you enough to share those kinds of details with you? Are you that arrogant?
    First, you missed the point of my original post. Second, you're damn right I'll believe and trust my family over any of my co-workers or strangers. Guess you don't have that great or close of a family if that's your point of view, so you opinion doesn't apply to my comments. And I'm sorry to hear about your untrustworthy family situation. Again, keep keeping it classy in your little isolated world. I'll keep your situation in mind as I ignore your further ignorant comments.

  23. #223

    Default

    Unlikely is not the same as untrue or impossible. Unlikely is just that: unlikely.

  24. #224
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,587

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alkeli View Post
    ...

    First, you missed the point of my original post. Second, you're damn right I'll believe and trust my family over any of my co-workers or strangers. Guess you don't have that great or close of a family if that's your point of view, so you opinion doesn't apply to my comments. And I'm sorry to hear about your untrustworthy family situation. Again, keep keeping it classy in your little isolated world. I'll keep your situation in mind as I ignore your further ignorant comments.
    i don't think it's a matter of trusting or not trusting family or that family are liars but it's equally true that this is something often lied about. not sharing or downplaying to "...stuff, but no worse than anything she would also say" doesn't mean a lack of trust in you and may not even be considered a lie by the person making the statement. it may simply be a lack of trust in themselves - or in their parents or siblings or teachers - and ongoing avoidance as a coping mechanism that has maintained for years or even decades. this is NOT meant as a criticism of your family members or of you - if you're correct you have an enviable relationship - but you need to recognize that even if face value is accurate for your family, it's not typically accurate for many others. and for those for whom it is not, it is the projections being made that a large part of why nothing is often said for years or decades. are there some "gold-diggers" looking for a quick buck or 15 minutes of fame? perhaps, but that's reason for due process, not for ignoring.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  25. #225

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    But in the case of Hollywood was it first old movie moguls or sex crazed starlets that established the "get ahead of the line" Tell all biographies are very mixed on this. Hollwood Babylon is an interesting starting point read on the sordid male/female relations in Hollywood.


    A different way to look at that is that some women, who engage in this casting couch advancement can arguably set the tone for this nature of interactivity and prescribed arrangement. So that other women that follow on the actress path are following into an industry where many men an women have furthered Hollywood sex. Some of the more notables, Mae West, Jean Harlow etc have even been described as, and agreed that they were, sexual addicts.

    Now this statement is sure to elicit the rote "blame the victim" respondents but the Human sexual act is largely an act of reciprocity. Most times its arguably engaged in willingfully and further to connecting, relationship building, or just for plain good fun. Given that, and in the relationship between Starlets, and Moguls it could even stated that both, historically, have groomed the behavior of each other.

    Additionally in numerous biographies across countless fields, male Professors, Athletes, Actors, Politicians, Astronauts, even Chess players have reported feeling very surprised, and in essence groomed, when females started throwing themselves at their feet. Many of these males being complete innocents and many reporting being virgins prior to their position of fame, power, and being seduced.

    So the inconvenient truth is probably closer along the line of established male female protocol and interaction than it is about specifically blaming the male of the species for being exploitive pig dogs in any and all endeavor.

    Further, is it "victim blaming" to hilite that females in history have sometimes set tones for established sexual interaction and protocol and in which subsequent females have been ensnared and groomed?
    Let's change your example to altar boys and priests. Or school kids and their teachers. What's the difference between those cases and this? The inconvenient truth is that there is no difference, people in positions of power and authority need to not have sex with those they have power over.
    This is simplistic. Many females have yielded sex as a weapon, in a position of "power" to do that. As I described in depth in certain industries, for instance Hollywood yielding sex as a weapon for career advancement had been the arguable norm for decades. Actually since the concept of Hollywood existed. So that a later day Weinstein is doing what well established in the industry, and much worse circumstance, for a century and not only aided by willing females but often case groomed by them.

    What I'm getting at here is where we have arrived at today is complex, but in some ways we're trying to apply, retroactively, normal concepts of assault, consent etc to industries that has been anything but normal.

    As to your reply priests are reviled for such action. Are Hollywood harlots that WANT to be on the casting couch, and countless have existed, reviled for such action? When one considers that sex is a weapon, and is a power, and is commonly yielded as such, then who actually is in clear control?

    Somebody like Marilyn Monroe was powerful enough to bag the most famous president in history, or author, sports celeb, playright. Which one was yielding power. its pretty unclear.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  26. #226
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,010

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    But in the case of Hollywood was it first old movie moguls or sex crazed starlets that established the "get ahead of the line" Tell all biographies are very mixed on this. Hollwood Babylon is an interesting starting point read on the sordid male/female relations in Hollywood.


    A different way to look at that is that some women, who engage in this casting couch advancement can arguably set the tone for this nature of interactivity and prescribed arrangement. So that other women that follow on the actress path are following into an industry where many men an women have furthered Hollywood sex. Some of the more notables, Mae West, Jean Harlow etc have even been described as, and agreed that they were, sexual addicts.

    Now this statement is sure to elicit the rote "blame the victim" respondents but the Human sexual act is largely an act of reciprocity. Most times its arguably engaged in willingfully and further to connecting, relationship building, or just for plain good fun. Given that, and in the relationship between Starlets, and Moguls it could even stated that both, historically, have groomed the behavior of each other.

    Additionally in numerous biographies across countless fields, male Professors, Athletes, Actors, Politicians, Astronauts, even Chess players have reported feeling very surprised, and in essence groomed, when females started throwing themselves at their feet. Many of these males being complete innocents and many reporting being virgins prior to their position of fame, power, and being seduced.

    So the inconvenient truth is probably closer along the line of established male female protocol and interaction than it is about specifically blaming the male of the species for being exploitive pig dogs in any and all endeavor.

    Further, is it "victim blaming" to hilite that females in history have sometimes set tones for established sexual interaction and protocol and in which subsequent females have been ensnared and groomed?
    Let's change your example to altar boys and priests. Or school kids and their teachers. What's the difference between those cases and this? The inconvenient truth is that there is no difference, people in positions of power and authority need to not have sex with those they have power over.
    This is simplistic. Many females have yielded sex as a weapon, in a position of "power" to do that. As I described in depth in certain industries, for instance Hollywood yielding sex as a weapon for career advancement had been the arguable norm for decades. Actually since the concept of Hollywood existed. So that a later day Weinstein is doing what well established in the industry, and much worse circumstance, for a century and not only aided by willing females but often case groomed by them.

    What I'm getting at here is where we have arrived at today is complex, but in some ways we're trying to apply, retroactively, normal concepts of assault, consent etc to industries that has been anything but normal.

    As to your reply priests are reviled for such action. Are Hollywood harlots that WANT to be on the casting couch, and countless have existed, reviled for such action? When one considers that sex is a weapon, and is a power, and is commonly yielded as such, then who actually is in clear control?

    Somebody like Marilyn Monroe was powerful enough to bag the most famous president in history, or author, sports celeb, playright. Which one was yielding power. its pretty unclear.
    Having sex with someone isn't a problem. Marilyn Monroe and the President do not have positions of power and authority over each other.

    "yielding sex as a weapon for career advancement" is simply sexual assault by those with the power to advance their careers. Just because it became 'the norm' in Hollywood, doesn't make that not true. And in the same way, those that require sex to advance in Hollywood are becoming reviled like those priests. Like Weinstien.

