apodino wrote:

I mention the 1960's because it was during this time that Pope Paul VI came out with Humane Vitae. It was also during this time that birth control and contraception became much more mainstream as well. Pope Paul VI said to much criticism that the widespread availability of these items would cause rising infidelity, less respect for women by men in general, an increase in the divorce rate, and men and women who see each other as objects for gratification rather than individuals to love. If you look at the statistics on these issues since the 1960's, I would say these predictions have all rang true. The Moore allegations go back to the 70s, and unless you have been under a rock you have seen tons of famous men cheating on their women, or otherwise abusing women, not to mention women using their own sex to prey on vulnerable men. If we want to trace the origins of this culture, this is one area I would look into.

The sexual liberation of women was due to far more than availability of birth control methods. The increasing availability of education and jobs for women might have been more important.

Some interesting data: http://www.divorcestatistics.info/divor ... e-usa.html

Divorce Rate Statistics of 1st, 2nd and 3rd Marriages

"Various studies on US rate of divorce show significant differences when a comparison is made in 1st, 2nd and 3rd marriage breakups in America. The marriage breakup rate in America for first marriage is 41% to 50%; the rate after second marriage is from 60% to 67% and the rate in America for 3rd marriage are from 73% to 74%. Reports also say that couples with children have a slightly lower rate of breakup as compared to couples without children. This is due to the fact that being childless is one of the prime causes behind divorce in America. Also, the children of divorced parents are prone to divorcing 4 times more than the children of couples who are not divorced."

Talk about trickle-down effect.

BobPatterson wrote:

This is due to the fact that being childless is one of the prime causes behind divorce in America. Also, the children of divorced parents are prone to divorcing 4 times more than the children of couples who are not divorced."

Talk about trickle-down effect.

That begs the question, is that good or bad? That could just be that they have learned that there is no shame in getting divorced and that there is no point maintaining a relationship that makes the people in it unhappy.

best regards
Thomas

I have to play Devil's advocate here: are men being given their due process?

A popup from USA Today said that NBC fired Matt Lauer for sexual harassment allegations.

While it is good optics to see a company taking action against sexual harassment allegations, it's also concerning that institutions may be too hasty to take action. The tip off was Monday night and Wednesday morning you're terminated? Even the most superficial of investigations aren't that fast. At the very least, suspension pending a full investigation would be better.

Revelation wrote:

Those on the right tend to think of the individual. It's not ok to hastily fire a high profile employee because he has the right to due process, even if that means we send the message that sexual harassment is being tolerated..

unless they give the finger to Trumps Limo.... in that case fire any time for any reason is totally fine, even if the event happend in peoples free time, ...

best regards
Thomas

Revelation wrote:

I think we might be in the time frame where every allegation is going to be treated seriously, and it's about time.

Don't get me wrong. Allegations are serious. But what's to stop someone from crying "wolf" if it means someone you don't like gets kicked out?

I brought this up with my boss a few weeks ago. I want to know what my rights are as an employee of the company if anyone comes forth and claims I harassed them. Something could be taken out of context (as I mentioned in an earlier post); does that imply that I'm not allowed due process to defend myself because the company has to be seen taking a strong stance against sexual harassment?

Once again: I don't question someone's motives. But putting myself in someone's shoes: I'd like to know if the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" will be there or whether I'm assumed guilty immediately.

einsteinboricua wrote:

Revelation wrote:

I think we might be in the time frame where every allegation is going to be treated seriously, and it's about time.

Don't get me wrong. Allegations are serious. But what's to stop someone from crying "wolf" if it means someone you don't like gets kicked out?

I brought this up with my boss a few weeks ago. I want to know what my rights are as an employee of the company if anyone comes forth and claims I harassed them. Something could be taken out of context (as I mentioned in an earlier post); does that imply that I'm not allowed due process to defend myself because the company has to be seen taking a strong stance against sexual harassment?

Once again: I don't question someone's motives. But putting myself in someone's shoes: I'd like to know if the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" will be there or whether I'm assumed guilty immediately.

I'd like to think that NBC had more evidence beyond one person making a claim and promptly firing him. I'm reading that he had multiple claims against him, and had more than just stories told. However, I am not in the inner workings of NBC, so I have no idea what did or did not happen.

einsteinboricua wrote:

Revelation wrote:

I think we might be in the time frame where every allegation is going to be treated seriously, and it's about time.