  27. #227

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    But in the case of Hollywood was it first old movie moguls or sex crazed starlets that established the "get ahead of the line" Tell all biographies are very mixed on this. Hollwood Babylon is an interesting starting point read on the sordid male/female relations in Hollywood.


    A different way to look at that is that some women, who engage in this casting couch advancement can arguably set the tone for this nature of interactivity and prescribed arrangement. So that other women that follow on the actress path are following into an industry where many men an women have furthered Hollywood sex. Some of the more notables, Mae West, Jean Harlow etc have even been described as, and agreed that they were, sexual addicts.

    Now this statement is sure to elicit the rote "blame the victim" respondents but the Human sexual act is largely an act of reciprocity. Most times its arguably engaged in willingfully and further to connecting, relationship building, or just for plain good fun. Given that, and in the relationship between Starlets, and Moguls it could even stated that both, historically, have groomed the behavior of each other.

    Additionally in numerous biographies across countless fields, male Professors, Athletes, Actors, Politicians, Astronauts, even Chess players have reported feeling very surprised, and in essence groomed, when females started throwing themselves at their feet. Many of these males being complete innocents and many reporting being virgins prior to their position of fame, power, and being seduced.

    So the inconvenient truth is probably closer along the line of established male female protocol and interaction than it is about specifically blaming the male of the species for being exploitive pig dogs in any and all endeavor.

    Further, is it "victim blaming" to hilite that females in history have sometimes set tones for established sexual interaction and protocol and in which subsequent females have been ensnared and groomed?
    Let's change your example to altar boys and priests. Or school kids and their teachers. What's the difference between those cases and this? The inconvenient truth is that there is no difference, people in positions of power and authority need to not have sex with those they have power over.
    This is simplistic. Many females have yielded sex as a weapon, in a position of "power" to do that. As I described in depth in certain industries, for instance Hollywood yielding sex as a weapon for career advancement had been the arguable norm for decades. Actually since the concept of Hollywood existed. So that a later day Weinstein is doing what well established in the industry, and much worse circumstance, for a century and not only aided by willing females but often case groomed by them.

    What I'm getting at here is where we have arrived at today is complex, but in some ways we're trying to apply, retroactively, normal concepts of assault, consent etc to industries that has been anything but normal.

    As to your reply priests are reviled for such action. Are Hollywood harlots that WANT to be on the casting couch, and countless have existed, reviled for such action? When one considers that sex is a weapon, and is a power, and is commonly yielded as such, then who actually is in clear control?

    Somebody like Marilyn Monroe was powerful enough to bag the most famous president in history, or author, sports celeb, playright. Which one was yielding power. its pretty unclear.
    Having sex with someone isn't a problem. Marilyn Monroe and the President do not have positions of power and authority over each other.

    "yielding sex as a weapon for career advancement" is simply sexual assault by those with the power to advance their careers. Just because it became 'the norm' in Hollywood, doesn't make that not true. And in the same way, those that require sex to advance in Hollywood are becoming reviled like those priests. Like Weinstien.
    The most powerful man in my lifetime didn't have a position of power and authority? lol he was the most famous, most powerful president in the history of the US. Monroe notched men on her lipstick case for fun. Often breaking up lives of others in her pursuit of filling her loneliness with one man after another. Albeit new age revisionism could have it that Monroe was a victim of Hollywood infamy instead of being a case of it. Both of these people had enormous power but in the specific case of the relationship it was Monroe that yielded the power.

    The Hollywood industry is not a clear case of employee/employer relationship either, Weinsteins babblings notwithstanding. Actresses could be anybody off the street coming for an audition. The same people that might be hitting up the Guns N Roses venue when they feel like being groupies. These could be the very same individuals doing the very same things. Offering sex and showing up in band trailers or hotel rooms.

    Note as well that at that point no monies are changing hands nor is there signed and sealed promise of hire. The actresses are not even contractors, they show up for auditions. Sometimes they have agents, sometimes they don't.

    You've hummed and hawed through the thread attempting to make unclear instances clear. In the case of roadies there is also monetary gain often involved. Groupies have been in videos, obtained proceeds, pay, have written books, get wined and dined and all inclusive tour expenses paid for. For many its a no expenses method of seeing the world and getting free flights to do that.
    Last edited by Replacement; 05-12-2017 at 01:33 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  28. #228
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    7,575

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by overoceans View Post
    Evaneo wrote:

    "At the moment AOC laws are 16 but what were they like here in Alberta say 35-40 years ago?"

    I believe AOC is federal, isn't it? If so, it would have been 14, same as everywhere else in Canada, 40 years ago. Though some of the caveats we have about being in a position of power etc might not have been in place back then. Or maybe they were, I dunno.
    I get all that but I'm mainly referring to allegations, that also run lives. Like someone said above, these she said he said allegations are hard to prove. I just talking in general not in the case of the Needle.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  29. #229
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    7,575

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by overoceans View Post
    Moa wrote:

    "Take for example George Bush Snr in trouble for patting women on the bum. I mean, sure, that's bad, and you can't do it today, but I think he is from a very different generation."

    END QUOTE

    I'm sure I am not the only Canadian who remembers the controversy over John Turner patting women's bottoms in the 1984 election. He got a bit of a roasting over it, but it wasn't regarded as an irredeemable transgression warranting his permanent exile from public life, much less criminal charges. In fact, he was considered sufficiently unblemished to stick around for the '88 election, when he likely got quite a bit of votes from the Liberals usual following of middle-class feminists.

    That said, times change, and if someone did that today, I'd have no problem drumming him out of public life. Not sure I'd see the point in criminal charges, but I guess that's up to the victim.
    Good old John Turner

    Sure if anyone did that today in the workplace, that'd almost be grounds for dismissal!
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  30. #230

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by overoceans View Post
    Moa wrote:

    "Take for example George Bush Snr in trouble for patting women on the bum. I mean, sure, that's bad, and you can't do it today, but I think he is from a very different generation."

    END QUOTE

    I'm sure I am not the only Canadian who remembers the controversy over John Turner patting women's bottoms in the 1984 election. He got a bit of a roasting over it, but it wasn't regarded as an irredeemable transgression warranting his permanent exile from public life, much less criminal charges. In fact, he was considered sufficiently unblemished to stick around for the '88 election, when he likely got quite a bit of votes from the Liberals usual following of middle-class feminists.

    That said, times change, and if someone did that today, I'd have no problem drumming him out of public life. Not sure I'd see the point in criminal charges, but I guess that's up to the victim.
    Good old John Turner

    Sure if anyone did that today in the workplace, that'd almost be grounds for dismissal!
    But the most interesting thing is that people are being dragged to the courts on revisionist grounds. On things that happened decades ago. So that a mad men office butt slapper in 69 could end up in jail if someone so much as figures they may as well press charges, maybe even get an out of court settlement on something that occurred 50 yrs ago because why not? John Turner could be charged tomorrow for some butt pat nearly 40yrs ago. There's no time statute of limitations.

    The difficulty is in retroactively applying todays mores/standards to yesterdays social milieu events when completely different behaviors, standards, modeling existed.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  31. #231
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,010

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    Having sex with someone isn't a problem. Marilyn Monroe and the President do not have positions of power and authority over each other.

    "yielding sex as a weapon for career advancement" is simply sexual assault by those with the power to advance their careers. Just because it became 'the norm' in Hollywood, doesn't make that not true. And in the same way, those that require sex to advance in Hollywood are becoming reviled like those priests. Like Weinstien.
    The most powerful man in my lifetime didn't have a position of power and authority? lol he was the most famous, most powerful president in the history of the US. Monroe notched men on her lipstick case for fun. Often breaking up lives of others in her pursuit of filling her loneliness with one man after another. Albeit new age revisionism could have it that Monroe was a victim of Hollywood infamy instead of being a case of it..

    The Hollywood industry is not a clear case of employee/employer relationship either, Weinsteins babblings not withstanding. Actresses could be anybody off the street coming for an audition. The same people that might be hitting up the Guns N Roses venue when they feel like being groupies. These could be the very same individuals doing the very same things. Offering sex and showing up in band trailers or hotel rooms.

    Note as well that at that point no monies are changing hands nor is there signed and sealed promise of hire. The actresses are not even contractors, they show up for auditions. Sometimes they have agents, sometimes they don't.

    You've hummed and hawed through the thread attempting to make unclear instances clear. In the case of roadies there is also monetary gain often involved. Groupies have been in videos, obtained proceeds, pay, have written books, get wined and dined and all inclusive tour expenses paid for.
    The legal definitions of what having authority and power over others isn't a clear definition because it is complex. I get that, and I am very much trying to simplify this and people keep throwing edge cases up saying, look here look here, in THIS case, the women is using sex as weapon and some helpless guy is the victim.

    Well no, in some cases neither person is a victim. Like JFK and Munroe, both super famous celebrities at the height of their stardom. Or in situations where there is no clear link between the advancement or not like in the groupie situation. The situation would need to be judged on specific circumstances, not a bunch of hypotheticals.

    Again, I'm not sure what your point is here. What are you suggesting?

    Moa was trying to suggest that sometimes it's the women's fault and a man is a victim because she uses sex to get advancement. He's clearly wrong because all the power remains with the person who can actually provide the advancement or not.

  32. #232

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    Moa was trying to suggest that sometimes it's the women's fault and a man is a victim because she uses sex to get advancement. He's clearly wrong because all the power remains with the person who can actually provide the advancement or not.
    I don't know why you are suggesting this is a women or a male problem, it applies equally to gay men (no women involved) and gay women (no men involved). And, I hate to break it to you, but there are people who use their sexual power to advance their careers unfairly, there are people who sleep their way to the top. By your reasoning, that's totally acceptable because they are the one's being victimized, its entirely the fault of the people they are sleeping with. That's not how human sexuality works, people get used, sometimes even people in senior positions.
    Last edited by moahunter; 05-12-2017 at 01:56 PM.

  33. #233
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    7,575

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by overoceans View Post
    Moa wrote:

    "Take for example George Bush Snr in trouble for patting women on the bum. I mean, sure, that's bad, and you can't do it today, but I think he is from a very different generation."

    END QUOTE

    I'm sure I am not the only Canadian who remembers the controversy over John Turner patting women's bottoms in the 1984 election. He got a bit of a roasting over it, but it wasn't regarded as an irredeemable transgression warranting his permanent exile from public life, much less criminal charges. In fact, he was considered sufficiently unblemished to stick around for the '88 election, when he likely got quite a bit of votes from the Liberals usual following of middle-class feminists.

    That said, times change, and if someone did that today, I'd have no problem drumming him out of public life. Not sure I'd see the point in criminal charges, but I guess that's up to the victim.
    Good old John Turner

    Sure if anyone did that today in the workplace, that'd almost be grounds for dismissal!
    But the most interesting thing is that people are being dragged to the courts on revisionist grounds. On things that happened decades ago. So that a mad men office butt slapper in 69 could end up in jail if someone so much as figures they may as well press charges, maybe even get an out of court settlement on something that occurred 50 yrs ago because why not? John Turner could be charged tomorrow for some butt pat nearly 40yrs ago. There's no time statute of limitations.

    The difficulty is in retroactively applying todays mores/standards to yesterdays social milieu events when completely different behaviors, standards, modeling existed.
    At least somebody gets it..ty
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  34. #234
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,010

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    Moa was trying to suggest that sometimes it's the women's fault and a man is a victim because she uses sex to get advancement. He's clearly wrong because all the power remains with the person who can actually provide the advancement or not.
    I don't know why you are suggesting this is a women or a male problem, it applies equally to gay men (no women involved) and gay women (no men involved). And, I hate to break it to you, but there are people who use their sexual power to advance their careers unfairly, there are people who sleep their way to the top. By your reasoning, that's totally acceptable because they are the one's being victimized, its entirely the fault of the people they are sleeping with. That's not how human sexuality works, people get used, sometimes even people in senior positions.
    Your right, I certainly don't intend to gender this as much as I have. Mostly I was replying to people who had gendered it, or I fell into the hetronormative trap, but I agree. This all applies any gender to any gender.

    As to the people who sleep their way to the top, in no way is that acceptable (what the people in power did), and it is the women being victimized. You keep suggesting it's people using their 'sexual power' that somehow earns them a new job or something. Can you provide an example? Or is this just a stereotype you believe in? That the person who sleeps to the top is fine, nothing wrong and the experience hasn't affected them.

    Maybe read this? http://theweek.com/articles/731461/weinstein-women-who-benefited

  35. #235
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    7,575

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    Moa was trying to suggest that sometimes it's the women's fault and a man is a victim because she uses sex to get advancement. He's clearly wrong because all the power remains with the person who can actually provide the advancement or not.
    I don't know why you are suggesting this is a women or a male problem, it applies equally to gay men (no women involved) and gay women (no men involved). And, I hate to break it to you, but there are people who use their sexual power to advance their careers unfairly, there are people who sleep their way to the top. By your reasoning, that's totally acceptable because they are the one's being victimized, its entirely the fault of the people they are sleeping with. That's not how human sexuality works, people get used, sometimes even people in senior positions.
    All falls under sexual harrasmanent. I'm sure many businesses/offices here in Edmonton (under work place safety), have posted certain codes of conduct. If not then imo they should post them. So what defines sexual harassment? Flirting among employees? Or how about in the case of sexual assault? I've worked in several offices here in the city where when women wear perfume, some people get allergic to it. My last super had to send someone home because she her perfume was so harsh. It s a small office. Is that a form of sexual assault? Don't even get me started on tattoos.

    Most of us know what sexual assault and sexual harassment is and I think its all part of life skills. Some taught in our schools? But I think this needs to be posted in the work place, especially if someone works in a office or in retail.

    If someone can make a soft comment saying "not my idea of a threesome" and get admonished over it, just an example from where I'm coming from. I don't know, just tossing this out there.
    Last edited by envaneo; 05-12-2017 at 02:22 PM.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  36. #236
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Crawford Plains, Millwoods since 1985
    Posts
    2,736

    Default

    Some of the White Knight cucks here want to blame men for absolutely everything, even when a woman makes a decision apparently it's still the man's fault.

    Have any of you actually thought for a moment that women are attracted to power, money and status? That a women can & will flirt and come on to a man sexually because of attraction and then the cucks here on this forum spin it that it's all the man's fault when sexual activity occurs?