Don't get me wrong. Allegations are serious. But what's to stop someone from crying "wolf" if it means someone you don't like gets kicked out?

I brought this up with my boss a few weeks ago. I want to know what my rights are as an employee of the company if anyone comes forth and claims I harassed them. Something could be taken out of context (as I mentioned in an earlier post); does that imply that I'm not allowed due process to defend myself because the company has to be seen taking a strong stance against sexual harassment?

Once again: I don't question someone's motives. But putting myself in someone's shoes: I'd like to know if the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" will be there or whether I'm assumed guilty immediately.

Harassment … Sexism … Ageism … everything ‘Old’ is New Again.

http://citywatchla.com/index.php/import ... -new-again

if you are not a older male then you're probably safe.

LittleFokker wrote:

I'd like to think that NBC had more evidence beyond one person making a claim and promptly firing him. I'm reading that he had multiple claims against him, and had more than just stories told. However, I am not in the inner workings of NBC, so I have no idea what did or did not happen.

NBC said: "On Monday night, we received a detailed complaint from a colleague about inappropriate sexual behaviour in the workplace by Matt Lauer."
One complaint, singular.

NBC said it had "reason to believe this may not have been an isolated incident".
Delightfully vague. As in "I have a friend who knows someone in the back office, and she says there's no smoke without fire, and this is probably the tip of the iceberg. Besides, she's never liked the guy and always thought he was kinda creepy."
That kind of reason?

I'm not for one minute suggestion that he isn't guilty, or that other complaints will eventually surface. But right now he has been fired, and that is jumping the gun IMO.

And he has been joined by Garrison Keillor, from Minnesota Public Radio, also fired based on one individual accusation.
Both stories here.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42168640

tommy1808 wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

This is due to the fact that being childless is one of the prime causes behind divorce in America. Also, the children of divorced parents are prone to divorcing 4 times more than the children of couples who are not divorced."

Talk about trickle-down effect.

That begs the question, is that good or bad? That could just be that they have learned that there is no shame in getting divorced and that there is no point maintaining a relationship that makes the people in it unhappy.

One might wonder why the children of divorced parents haven't learned to avoid the pitfalls of bad marriages or that turn marriages sour.

".......until death do us part" is a very strong vow of commitment. Takes a lot of work to keep the commitment strong.

I've been married for 60 years. My first wife died after 14 years of marriage. We would be married still had she lived.

einsteinboricua wrote:

I have to play Devil's advocate here: are men being given their due process?

A popup from USA Today said that NBC fired Matt Lauer for sexual harassment allegations.

While it is good optics to see a company taking action against sexual harassment allegations, it's also concerning that institutions may be too hasty to take action. The tip off was Monday night and Wednesday morning you're terminated? Even the most superficial of investigations aren't that fast. At the very least, suspension pending a full investigation would be better.

I don't deny that you might be correct.

But in some cases, it is just a matter of the most recent charge being well documented, and that hesitation to act, over a period of time, is now overcome.

Perhaps we will learn more about this in the firing of Garrison Keillor, an icon if there ever was one.

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/1 ... /23291893/

BobPatterson wrote:

One might wonder why the children of divorced parents haven't learned to avoid the pitfalls of bad marriages or that turn marriages sour.

Some may just do because personal development is divergent.

".......until death do us part" is a very strong vow of commitment. Takes a lot of work to keep the commitment strong.

Yup, it is. It should be, and you should believe it to be true when you say it and be willing to work on problems rather than throwing in the towel. But not to the point where both surrender themselves to being unhappy, or even one of them.
Some of my friends, especially my US ones have a hard time understanding that i am still good friends with my exes, the US ones even hardly understand why we still have contact, longest relationship being 15 years, but i am thinking "I love this women, i want her to be happy and if she can´t be happy with me, i´d rather have her happy with somebody else. I had my chance to make it work. Why would i toss away a great friendship on top of losing a relationship?".
Love shouldn´t be selfish after all.

I've been married for 60 years. My first wife died after 14 years of marriage. We would be married still had she lived.