    Give me a freaking break.

    Why do you insist on treating women like little children that cannot make their own decisions?
    Time spent in the Rockies is never deducted from the rest of your life

  37. #237
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    7,575

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kitlope View Post
    Some of the White Knight cucks here want to blame men for absolutely everything, even when a woman makes a decision apparently it's still the man's fault.

    Have any of you actually thought for a moment that women are attracted to power, money and status? That a women can & will flirt and come on to a man sexually because of attraction and then the cucks here on this forum spin it that it's all the man's fault when sexual activity occurs?

    Give me a freaking break.

    Why do you insist on treating women like little children that cannot make their own decisions?

    Right on the money.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  38. #238
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,010

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Kitlope View Post
    Some of the White Knight cucks here want to blame men for absolutely everything, even when a woman makes a decision apparently it's still the man's fault.

    Have any of you actually thought for a moment that women are attracted to power, money and status? That a women can & will flirt and come on to a man sexually because of attraction and then the cucks here on this forum spin it that it's all the man's fault when sexual activity occurs?

    Give me a freaking break.

    Why do you insist on treating women like little children that cannot make their own decisions?

    Right on the money.
    lol. Just keep trolling. (both of you)

  39. #239
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    7,575

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Kitlope View Post
    Some of the White Knight cucks here want to blame men for absolutely everything, even when a woman makes a decision apparently it's still the man's fault.

    Have any of you actually thought for a moment that women are attracted to power, money and status? That a women can & will flirt and come on to a man sexually because of attraction and then the cucks here on this forum spin it that it's all the man's fault when sexual activity occurs?

    Give me a freaking break.

    Why do you insist on treating women like little children that cannot make their own decisions?

    Right on the money.
    lol. Just keep trolling. (both of you)
    How is that trolling, contributing to the conversation because you don't agree?

    Maybe your last comment was trolling, honestly. Yeesh.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  40. #240
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,010

    Default

    ^he's not contributing to the conversation. He's name calling and saying nothing of substance about anything that's been discussed. No one has said that people can't flirt with each other and have sex. Yet that's his main idea?

    And so what are you agreeing with when you say they are right on the money?

    Or this post:

    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    All falls under sexual harrasmanent. I'm sure many businesses/offices here in Edmonton (under work place safety), have posted certain codes of conduct. If not then imo they should post them. So what defines sexual harassment? Flirting among employees? Or how about in the case of sexual assault? I've worked in several offices here in the city where when women wear perfume, some people get allergic to it. My last super had to send someone home because she her perfume was so harsh. It s a small office. Is that a form of sexual assault? Don't even get me started on tattoos.

    Most of us know what sexual assault and sexual harassment is and I think its all part of life skills. Some taught in our schools? But I think this needs to be posted in the work place, especially if someone works in a office or in retail.

    If someone can make a soft comment saying "not my idea of a threesome" and get admonished over it, just an example from where I'm coming from. I don't know, just tossing this out there.
    what are you even saying? I can't understand what point you're trying to make, or weird statement like is making someone not wear perfume sexual assault? WTF. no, it's not. And yeah, don't get started on tattoos because there is a small window on how that might apply and you're likely to miss it completely.

    Most people DON'T know what sexual assault and harassment are. It's not well taught in schools.

    Not sure what your last line in that quote is trying to say either. It feels like you're missing every couple sentences to finish your actual thoughts?

    So yes, trolling. Because you're not putting enough effort in to make coherent points.

  41. #241

    Default

    Amen, Channing.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  42. #242
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    7,575

    Default

    Bold is mine

    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    ^he's not contributing to the conversation. He's name calling and saying nothing of substance about anything that's been discussed. No one has said that people can't flirt with each other and have sex. Yet that's his main idea?

    And so what are you agreeing with when you say they are right on the money?

    You obviously missed the point. Don't be so hard on yourself, it happens.

    Or this post:

    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    All falls under sexual harrasmanent. I'm sure many businesses/offices here in Edmonton (under work place safety), have posted certain codes of conduct. If not then imo they should post them. So what defines sexual harassment? Flirting among employees? Or how about in the case of sexual assault? I've worked in several offices here in the city where when women wear perfume, some people get allergic to it. My last super had to send someone home because she her perfume was so harsh. It s a small office. Is that a form of sexual assault? Don't even get me started on tattoos.

    Most of us know what sexual assault and sexual harassment is and I think its all part of life skills. Some taught in our schools? But I think this needs to be posted in the work place, especially if someone works in a office or in retail.

    If someone can make a soft comment saying "not my idea of a threesome" and get admonished over it, just an example from where I'm coming from. I don't know, just tossing this out there.
    what are you even saying? I can't understand what point you're trying to make, or weird statement like is making someone not wear perfume sexual assault? WTF. no, it's not. And yeah, don't get started on tattoos because there is a small window on how that might apply and you're likely to miss it completely.

    Fair enough, it happens.

    Most people DON'T know what sexual assault and harassment are. It's not well taught in schools.

    By now its been in the media enough, most people know.

    Not sure what your last line in that quote is trying to say either. It feels like you're missing every couple sentences to finish your actual thoughts?

    If you can't read my sentences or understand them that's on you. I thought I was being quite clear.

    So yes, trolling. Because you're not putting enough effort in to make coherent points.
    I think my points are coherent enough. They might be a bit rushed in spots.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  43. #243

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Kitlope View Post
    Some of the White Knight cucks here want to blame men for absolutely everything, even when a woman makes a decision apparently it's still the man's fault.

    Have any of you actually thought for a moment that women are attracted to power, money and status? That a women can & will flirt and come on to a man sexually because of attraction and then the cucks here on this forum spin it that it's all the man's fault when sexual activity occurs?

    Give me a freaking break.

    Why do you insist on treating women like little children that cannot make their own decisions?

    Right on the money.
    Good point. In some situations (not all), people are making an adult decision, that they want the job so badly, that they are willing to provide some sort of sexual service. I think its wrong that they get asked to do that, but its equally as wrong, I would have thought, to agree to it (basically you are "jumping" the line, intentionally, and you are condoning the behavior, by agreeing to it). Just because you are or aren't as powerful, doesn't make you any less of an adult responsible for your actions.

  44. #244

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Kitlope View Post
    Some of the White Knight cucks here want to blame men for absolutely everything, even when a woman makes a decision apparently it's still the man's fault.

    Have any of you actually thought for a moment that women are attracted to power, money and status? That a women can & will flirt and come on to a man sexually because of attraction and then the cucks here on this forum spin it that it's all the man's fault when sexual activity occurs?

    Give me a freaking break.

    Why do you insist on treating women like little children that cannot make their own decisions?

    Right on the money.
    lol. Just keep trolling. (both of you)
    Says the poster that engages in blatant strawman attacks, inference, and name calling. (oh excuse pun, should that be strawperson?) anytime any suggestion of gender comes up in relation to anything. You're such a zealot on these issues I doubt you have any awareness of how YOU come off in these exchanges.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  45. #245
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,010

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    Fair enough, it happens.
    Fair enough what happens?

    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    Most people DON'T know what sexual assault and harassment are. It's not well taught in schools.

    By now its been in the media enough, most people know.
    People know that it exists, but don't actually understand it. See: this thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    If you can't read my sentences or understand them that's on you. I thought I was being quite clear.
    I think it's on you to make your statements understandable. Re-read that last sentences. Try it out loud. Ask a friend. Do they understand it?
    Last edited by Channing; 05-12-2017 at 04:49 PM.

  46. #246

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    When you look at all these famous (infamous) guys being charged with these offences you have to wonder what some of their parents are like. Really, what kind of upbringing brought them to think it's their right to be predatory towards women. Even worse, some of these guys who have been accused have daughters of their own. They really must have cess pits for minds. Who goes to work wondering who they are going to stalk that day and force themselves on. Got to be some kind of sickness right there. If not sickness one warped mind. Fantasize about it maybe, but actually pursue it, NO.
    Some of these situations are a little weird though, and some I think are very innocent.

    Take for example George Bush Snr in trouble for patting women on the bum. I mean, sure, that's bad, and you can't do it today, but I think he is from a very different generation.

    Another one that confuses me a bit is the whole Weinstein thing. Yeah, the guy is a creep and was exploiting young actresses, even rape, so he deserves what he is getting. But, why were young women choosing to go up to his hotel room, what did they think was going to happen there? The exploitation goes a bit both ways, yeah, creeps have been exploiting young actresses and actors who want to get ahead, but I think there are also situations of young men and women intentionally using their sexuality to get ahead / jump the line. Some want the part, and will do anything to get it, that's not going to change, there are a lot more beautiful people who want to be actresses or actors, than there are acting jobs available - I wonder if there is some selective memory happening.
    You'll notice that most of the cases were from actresses new in their Hollywood careers, not after they'd been around for a while. Some cases there was someone else present.

    And if you believe Hollywood, rich important people have top-floor suites will a full size office, several personal assistant, meetings one after another.... not much different from the main floor meeting facilities, only with a much better view.
    It's more or less victim blaming saying that women going to men's hotel rooms should know what to expect. A lot of hotel rooms are not just one room with a bed or two in them. Some of them a suites and used for legitimate purposes. Rape or any form of sexual abuse should not be the key to success. What would the mother of Weinstein say if you asked her how her pig of a son came to be like that. Weinstein did not just rape in hotel rooms. By all accounts he pulled some weird stunts off in restaurants, parties etc. The thing is with all these high profile morons being called out for sexual abuse and perversions it seems to be putting the other 99% of guys under a microscope as well. If this keeps up the pendulum is going to swing so far that the sexes will end up being separated in schools/churches/work place/gym etc. Then we have become the middle east.
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

  47. #247
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    3,768

    Default

    More.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/j...b07324e84025ea


    Like a lamb to slaughter.



    It's good to be the king.

  48. #248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    When you look at all these famous (infamous) guys being charged with these offences you have to wonder what some of their parents are like. Really, what kind of upbringing brought them to think it's their right to be predatory towards women. Even worse, some of these guys who have been accused have daughters of their own. They really must have cess pits for minds. Who goes to work wondering who they are going to stalk that day and force themselves on. Got to be some kind of sickness right there. If not sickness one warped mind. Fantasize about it maybe, but actually pursue it, NO.
    Some of these situations are a little weird though, and some I think are very innocent.

    Take for example George Bush Snr in trouble for patting women on the bum. I mean, sure, that's bad, and you can't do it today, but I think he is from a very different generation.

    Another one that confuses me a bit is the whole Weinstein thing. Yeah, the guy is a creep and was exploiting young actresses, even rape, so he deserves what he is getting. But, why were young women choosing to go up to his hotel room, what did they think was going to happen there? The exploitation goes a bit both ways, yeah, creeps have been exploiting young actresses and actors who want to get ahead, but I think there are also situations of young men and women intentionally using their sexuality to get ahead / jump the line. Some want the part, and will do anything to get it, that's not going to change, there are a lot more beautiful people who want to be actresses or actors, than there are acting jobs available - I wonder if there is some selective memory happening.
    You'll notice that most of the cases were from actresses new in their Hollywood careers, not after they'd been around for a while. Some cases there was someone else present.

    And if you believe Hollywood, rich important people have top-floor suites will a full size office, several personal assistant, meetings one after another.... not much different from the main floor meeting facilities, only with a much better view.
    It's more or less victim blaming saying that women going to men's hotel rooms should know what to expect. A lot of hotel rooms are not just one room with a bed or two in them. Some of them a suites and used for legitimate purposes. Rape or any form of sexual abuse should not be the key to success. What would the mother of Weinstein say if you asked her how her pig of a son came to be like that. Weinstein did not just rape in hotel rooms. By all accounts he pulled some weird stunts off in restaurants, parties etc. The thing is with all these high profile morons being called out for sexual abuse and perversions it seems to be putting the other 99% of guys under a microscope as well. If this keeps up the pendulum is going to swing so far that the sexes will end up being separated in schools/churches/work place/gym etc. Then we have become the middle east.
    Power corrupts.

    Yes hotels are often used for meeting places, sessions, etc. when people have to fly in from out of town.

    It is victim blaming but that is a very common tactic/advice. Lock your doors on your house, always lock your car doors, don’t leave valuables in plain sight, drive defensively, etc.
    Last edited by KC; 05-12-2017 at 05:58 PM.

  49. #249
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    7,575

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    Fair enough, it happens.
    Fair enough what happens?

    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    Most people DON'T know what sexual assault and harassment are. It's not well taught in schools.

    By now its been in the media enough, most people know.
    People know that it exists, but don't actually understand it. See: this thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    If you can't read my sentences or understand them that's on you. I thought I was being quite clear.
    I think it's on you to make your statements understandable. Re-read that last sentences. Try it out loud. Ask a friend. Do they understand it?
    My posts today were slightly rushed. I'm having one of those hard to get organize days.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  50. #250
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    7,575

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Kitlope View Post
    Some of the White Knight cucks here want to blame men for absolutely everything, even when a woman makes a decision apparently it's still the man's fault.

    Have any of you actually thought for a moment that women are attracted to power, money and status? That a women can & will flirt and come on to a man sexually because of attraction and then the cucks here on this forum spin it that it's all the man's fault when sexual activity occurs?

    Give me a freaking break.

    Why do you insist on treating women like little children that cannot make their own decisions?

    Right on the money.
    lol. Just keep trolling. (both of you)
    Says the poster that engages in blatant strawman attacks, inference, and name calling. (oh excuse pun, should that be strawperson?) anytime any suggestion of gender comes up in relation to anything. You're such a zealot on these issues I doubt you have any awareness of how YOU come off in these exchanges.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  51. #251
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Crawford Plains, Millwoods since 1985
    Posts
    2,736

    Default

    Fresh rape story in the music world! But it's a woman accusing another woman! Uh-oh!

    http://www.newsweek.com/melanie-mart...-heller-736251


    (edit: 10 bucks says that the vast majority of mainstream media doesn't touch this story... because.... well I'll let you figure it out).
    Last edited by Kitlope; 05-12-2017 at 10:13 PM.
    Time spent in the Rockies is never deducted from the rest of your life

  52. #252
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,010

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kitlope View Post
    Fresh rape story in the music world! But it's a woman accusing another woman! Uh-oh!

    http://www.newsweek.com/melanie-mart...-heller-736251


    (edit: 10 bucks says that the vast majority of mainstream media doesn't touch this story... because.... well I'll let you figure it out).
    CBS https://www.cbsnews.com/news/melanie-martinez-of-the-voice-responds-to-rape-accusation/

    FOX http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2017/12/05/voice-star-melanie-martinez-accused-sex-assault-by-former-friend-denies-allegations.html


    or how about countless others

    Can you e-transfer the cash?