I am sorry to hear that and that should be the assumption under which we enter into a marriage.

best regards
Thomas

einsteinboricua wrote:

I have to play Devil's advocate here: are men being given their due process?

A popup from USA Today said that NBC fired Matt Lauer for sexual harassment allegations.

While it is good optics to see a company taking action against sexual harassment allegations, it's also concerning that institutions may be too hasty to take action. The tip off was Monday night and Wednesday morning you're terminated? Even the most superficial of investigations aren't that fast. At the very least, suspension pending a full investigation would be better.

I agree with what you're saying. It's possible that NBC was going to do that, but found overwhelming evidence in the company computer of the employee, or that the employee himself admitted to some wrongdoing and preferred a quick exit.

A few months ago a manager in my company was accused by a young woman of sexual harassment, I don't know what was going on as I work in another part of town so I saw very little of the people involved, from what I gathered they had some kind of intimate relationship that ended badly. Both ended up out of the company with a check and no legal repercussions, I know the man got an even better job at our main competitor...

Ann Coulter gets it right, again, with her "Sex In America Part II" article, where she skillfully parses out the difference between Liberals fake shock at a supposed verbal statement by Clarence Thomas vs. Bill Clinton's many many allegations, including the one where the governor summoned a lowly state employee to his hotel room, dropped his pants and said, “Kiss it,” in which no one in the Liberal Media were shocked by.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... ca-part-2/

DIRECTFLT wrote:

including the one where the governor summoned a lowly state employee to his hotel room, dropped his pants and said, “Kiss it,” in which no one in the Liberal Media were shocked by.

Yeah, we know, in the world of the, not yet assigned an ICD code for their condition, "Trump Supporter", the morally ok thing to do is to just grab that p*ssy.

And always remember:
It is not ok to act like a dick even once, but it is ok to be a dick
It is not ok to do as a teenager may do, but it is ok to do a teenager

best regards
Thomas

It seems I was right, there are both lots of accusations and he admits it.

NEW YORK, Nov 30 (Reuters) - Matt Lauer apologized and said he was "soul searching" in a statement read out on NBC's "Today" show on Tuesday, a day after he was fired from his role as co-host of the popular morning show for what the network said was inappropriate sexual behavior.

"There are no words to express my sorrow and regret for the pain I have caused others by words and actions," Lauer said in the statement released to the network. "To the people I have hurt, I am truly sorry."

Lauer said that some of what he has been accused of is untrue and mischaracterized but said, "there is enough truth in these stories to make me feel embarrassed and ashamed."

Since people want to make it a "liberal vs conservative" issue, I notice most liberal men involved are admitting to wrongdoing and apologizing, while most conservative men deny it and talk about conspiracies...

Why are people not demanding tRump resign?

https://latest.com/2017/11/trump-once-b ... sy-report/
https://thinkprogress.org/trump-beauty- ... 4b6c6d507/
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/ ... pussy.html

We had righties screaming about Conyers and his sexual harassment settlement, will you all be as outraged over this? My guess is no.

http://www.kgw.com/news/nation-world/co ... ce=twitter

seb146 wrote:

We had righties screaming about Conyers and his sexual harassment settlement, will you all be as outraged over this? My guess is no.

http://www.kgw.com/news/nation-world/co ... ce=twitter

There are no righties or lefties when it comes to penis conscience.

Revelation wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Why are people not demanding tRump resign?

https://latest.com/2017/11/trump-once-b ... sy-report/
https://thinkprogress.org/trump-beauty- ... 4b6c6d507/
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/ ... pussy.html

It is strange how the man has largely been given a pass by everyone.

I know right...? Contrary to Weinstein, Spacey an the like, they literally have Trump boasting about it on tape...

So i guess he's like... leading from the front..? What a great guy #MAGA

BobPatterson wrote:

seb146 wrote:

We had righties screaming about Conyers and his sexual harassment settlement, will you all be as outraged over this? My guess is no.

http://www.kgw.com/news/nation-world/co ... ce=twitter

There are no righties or lefties when it comes to penis conscience.