  53. #253
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Crawford Plains, Millwoods since 1985
    Posts
    2,736

    Default

    I saw it on a few mainstream sites too, and not to be a hypocrite I linked the Newsweek story. Did you notice that?

    Check CBC, CTV, Global or CNN for me please because half hour ago it wasn't on any of them. Cherry picking a few google hits doesn't count.

    Like I said, the vast majority of mass media. And there's a lot.
    Time spent in the Rockies is never deducted from the rest of your life

  54. #254
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Crawford Plains, Millwoods since 1985
    Posts
    2,736

    Default

    And just to go out on another limb, which I will check back in a week and report as this story develops, there will be zero consequences (so there won't be charges/job loss/sudden end of contract etc) for the accused.

    Obviously, I'm setting myself up for a royal C2E Dawg like arse chewin' here if I'm wrong but I'm willing to risk it to prove my point.
    Time spent in the Rockies is never deducted from the rest of your life

  55. #255

    Default

    Came across this business for sale listing the other day. Think it's Needle?

    https://canada.businessesforsale.com...-for-sale.aspx
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  56. #256
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,010

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kitlope View Post
    I saw it on a few mainstream sites too, and not to be a hypocrite I linked the Newsweek story. Did you notice that?

    Check CBC, CTV, Global or CNN for me please because half hour ago it wasn't on any of them. Cherry picking a few google hits doesn't count.

    Like I said, the vast majority of mass media. And there's a lot.
    You know what, you're right. Hasn't shown up on any of those. We shall see.

    But I'm not sure mainstream media is the standard. These issues with the Needle Vinyl Tavern made pretty much just the local news. CBC and Global.

    Martinez is famous, but not Spacey/Louis CK/Weinstein famous.

    The Melanie Martinez thing, and how she responded, is a hugely problematic. And the LGBTQ community has issues with regards to sexual assault. Things like the media not treating as serious, the people involved not thinking its as serious. The police don't treat it seriously. This is not okay.

  57. #257

    Default

    Danny Masterson accused of rape, from a previous incident more than 15 years ago which was investigated by police, where he was found not guilty. He was never charged or convicted. Yet this story comes back as they accuse him again for the same incident. The result, Netflix fired him from the show "The Ranch". Innocent until proven guilty? Hah. No, social justice prevails! Just goes to show what's wrong all of this....

    http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/05/entert...ons/index.html




    Terry Crews is suing his Agent for groping him, among other things. Looks like it's not only women having issues. But at least he's doing it the proper way through the courts.

    http://deadline.com/2017/12/terry-cr...me-1202220752/

  58. #258

    Default

    ^In fairness, it sounds like there are four claims against Danny Masterson. It seems to be all mixed up with his Scientology beliefs.

  59. #259
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    7,575

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alkeli View Post
    Danny Masterson accused of rape, from a previous incident more than 15 years ago which was investigated by police, where he was found not guilty. He was never charged or convicted. Yet this story comes back as they accuse him again for the same incident. The result, Netflix fired him from the show "The Ranch". Innocent until proven guilty? Hah. No, social justice prevails! Just goes to show what's wrong all of this....

    http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/05/entert...ons/index.html




    Terry Crews is suing his Agent for groping him, among other things. Looks like it's not only women having issues. But at least he's doing it the proper way through the courts.

    http://deadline.com/2017/12/terry-cr...me-1202220752/

    Good stories. Thanks.

    Good stories. I like what Scientology said at the end:

    "The Church adamantly denies the implication the Church would ignore the criminal behavior of certain members, especially at the expense of alleged victims," the statement said. "What is being stated is utterly untrue. This has nothing to do with religion. This story is being manipulated to push a bigoted agenda. The Church follows all laws and cooperates with law enforcement. Any statement or implication to the contrary is false."
    Last edited by envaneo; 06-12-2017 at 02:01 PM.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  60. #260
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    7,575

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^In fairness, it sounds like there are four claims against Danny Masterson. It seems to be all mixed up with his Scientology beliefs.
    In what way are they mixed up with his Scientology beliefs?
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  61. #261

    Default

    ^If a church has to deny something, you can be pretty sure they are mixed up in it.

  62. #262
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,010

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^In fairness, it sounds like there are four claims against Danny Masterson. It seems to be all mixed up with his Scientology beliefs.
    In what way are they mixed up with his Scientology beliefs?
    The LAPD has ties with Scientology.

    I mean Masterson's publicist says he couldn't have raped one women, because she was dating him. As if the fact that you're dating removes the requirement for consent. (It does not, consent can be revoked at anytime including during any act) (and no, we're not talking about withdrawing consent after the fact)

  63. #263
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    7,575

    Default

    I think most people realize that just because your dating somebody (or even in marriage for that matter) doesn't mean you can f--k your partner anytime you want.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  64. #264
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,010

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    I think most people realize that just because your dating somebody (or even in marriage for that matter) doesn't mean you can f--k your partner anytime you want.
    You'd be very surprised what most people realize or even believe. It wasn't until the 90's in some states in the US that it was illegal to rape someone you were married to.

  65. #265
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    7,575

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    I think most people realize that just because your dating somebody (or even in marriage for that matter) doesn't mean you can f--k your partner anytime you want.
    You'd be very surprised what most people realize or even believe. It wasn't until the 90's in some states in the US that it was illegal to rape someone you were married to.
    Oh for sure. It was legal in the early 1930's in Texas for instance to marry a 13 year old.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  66. #266

    Default

    Heck, right now in South Carolina it's perfectly legal to force your spouse to have sex with you, provided you don't use weapons, physical threats or physical violence to do so. And even if you do use physical violence to get busy you'll be punished less severely than if you raped your non-spouse & that's if they report it during the 30-day statute of limitations.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  67. #267
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    7,575

    Default

    ^ Crazy

    Its on record that my grandfather in Texas married a 13 year old girl I think the marriage was 1915. My aunt was born in 1919. Sorry but i find that disgusting but that was legal at the time, unbelievable.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  68. #268

    Default

    Jerry Lee Lewis married his 13-year-old first cousin once removed when he was 23 years old.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  69. #269
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,395

    Default

    ^^ I doubt marriage at 13 would have seemed that unusual in an era when women weren't allowed to vote and few saw any point in having girls attend school past grade 8. As has been pointed out above, it is not always reasonable to apply modern standards to the past.

  70. #270

    Default

    ^Yup, life expectancy then was just over 50 as well (even in "wealthy" country like US) - didn't leave much time for having kids and stuff. It was a nasty world before we got antibiotics and vaccines.

    http://www.demog.berkeley.edu/~andrew/1918/figure2.html

    1918 was pretty horrific (I am guessing WWI and Spanish Flu):


    1918

    36.6

    42.2
    Last edited by moahunter; 06-12-2017 at 04:37 PM.

  71. #271

    Default

    Surprised nobody has mentioned the Sherry Romanado MP accusation towards another MP that she's been inflaming for the last 7mths.

    http://nationalpost.com/opinion/chri...gy-and-move-on

    James Bezan's dastardly deed was to joke while in front of a camera with Romanado and presumably another Liberal "This is not my idea of a threesome" That's it. A joke, a punchline, not even a bad one.

    For this he's been blasted continuously, made to apologize several times, made to take societies latest version of "manners courses" and all the while with Sherry refusing apologies, refusing to hear it and recounting the horror she encountered everytime the apology is offered. At what point do we consider that Sherry Romanado is the asshat drama Queen (ohhh, another misogynist comment...) that should be apologizing to Bezan and fellow MPs for her acting like a petulant child through all of this?

    This is the degree we are at today. Every comment being potentially vilified, even the most remote comments that in any other time or place would be considered funny. The only intent of it was humor, clearly.

    This is why there is increasing concern with the degree to which claims of harassment, impropriety, sexual allegation are occurring. This is nothing but a flippant, almost imagined and created slight. One would have to worry more about Romanado state of mental being (as Blatchford does in the National paper) than worry about this being a harmful comment.

    Its this nature of accusation, which is becoming so commonplace, that makes a lot of people feel that these are just witch hunts and looking for any male comment in which to recoil in horror to.

    Its beyond ridiculous. Who, other than fellow liberal MP's could even defend Romanado at this point?

    Maybe she should just do her job, stop being a nonstop distraction, stop bringing it up everytime she stands up in the commons, and stop being overwhelmed for 7mths in response to a harmless comment.

    Really in a different day and age focus would be on her for how inappropriate and unwarranted her accusations are.
    Last edited by Replacement; 06-12-2017 at 07:43 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  72. #272
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Crawford Plains, Millwoods since 1985
    Posts
    2,736

    Default

    Ok, I'm a liar, 11 hours ago the Melanie Martinez story made CNN. Getting mainstream folks, like it should. It's rape after all. Let's see some feminist #metoo outrage.

    http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/06/entert...ape/index.html

    Now, when is there gonna be a job loss/end of contract? (She's signed with Atlantic Records). Every male that makes the mainstream gets skidded, lets see what happens with cupcake.

    And yes Replacement, what a [email protected] joke.
    Time spent in the Rockies is never deducted from the rest of your life

  73. #273
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    7,575

    Default

    Now Warren Moon is charged with sexual harassment.

    #Me Too made the cover of Time magazine.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  74. #274
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    3,768

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    ...made to take societies latest version of "manners courses" and all the while with Sherry refusing apologies,...



    It's called ' senshitivity training ' Repo.

    Or ' awareness '.

  75. #275

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Top_Dawg View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    ...made to take societies latest version of "manners courses" and all the while with Sherry refusing apologies,...



    It's called ' senshitivity training ' Repo.

    Or ' awareness '.
    Snowflake training..
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  76. #276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    "Why can't these women either suffer in silence or go through the ineffectual system rife with institutionalized misogyny?"

    Y'all are a piece of work.
    Noodle, normally I disagree with you on basically everything, but you’re hitting it out of the park in this thread.

    There are a lot of disgusting people on this website.

  77. #277
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,587

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Surprised nobody has mentioned the Sherry Romanado MP accusation towards another MP that she's been inflaming for the last 7mths.

    http://nationalpost.com/opinion/chri...gy-and-move-on

    James Bezan's dastardly deed was to joke while in front of a camera with Romanado and presumably another Liberal "This is not my idea of a threesome" That's it. A joke, a punchline, not even a bad one.

    For this he's been blasted continuously, made to apologize several times, made to take societies latest version of "manners courses" and all the while with Sherry refusing apologies, refusing to hear it and recounting the horror she encountered everytime the apology is offered. At what point do we consider that Sherry Romanado is the asshat drama Queen (ohhh, another misogynist comment...) that should be apologizing to Bezan and fellow MPs for her acting like a petulant child through all of this?

    This is the degree we are at today. Every comment being potentially vilified, even the most remote comments that in any other time or place would be considered funny. The only intent of it was humor, clearly.

    This is why there is increasing concern with the degree to which claims of harassment, impropriety, sexual allegation are occurring. This is nothing but a flippant, almost imagined and created slight. One would have to worry more about Romanado state of mental being (as Blatchford does in the National paper) than worry about this being a harmful comment.

    Its this nature of accusation, which is becoming so commonplace, that makes a lot of people feel that these are just witch hunts and looking for any male comment in which to recoil in horror to.

    Its beyond ridiculous. Who, other than fellow liberal MP's could even defend Romanado at this point?

    Maybe she should just do her job, stop being a nonstop distraction, stop bringing it up everytime she stands up in the commons, and stop being overwhelmed for 7mths in response to a harmless comment.

    Really in a different day and age focus would be on her for how inappropriate and unwarranted her accusations are.
    i'm not quite prepared to accept your conclusion that this is just about "a joke, a punchline, not even a bad one" as accurate or acceptable.

    i think the issue is that there is a time and a place for jokes and punchlines - a club, a comedy show, a conversation etc. - where things can be said and taken in context - and where the recipient has the choice to be there and/or a choice to decline to participate or to engage in actual debate or discussion.

    the issue when it comes to gender is that it is too easily and too often represented as no more than a joke or a punchline and because it is simply targeted towards a woman and it happens all the time (which is not really a good excuse is it?) it is made light of or deemed to be perfectly acceptable if it doesn't cross some sort of imaginary line that seems to be ever-shifting. there is no line where it's okay on one side and not okay on the other.

    perhaps the best way to look at this from my perspective is to remove gender entirely from the decision as to whether a particular behavior - or joke or punchline - is acceptable or not. readdress the same comment in the same location/context towards an african-american or asian or muslim or jew or someone who is physically or mentally disadvantaged. and if the behavior/joke/punchline would be considered inappropriate in that location/context, then it's equally inappropriate when addressed or directed towards a woman.

    i believe bezan's comments fall into this category - they were inappropriate even if unintentional and i think his apology was fully warranted and appropriate.

    having said that, that apology - without excusing or condoning the initial behaviour - should have been accepted by romanado. she had an opportunity to make this a "teachable moment" rather than turn it into one of petulance and politics (does anyone really believe she would have been so tearful and unforgiving for so long having had to endure a similar trauma imposed by a liberal colleague?).
    Last edited by kcantor; 08-12-2017 at 01:44 PM.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  78. #278

    Default

    ftr I don't disagree with any of the above. One bit of analysis I've seen is simply that the behavior could be better. But it could be better in the case of either involved. Its a silly thing to say followed by a resolute objectionist silly response.

    As to your question, no, this was partisan informed politics and the support of Romanado's posturing has been as well. With the real victim being honest discourse.
    Last edited by Replacement; 08-12-2017 at 02:01 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  79. #279
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Crawford Plains, Millwoods since 1985
    Posts
    2,736

    Default

    Regarding the Melanie Martinez story from 4 days ago, other than some upset fans absolutely nothing has occurred of her allegations of rape. I'll give it 3 more days like I said (Check into the story a week later) until I announce to the mangina cucks here that there's a massive double standard at play.

    Perhaps then they will remove their collective heads from their arses.
    Time spent in the Rockies is never deducted from the rest of your life

  80. #280
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,010

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kitlope View Post
    Regarding the Melanie Martinez story from 4 days ago, other than some upset fans absolutely nothing has occurred of her allegations of rape. I'll give it 3 more days like I said (Check into the story a week later) until I announce to the mangina cucks here that there's a massive double standard at play.