You can not be serious about this statement, Bob. The right is literally campaigning for a child molester to be elected to the Senate and defending the president and demanding two Democrats who have apologized be removed from office. This is totally partisan.

seb146 wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

seb146 wrote:

We had righties screaming about Conyers and his sexual harassment settlement, will you all be as outraged over this? My guess is no.

http://www.kgw.com/news/nation-world/co ... ce=twitter

There are no righties or lefties when it comes to penis conscience.

You can not be serious about this statement, Bob. The right is literally campaigning for a child molester to be elected to the Senate and defending the president and demanding two Democrats who have apologized be removed from office. This is totally partisan.

You live in a world of your own creation where all things are neatly black or white, right or left, your way or not your way.

Not all republicans, by a long shot, support Roy Moore, and many democrats oppose Franken, Conyers and others.

In any event, I was referring to the dicks without conscience. They exist in all elements of society, right and left, religious and atheist, any pairing you can think of that doesn't include gender..

BobPatterson wrote:

seb146 wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

There are no righties or lefties when it comes to penis conscience.

You can not be serious about this statement, Bob. The right is literally campaigning for a child molester to be elected to the Senate and defending the president and demanding two Democrats who have apologized be removed from office. This is totally partisan.

You live in a world of your own creation where all things are neatly black or white, right or left, your way or not your way.

Not all republicans, by a long shot, support Roy Moore, and many democrats oppose Franken, Conyers and others.

In any event, I was referring to the dicks without conscience. They exist in all elements of society, right and left, religious and atheist, any pairing you can think of that doesn't include gender..

And there it is again: when the right gets caught, you all play the "but both sides do it!" card. I bring up how a Republican bought off his accuser with OUR money but "both sides do it" and "both sides are as bad" and all that. Whatever gets you through, Bob.

Last night, I went to a party with my husband. At one point, I was seated on the sofa checking a message on my phone, drink in hand, when a man old enough to be my father, someone not even remotely attractive to me, approached me quickly and aggressively and then sat down on the sofa next to me such that our bodies were in close contact. I quickly scooted away and used body language and a cold demeanor to make it clear that his advance wasn't appreciated. I also made sure my wedding ring was plainly visible. He scooched up to me again and I kept backing away. I didn't want to make a scene in someone else's party in their house out of a man who had been a mentor and friend to the host.

I explained that I was married and not on the market. A few minutes later, as I passed in front of him to go refill my glass of (very excellent) punch he put his hands around my body in a way that *nobody* who isn't in a consensual sexual relationship with me should touch me, a way that crossed a border into outright sexual assault. I squirmed away again. I'm not proud of it, but I wound up leaving the party. I should have just told him to get his creepy paws off of me, but he was a close friend of the host. I was angry and felt violated, but I couldn't tell anyone other than my husband.

This is how sexual harassment and assault begins; someone gets trapped into it and feels that protesting in that space and time will cost them dearly. So they say nothing. I, an educated, strong man, felt like I wasn't in a place to protest any louder.

As for him, he clearly felt entitled to sex with me. It's always felt that way when some creepy guy goes after me. A lot of people theorize that rapists get off on the power, and in some cases that might be true, but in most cases where I have been the target of sexual harassment or outright assault.

I'm not going to get into partisanship, but I will get into a discussion of why this happens. It isn't divorce. It isn't gay marriage or the open acceptance of homosexuality. It isn't sexual imagery in media. It isn't video games. It's men (it's almost always men) who feel entitled to sex with whomever they target. This isn't anything new. This was going on long before gay marriage and divorce and sexy media. This is about entitled men.

You aren't entitled to sex with *anyone.*

DocLightning wrote:

Last night, I went to a party with my husband. At one point, I was seated on the sofa checking a message on my phone, drink in hand, when a man old enough to be my father, someone not even remotely attractive to me, approached me quickly and aggressively and then sat down on the sofa next to me such that our bodies were in close contact. I quickly scooted away and used body language and a cold demeanor to make it clear that his advance wasn't appreciated. I also made sure my wedding ring was plainly visible. He scooched up to me again and I kept backing away. I didn't want to make a scene in someone else's party in their house out of a man who had been a mentor and friend to the host.

I explained that I was married and not on the market. A few minutes later, as I passed in front of him to go refill my glass of (very excellent) punch he put his hands around my body in a way that *nobody* who isn't in a consensual sexual relationship with me should touch me, a way that crossed a border into outright sexual assault. I squirmed away again. I'm not proud of it, but I wound up leaving the party. I should have just told him to get his creepy paws off of me, but he was a close friend of the host. I was angry and felt violated, but I couldn't tell anyone other than my husband.

This is how sexual harassment and assault begins; someone gets trapped into it and feels that protesting in that space and time will cost them dearly. So they say nothing. I, an educated, strong man, felt like I wasn't in a place to protest any louder.

As for him, he clearly felt entitled to sex with me. It's always felt that way when some creepy guy goes after me. A lot of people theorize that rapists get off on the power, and in some cases that might be true, but in most cases where I have been the target of sexual harassment or outright assault.

I'm not going to get into partisanship, but I will get into a discussion of why this happens. It isn't divorce. It isn't gay marriage or the open acceptance of homosexuality. It isn't sexual imagery in media. It isn't video games. It's men (it's almost always men) who feel entitled to sex with whomever they target. This isn't anything new. This was going on long before gay marriage and divorce and sexy media. This is about entitled men.

You aren't entitled to sex with *anyone.*

Thanks for posting this Doc. I'm sure it is something many of us needed to hear.

I wonder whether you might write to your host and explain what happened. Perhaps the creep (or maybe you) won't be invited to the next party. But mightn't that be a way to address the problem?

There has been an (unconfirmed) report that Matt Lauer's wife has left the house in the Hamptons. Possibly even going back to her native country, The Netherlands.

I'm sure while she's away, Annette can pick up the phone and call Erin Nordegren, and have some "girl talk."

BobPatterson wrote:

DocLightning wrote:

Last night, I went to a party with my husband. At one point, I was seated on the sofa checking a message on my phone, drink in hand, when a man old enough to be my father, someone not even remotely attractive to me, approached me quickly and aggressively and then sat down on the sofa next to me such that our bodies were in close contact. I quickly scooted away and used body language and a cold demeanor to make it clear that his advance wasn't appreciated. I also made sure my wedding ring was plainly visible. He scooched up to me again and I kept backing away. I didn't want to make a scene in someone else's party in their house out of a man who had been a mentor and friend to the host.

I explained that I was married and not on the market. A few minutes later, as I passed in front of him to go refill my glass of (very excellent) punch he put his hands around my body in a way that *nobody* who isn't in a consensual sexual relationship with me should touch me, a way that crossed a border into outright sexual assault. I squirmed away again. I'm not proud of it, but I wound up leaving the party. I should have just told him to get his creepy paws off of me, but he was a close friend of the host. I was angry and felt violated, but I couldn't tell anyone other than my husband.

This is how sexual harassment and assault begins; someone gets trapped into it and feels that protesting in that space and time will cost them dearly. So they say nothing. I, an educated, strong man, felt like I wasn't in a place to protest any louder.

As for him, he clearly felt entitled to sex with me. It's always felt that way when some creepy guy goes after me. A lot of people theorize that rapists get off on the power, and in some cases that might be true, but in most cases where I have been the target of sexual harassment or outright assault.

I'm not going to get into partisanship, but I will get into a discussion of why this happens. It isn't divorce. It isn't gay marriage or the open acceptance of homosexuality. It isn't sexual imagery in media. It isn't video games. It's men (it's almost always men) who feel entitled to sex with whomever they target. This isn't anything new. This was going on long before gay marriage and divorce and sexy media. This is about entitled men.

You aren't entitled to sex with *anyone.*

Thanks for posting this Doc. I'm sure it is something many of us needed to hear.

I wonder whether you might write to your host and explain what happened. Perhaps the creep (or maybe you) won't be invited to the next party. But mightn't that be a way to address the problem?

Doc's story was reminiscent of what happened to Terry Crews

http://variety.com/2017/biz/news/adam-v ... 202605857/

https://youtu.be/8xF0r8D-OmA

DocLightning wrote:

This is about entitled men.

You aren't entitled to sex with *anyone.*

If you switch off the cortex everything falls back to hardwired cerebellum trigger response activities.
That goes for all sexes. What is different is the trigger response pairs.

With some people the cortex seems to be mostly on a holiday even more so with some drugs added.
so their cerebellum is at the wheel. ( are they themselves really aware of what they do? )

Word on the street is The New York Times will be publishing, on Monday, a huge, scathing report on sexual whateverithasbecome in the Broadway industry.

Personally, I can't wait. This might cut down on the need for Christmas cards this year.

stlgph wrote:

Word on the street is The New York Times will be publishing, on Monday, a huge, scathing report on sexual whateverithasbecome in the Broadway industry.

Personally, I can't wait. This might cut down on the need for Christmas cards this year.

Not Broadway, but Opera....

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/03/arts ... opera.html

DIRECTFLT wrote:

stlgph wrote:

Word on the street is The New York Times will be publishing, on Monday, a huge, scathing report on sexual whateverithasbecome in the Broadway industry.

Not Broadway, but Opera....

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/03/arts ... opera.html

Hence the old saying; it ain't over 'till the fat lady sings.

(I'll get my coat...)

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

DIRECTFLT wrote:

stlgph wrote:

Word on the street is The New York Times will be publishing, on Monday, a huge, scathing report on sexual whateverithasbecome in the Broadway industry.

Not Broadway, but Opera....

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/03/arts ... opera.html

Hence the old saying; it ain't over 'till the fat lady sings.

(I'll get my coat...)

Metropolitan Opera waited a year to act on accusation against conductor

NEW YORK (AP) — A big question remains after renowned conductor James Levine was suspended from the Metropolitan Opera amid accusations of sexual abuse: Why did it take so long for the company to act after it was informed by police that he had been accused of sexually abusing a teenage boy?

http://www.expressnews.com/news/crime/a ... 405199.php

https://www.npr.org/2017/12/06/56883260 ... -to-resign

Rumor is getting stronger that Al Franken will resign tomorrow - he has a press conference scheduled and had a long chat with the other MN Senator, Amy Klobuchar.

Golly, it sure would be nice of the Republican Party to hold their own accountable too, but I think I'll be dead before that happens. Apparently, rules are only for those silly Democrats.

LittleFokker wrote:

Golly, it sure would be nice of the Republican Party to hold their own accountable too, but I think I'll be dead before that happens. Apparently, rules are only for those silly Democrats.

And that it what I hate about politics and why I can never see myself as a Republican.

Minnesota is likely going to lose its junior Senator because he has enough dignity left to resign rather than remain. Given the trend of midwestern states, I wouldn't be surprised if a Republican picks up the seat in a special election. Now, Gov. Dayton will appoint his successor who will serve until 2018 (and whoever wins then has to run for reelection in 2020), so the seat will remain blue until at least 2018, but will it remain so after?

Meanwhile, Alabama is about to elect its junior Senator and lo and behold, it's for behavior similar or worse than what Al Franken is likely to resign for.

Do people in this country even have morals anymore? One party decides to do the honorable thing and will likely be punished; the other party doesn't give AF and is rewarded.

Heads I win; tails you lose.

Famed X-Men director Bryan Singer Sued for Allegedly Sexually Assaulting 17-Year-Old Boy

The suit claims Singer offered to take Cesar Sanchez-Guzman, who was 17 at the time, on a tour of the yacht. When they got to one of the rooms, the suit alleges Singer thrust his body on Guzman, forced him to the floor, shoved Guzman's face against his crotch and demanded he perform oral sex.

The suit claims Singer pulled out his penis, smacked Guzman in the face with it and forced it into his mouth. Guzman claims he pleaded with Singer to stop, but he kept going ... causing him to choke. The suit goes on to allege Singer then forcibly performed oral sex on Guzman. Guzman says he again pleaded with Singer to stop, to no avail. He says Singer then forcibly anally penetrated him, all while ignoring Guzman's pleas.

http://www.tmz.com/2017/12/07/bryan-sin ... acht-rape/

#metoo and sexual harassment allegations have jumped the shark, imho. The left has made the mistake of mixing trivial crap and serious sexual harassment/assault together in the same pot and now we are about to witness the backlash.

usflyer msp wrote:

#metoo and sexual harassment allegations have jumped the shark, imho. The left has made the mistake of mixing trivial crap and serious sexual harassment/assault together in the same pot and now we are about to witness the backlash.

I don't think there will be a backlash. I think people will simply get tired of hearing about it.

What trivial crap are you talking about? I am asking honestly because I must have missed something.

Revelation wrote:

One more in the (virtual) dock:

'On Point' Host Tom Ashbrook Has Been Placed On Leave For Unspecified Allegations

Personally I think this is off-topic, but since you have brought this non-sexual assault case to our notice....

The way WBUR are dealing with this at least sounds like a more measured approach, until there is more conclusive evidence one way or another.

The fact that you have added it to this thread is less satisfactory.

WBUR wrote:

Yesterday, Boston University and WBUR received some allegations against Tom Ashbrook

"Some allegations" - about what?
Political bias?
Theft from the petty cash?
Fraudulent expenses claims?
Taking a dump in the CEO's private rest room?
There is nothing taking us down the sexual assault route.... yet. It may come in time, but you are jumping the gun.
Maybe you have also decided if he is guilty already? Again, you might eventually be right, but right now you are way out of order.

But thank you for bringing these unspecified allegations to our notice on this "Sexual Assault" thread.

PBS's Tavis Smiley in the crosshairs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aqxf-UFvA4

Dustin Hoffman and minors:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/15/us/d ... nduct.html

http://variety.com/2017/biz/news/dustin ... 202641525/

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainmen ... -1.3698941

James Franco - "The Disaster Artist's" Disaster . . . No kidding !!

James Franco Accused of Sexually Inappropriate Behavior By Five Women — Including Four Former Students http://people.com/movies/james-franco-a ... -la-times/

Maybe Tommy Wiseau can fill in for James at the Oscars...

And so now Aziz Ansari is the latest victim to victimize someone, to create a victim....

Honestly some stories just sound like normal date things while others are definitely serialized, degrading, assaultive power plays. Regarding Ansari's one online article talks about needing to not "blame the victim" but we now appear to be creating victims, not blaming. Where does any of the responsibility begin and end? Do women really have to do more, more than just "no" (different from "NO!" or does it need to be "NO STOP!")? What is each parties responsibility when enjoying each others company and drinking and going to someones house and kissing and... what is right and what is wrong?

The easy ones are the ones like Spacey and Weinstien and others, multiple women similar stories, definitive indications of no returned interest in being together. the harder ones are one-off's, and what to me at least sounds like a bad date night.

Tugg

Revelation wrote:

Now it's Steve Wynn's turn in the dock: Wynn Resorts shares plummet after Steve Wynn is accused of sexual misconduct says:

The Las Vegas casino mogul, who built the Mirage, Treasure Island and Bellagio hotels, allegedly pressured some employees to perform sex acts, according the Journal’s report. The newspaper, which interviewed more than 150 people who have worked at Wynn’s casinos or who had been told about the alleged behavior, reported that Wynn paid a former manicurist at his resort a $7.5 million settlement after she claimed that he pressured her to have sex with him. The report also details allegations that Wynn pressured massage therapists to perform sex acts in exchange for $1,000 tips.

Wynn claims these are trumped-up charges (see what I did there?) due to his ongoing divorce battle.

Strange, he should have had no problems finding people willing to give him a happy ending for $1000, so why would he hit on his own employees?

He also bought the Nugget in Vegas and Laughlin and turned them around into top notch resorts and don't forget the Borgata and what he did in Macau. Man are the flood gates opening.

Revelation wrote:

Now it's Steve Wynn's turn in the dock: Wynn Resorts shares plummet after Steve Wynn is accused of sexual misconduct

And, on the D's side of the dock.... Hillary personal adviser Burns Strider



A decade of 'creepy behavior': Campaign aide Hillary refused to fire in 2008 after sexual harassment allegations were made against him is accused of 'stalking, touching and making inappropriate comments' to two more women in 2016 pro-Clinton role

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... sment.html

A young woman filed an official complaint against her boss Burns Strider in 2008 and against the advice of senior aides, Clinton reportedly refused to fire him from the campaign.

Instead he had his pay docked and was demoted while his accuser was reassigned to a different department.

So when Clinton lost the Democratic candidate bid to Barack Obama, Strider's reputation wasn't hurt, and he continued on working in high power positions in Washington.