    Perhaps then they will remove their collective heads from their arses.
    ...Because it doesn't sometimes take years for people to listen to these things https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey_Weinstein_sexual_abuse_allegations#Backgrou nd

    ...Or at least months? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danny_Masterson#Rape_allegations


    I'm not sure giving it a week is much time.

  81. #281
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,010

    Default

    Also, this was posted elsewhere but fits here:


  82. #282
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Crawford Plains, Millwoods since 1985
    Posts
    2,736

    Default

    Please take your feminist mangina cuck cartoon somewhere else. Here's a real news story that we men have to deal with.

    Kentucky lawmaker killed himself after sexual assault allegations


    A Kentucky lawmaker accused of sexually assaulting a teenage girl in 2013 killed himself Wednesday, officials say, a day after he denied the allegations.

    Republican state Rep. Dan Johnson, 57, was found dead of a single gunshot wound near Mount Washington, Bullitt County Coroner Dave Billings said.


    Johnson drove onto a bridge in a rural area southeast of Louisville, parked and shot himself in front of his car, Sheriff Donnie Tinnell told CNN affiliate WDRB.

    Billings ruled Johnson's death a suicide on Thursday after an autopsy, Deputy Coroner Clayton Brunson said.

    Shortly before his death, Johnson posted a rambling message on social media, denying the sexual assault allegations and urging his family to stay strong for his wife.


    http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/14/us/ken...ath/index.html


    Suicide because of sexual allegations (read: no due process has occurred) happens a lot more than the media reports, this one only made the news because of his politician status. But hey - don't let facts get in the way. Useless cucks.
    Last edited by Kitlope; 14-12-2017 at 11:53 PM.
    Time spent in the Rockies is never deducted from the rest of your life

  83. #283

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kitlope View Post
    Please take your feminist mangina cuck cartoon somewhere else. Here's a real news story that we men have to deal with.

    Kentucky lawmaker killed himself after sexual assault allegations


    A Kentucky lawmaker accused of sexually assaulting a teenage girl in 2013 killed himself Wednesday, officials say, a day after he denied the allegations.

    Republican state Rep. Dan Johnson, 57, was found dead of a single gunshot wound near Mount Washington, Bullitt County Coroner Dave Billings said.


    Johnson drove onto a bridge in a rural area southeast of Louisville, parked and shot himself in front of his car, Sheriff Donnie Tinnell told CNN affiliate WDRB.

    Billings ruled Johnson's death a suicide on Thursday after an autopsy, Deputy Coroner Clayton Brunson said.

    Shortly before his death, Johnson posted a rambling message on social media, denying the sexual assault allegations and urging his family to stay strong for his wife.


    http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/14/us/ken...ath/index.html


    Suicide because of sexual allegations (read: no due process has occurred) happens a lot more than the media reports, this one only made the news because of his politician status. But hey - don't let facts get in the way. Useless cucks.
    “feminist mangina cuck cartoon”

    “Bullitt County”


    Hmm.

    ‘Due process’ is a nice concept that no one ever fully buys into. That’s the reality.

    ‘Telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth’. Just another farse.




    Interesting read:

    PEOPLE Explains: About Ky. Lawmaker Dan Johnson, Who Killed Himself

    http://people.com/crime/who-is-kentu...e-dan-johnson/
    Last edited by KC; Yesterday at 12:16 AM.

  84. #284

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kitlope View Post
    Please take your feminist mangina cuck cartoon somewhere else. Here's a real news story that we men have to deal with.

    Take your toxic, incel, redpill, neckbeard, throwback, regressive, sexist BS elsewhere, you overcompensating master of projecting insecurity.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  85. #285

    Default

    Bit more to the story and not just the sexual allegations of the Texas lawmaker who killed himself. Seems like the guy was going off the deep in for a while.

    On Wednesday, at about 5pm, Johnson posted a Facebook message in which he again denied the allegations levied against him and noted that PTSD 'is a sickness that will take my life, I cannot handle it any longer.'

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz51M3mwPAf
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

  86. #286

    Default

    Yeah, he's been way out there for quite a while. If you can convince yourself that you've raised the dead, you can convince yourself that you never molested anyone.


    Republican who committed suicide after molestation claims told people he had raised the dead

    He was exposed by a Louisville Public Media investigation that revealed an elaborate “web of lies” that Johnson had told about his past, including fabricated details of his purported ministry set up at Ground Zero after the 9/11 attacks.


    “Johnson also boasted about being a White House chaplain for both Bush presidents and Bill Clinton, and professed to have been a peacemaker in Los Angeles during the 1992 Rodney King riots,” said NBC. “KCIP found that Johnson’s claim that he had brought a dead woman back to life while serving as a missionary in South America was based on a letter written by another preacher who admitted he hadn’t seen the supposed miracle and only heard about it.”

    https://www.rawstory.com/2017/12/rep...ised-the-dead/

  87. #287

    Default

    ^Yeah, a few beans short of a burrito buy the sounds of it.
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

  88. #288

    Default

    Yeah, a shining example of Christianity. Claims he was suffering from PTSD after being at Ground Zero and running a morgue on 9/11. The only problem, nobody saw him there.

    'Heaven is my home': Father-of-five Republican lawmaker and pastor nicknamed 'The Pope' shoots himself dead on Kentucky bridge hours after Facebook post DENYING he had sexually assaulted daughter's friend, 17

    On Monday, the Kentucky Center for Investigative Reporting published an account from Maranda Richmond, who was 17 at the time, saying Johnson sexually assaulted her in the basement of his home on New Year's Eve 2012.


    According to court documents, Richmond was living at Heart of Fire City Church accommodations.


    She alleged that Johnson had kissed her and fondled her underneath her clothes while he was a pastor.



    Police records show that she reported the incident to police. As part of the investigation, the Louisville Metro Police Department apparently recorded a phone call between Johnson and Richmond's father, Clifford, in which Johnson said he 'couldn't imagine doing that to Maranda.'


    Police documents obtained by the Kentucky Center for Investigative Reporting show a detective closed the case because Richmond would not cooperate.


    Richmond denied this, saying she never once wanted to stop the investigation.


    ---

    Johnson is listed as the bishop of Heart of Fire Church in Louisville. The church is known for its 'gun choir,' which features Johnson and others holding guns while singing Amazing Grace.





    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...s-suicide.html

  89. #289

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Kitlope View Post
    Please take your feminist mangina cuck cartoon somewhere else. Here's a real news story that we men have to deal with.

    Take your toxic, incel, redpill, neckbeard, throwback, regressive, sexist BS elsewhere, you overcompensating master of projecting insecurity.


    So what do we have here? Two logophilistic zounderkites? Two ultracrepidarians?

    Hell if I know what anything here means. If anyone finds noodle and kitlope’s hateful synonym hunting supremely boring, this might be more interesting:

    http://www.dictionary.com/e/s/12-ins...k/#zounderkite

    https://susandayley.wordpress.com/20...word-for-that/

  90. #290
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    7,575

    Default

    ^ Well 22 is a nice offering.

    ^^ What's with all those AK 47's? Could they at least buy Winchesters?
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •