[blackjack21]

Except Roy Moore literally said that.

He said that a lot of the problems today could be solved if we didn't have a lot of the later amendments. That could imply the 13th Amendment, but he obviously means at least the 14th and 16th amendments, which have been used to contort the meaning of the original constitution. Even the 19th amendment has allowed jurists to completely abandon the purpose of the law and social institutions. That is a valid criticism of the modern left.

No thanks to Bill and the republicans onwards.

The Democrats did not put an end to it when they were in power. Obama pushed for the TPP. The establishment maintains the illusion of partisanship to suit their needs, and pushes the notion of bipartisan support when it suits their needs.

Again how can you say the Black man is lazy, if whites deny him jobs to China?

I didn't call blacks lazy as a group. It's not whites per se denying blacks jobs. A lot of whites have lost their jobs to China. That's why its important to note a real factor in what Roy Moore is not: a tool of Wall Street bankers. That's why a Chuck Schumer goes out of his way to help a Republican like Thad Cochran. It's not because he's white, but because of his role on the banking committee and appropriations committee. It's all about the power of money. To miss this is to miss why Donald Trump won the White House.

Whites are already losing to minorities cause their whites in office enact polices that ends up killing them:

So why are you trying to maintain that there is some illusion of white solidarity?

Ok, would you let your daughter date whom she wanted if you had one?

I would try to point her in the right direction about who is a good person to date and who isn't. Women rebel very quickly if you order them around.

Honestly do you know Black people actually prefer NFL shut down?

They may get their wish.

They believe if it's shut down Blacks can make their own Negro Football league, and beat us whites. Like a race war but in sports.

I found that amusing.

They already had a negro league in baseball, and it collapsed after they were allowed to play in MLB.

So we the establishment is fighting itself?

They are obviously pushing a sexist agenda, and that did not end with Hillary Clinton's ignominious and well-desereved defeat to Donald Trump.

Again they could be right. Here's the difference, you don't give our women the benefit of the doubt or excuses same way you treated that "both sides" kid who killed a woman in Virginia.

They are very different cases. In the case of the NFL suit, the woman was accused of stealing and then fired. Subsequently, she decided it was about sexual harassment and age discrimination. Everything was fine until the money ran out. That's a common theme in many of these cases. That's why I say a lot of these Hollywood actresses come out when they are passed their sexual sell-by date. Emma Thompson is an older woman now. There aren't lines of boys lining up to fuck her, so now she comes out with her allegations and support of other women making allegations. It's self serving. They played along, because it suited them to do so. Now they want to take a moral high ground as spite, because the market no longer finds them particularly hot. If you focus on your acting ability, you can be fairly old and still in demand like Helen Miren, Judy Dench or Meryl Streep. If you try to play the tart card your whole life, it doesn't work. You remember when Hillary was losing to Barack Obama? What did Bill Clinton say? "I can't make her any younger." That's true. He couldn't make her appealing in other ways too, since she was a neocon war hawk that hates working class people.

By contrast, in the Charlottesville case, the establishment saw that neo-Nazis were gathering in a park peacefully and didn't like seeing that. So they arranged a protest against them in a subsequent rally. The neo-Nazis were peaceful and 22 of the Antifa and BLM types ended up getting arrested. So the establishment decided to be more violent in a third round. They got their wish. Violence ensued and someone on their side got killed. If one of the neo-Nazis had gotten killed, there wouldn't be any outcry at all. That's the establishment for you. I just know that they were intending to do that, so I'm not going to condemn whoever they want me to condemn. That's why I think the Al Franken case is funny, but you don't hear me constantly condemning him.

Maybe she was accused and she suing for harassment and false accusation. Again I believe in equality under the law, and again we men obviously have a tendercy to commit more raping or sexual harassment than women. It's not out of the realm of possibility that this happen.

Women don't harass as much as men. They tempt and taunt. Yet, here you are taking the white accuser's side over the black man. No presumption of innocence for the black man, I see... That's what I mean. Here you are sticking up for Wall Street's establishment and thinking you are standing up for women.

Again, these are strong testosterone men, some with illegal drugs in the system. I could see that happening. We don't know the full story about it. But the difference is how you come to conclusion when women accuse people of rape, yet not on white males committing murder?

The person accused of murder is a diagnosed schizophrenic. Many of the "leaders" of these right wing protests were "former" Obama supporters. The deep state wanted this fight, and they got it. It would not have occurred had the political leadership in Charlottesville and Richmond allowed the neo-Nazi types to have peaceful protests.

Likely not, they could be pay by republicans.

The establishment Republicans are wicked enough to do something like that, but John Conyers is part of the establishment. So they wouldn't do that to him. You might say that about Leann Tweeden on Al Franken, but she only brought it up when Franken decided to condemn Roy Moore without disclosing his own cop-a-feel ways, and she had him dead to rights with that picture.

Explain why?

They have always been an also ran. They had better days when they weren't so obviously biased. CNN did too. They used to have a pretty good news operation, and a good foreign desk too. In their heyday, they far outclassed FoxNews as a news organization. As a bunch of political hacks, CNN is a shambles of its former self. It started going down hill when Ted Turner married Jane Fonda, and it has never recovered.

Of course, but the issue is that they HAD to do it. The same way a girl has to prostitute herself. A gal gotta eat.

Offer, acceptance, performance and consideration constitute a contract. They didn't have to accept the contract. Many of them were attorneys/lawyers. They knew exactly what they were doing.

Evidence that this is what they wanted? And again they don't speak for all women. The same way Roy Moore doesn't speak for all Republicans.

I never claimed any of them spoke for all women. I said they all know exactly what they were doing, and what they're doing it for. FoxNews does have some fairly decent women like Dana Perino, Ainsley Earhardt and once Greta Van Susteren. However, there are a lot of predatory women out there who aren't called out for their own actions.

You do know that Sexual harassment goes beyond physical right? Like there is a science behind it.

There is no science behind it. It is straight up Marxism and a tort invented in the wake of the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings precisely to stop a black conservative.

Again it's called denial or assumptions. How do we know that he's lying and what she's saying is genuine?

The burden of proof is on the accuser in our system of laws, and the establishment wants to change that in the short term as long as the accuser is a woman and as long as the accusation is about sexual harassment. As I stated, there is nary a complaint until the payments stop.

You wanted Obamacare(which whites rely on) gone which will kill my people.

I am utterly opposed to ObamaCare. They try to get people like me to support it by saying, "but...but...the Heritage Foundation came up with it!" So? Why should I care. I'm no more a fascist than I am a communist.

So ancapism, good.

I'm not an anarchist either.

Under anacho-capitalism if one wishes to not serve Blacks or any minorities, that's fine and it's better off they know.

Capitalists generally don't refuse anyone, because profit is their motive and economies of scale require maximizing revenue. Christians, racists, sexists, etc. may have different motives. Ascribing those traits to capitalists is typically incorrect.

But the same rights of that white racist should apply to racists of all colors.

I agree. I don't think blacks should be required to serve whites. They should be able to form all black churches, etc. It's only if their enterprise is so big that all groups depend on it that the commerce clause should come in and prohibit discrimination.

But again since you're against the establishment, you're against the government in general?

That's a bit of a stretch. As I said, I'm not an anarchist. I think the establishment has badly mismanaged things, that they are generally dishonest, and that their boundless ambitions are dangerously counterproductive.

So it's just another non-racist turner diaries or Helter Skelter? Again, overall I'm not convince you're a "non-racist" (I remember lurking, you call Obama's wife a monkey, knowing the full racial connections of that term) and your lack of empathy for cop killings.

Calling me a racist is a separate question from a white supremacist. I think all people are racist intrinsically, even if they aren't politically. I think that is hard-wired into human nature. I think the empirical evidence is overwhelming. In fact, I think it is capitalist imperialists that deny this the most loudly along with the communists. Each side wants to rule the entire world and so they embrace every group possible, which is why they embrace Muslims that want to kill them while trashing Christians simultaneously.

As for calling Obama's wife a monkey, I don't recall doing that but I wouldn't run away from it either. That was done against George Bush constantly and it is done against Trump too. What goes around comes around.

As for cops killing blacks, in most of the cases black suspects were non-compliant, resisting arrest, etc. In a few cases, the cops were clearly in the wrong, like the South Carolina cop that shot someone in the back or the cop that stopped a person for a tail light violation and then shot him because he had a concealed carry permit. Those cops should be sent to prison. I don't think what happened to Darren Wilson was even remotely fair.

I have no problem debating race with you, since I think racism is a part of the natural order. It's naturally going to make the communists and the capitalists of the imperialist variety uncomfortable, because I'm keeping to a more scientific position which they find untenable. However, that's also why I think it is pointless supporting them or fighting their wars, since they are essentially going to lose a lot more than they win until they come to terms with reality. We don't need one currency, a world government, a single language, or a single religion. It's pointless. Trade and the law merchant should be sufficient.

[blackjack21]

Well, apparently Dan Johnson of Kentucky is the first person to take his life over the sex allegation craze.
Kentucky State Rep. Dan Johnson commits suicide after sexual assault accusations emerge, officials say

A state representative in Kentucky shot and killed himself Wednesday evening, officials said -- just days after a report emerged in which a woman said he sexually assaulted her when she was 17.

Rep. Dan Johnson, a preacher and a Republican, shot himself on a bridge in Mt. Washington, southeast of Louisville, Bullitt County Sheriff Donnie Tinnell told WDRB. His body turned up on a riverbank near the bridge and the weapon reportedly was found at the scene. He was 57.

Mario Batali's reputation is being torn apart too.

Mario Batali Out as Co-Host of ‘The Chew’ Amid Sexual Harassment Allegations
It's so weird that they are pulling his products from store shelves.

Mario Batali products pulled from Eataly shelves

And Tavis Smiley is getting hosed too: PBS Suspends ‘Tavis Smiley’ Following Sexual Misconduct Investigation (EXCLUSIVE)]

And another black man is getting accused too: Music Mogul Russell Simmons
Is Accused of Rape by 3 Women

The Weinstein story takes an even uglier turn: Harvey Weinstein Is My Monster Too

The range of his persuasion tactics went from sweet-talking me to that one time when, in an attack of fury, he said the terrifying words, “I will kill you, don’t think I can’t.”

And now, consensual relationships between adults is grounds for dismissal too. USA Gymnastics bans coach for sexual misconduct with athlete

Seems the political left is dumping their sexual licentiousness for the new puritanism.

[Potemkin]

Seems the political left is dumping their sexual licentiousness for the new puritanism.

The Right were calling for a 'New Puritanism' back in the 1970s and 80s. Well, they've got their wish. Why aren't they happy about it? Lol.

[Drlee]

@blackjack21

This is going way too far. It has become clear that there is little defense to any charge. Perhaps this will lead to some needed change though.

Here is what I believe needs to be said at this point. About 10,000 years of human history have made men equate power and sex. Not even subconsciously, the acquisition of fame, wealth or political power is seen by most men as the road to success with women. And of course, it is.

Why is Bill Clinton not in jail? Because Monica Lewinski pursued him as much as he pursued her. Everybody understood that. Even her. But if that matter had come up today and she has simply claimed that he put his hand on her butt, he would be out with the dog.

As much as I liked Bill Clinton for his middle-of-the-road conservative political views I have always said that his actions were the very definition of sexual harassment in the marketplace. This defined as someone using their position of power to gain sexual favors. But there is a problem with this. Always has been. The thing is that woman are very good at playing the game too. Every man who has ever been in a position of power or wealth knows that there are plenty of women who make it known that they are 'available'. They also know that on the job, messing with these women is fraught with danger. Danger because all the woman has to do is simply change her characterization of the affair. They don't have to lie about what happened or that it happened at all. They simply have to say they were "uncomfortable".

So what do we do? Do we want to take away the possibility of flirting? About one in five married people met at work. (Coworkers.)

What we have constructed is a set of extremely complicated rules. These rules border on the absurd. In the army there was no problem with my complementing a male soldier on his appearance. If I said, "looking sharp today young man" that was fine but the same compliment to a female soldier was treated with suspicion. I was once taught in a class about sexual harassment that if I was to do this to a man it was a good compliment but if I was to do it to a woman it would be called "signaling". I brought up to the instructor that perhaps the women in the class should be taught that this is not to be thought of as "signaling" but I was told that was close to "blaming the victim".

Now I totally get that bosses should not use their power to get sex. I totally get, for example, that professors should not chase students and that even when their advances are welcomed they should realize that they are sailing very close to the wind. Smart people do not do that. But there is a side of this that has to be considered. After many (how many?) years, women just have to realize that while they are still a victim, their window of opportunity has closed. I am not talking about rape here. Be clear about that. But to say, years after the fact, that someone tried to kiss me and I didn't want to, will be taken with a grain of salt.

The allegations against Franken, for example, are simply absurd. He was a comedian in show business FFS. He kisses a women in front of dozens of people and years later it is sexual harassment? I don't think so. After 40 years of faithful marriage to the same woman Roy Moore is defenseless against allegations is terrifying.

We need to have this conversation. No doubt. But I fear that we are embarking on a road down which no one wants to go. Work environments are very complicated. Tall men are promoted more than short men. Overweight women are not called back for a job. Pretty girls get jobs but not promoted past a certain level. All of these things are a tragedy to someone. The thing is though that men do not do well as victims. If the gender feels threatened it can and will fight back. It already is. I would not want to be a pretty woman wishing for a serious career this week. Too many men, no doubt in part because of their past behavior, might be afraid of you.

This has already devolved to the hugging question. When I was younger, nobody hugged. They certainly did not do it in the Army. After I was surprised to see how many people hug on meeting now. This is not sexual. It is just a cultural change. But now we have organizations putting out "hugging bans". This is sad IMO.

Mensa, the high IQ society, has for years had a policy about hugging. On one's name tag is a dot. Green for OK to hug, yellow for ask first, and red for no hugging. This was probably because there is a considerable amount of social anxiety associated with people with very high IQ's. But the practice, while quirky and some say cute, is really a sign of a larger problem. That is that people in this organization believe that they need not accommodate the feelings of others. I do not see this practice as empowering at all. I see it as a sign of the ultimate selfishness. 'I don't care if you are a touchy feely person who just wants to express how much you value the friendship of others, I don't want a hug and you can't make me have one.' Selfish.

I don't want that world. I want a world where men and women live together acknowledging and valuing the difference between the sexes. I am not a molester because I hug people sometimes. I am not a homophobe because I do not find men attractive. I am not an abuser because I raise my voice sometimes. I do not believe I live in a "rape culture".

We have to get our feet back under us and stop robbing the power from words like "rape" and "abuse" by so watering down their meanings to the point where there is no difference between trying to get to third base in the backseat of a car and doing it with a gun.

The Right were calling for a 'New Puritanism' back in the 1970s and 80s. Well, they've got their wish. Why aren't they happy about it? Lol.

True. But the problem is that they have also developed the 'ability' to simply ignore transgressions because "better a child molester than a democrat".

Moore took 52% of white college educated women and 68% of white college educated men.

Politics is no longer about the same things it once was. It is tribalism, pure and simple these days.

[skinster]

Women aren't going to take their cues on what ought to be acceptable behaviour from men, but thanks for trying.

It's really easy not to be a sleazebag if you can break away from patriarchal programming. And if you've fucked up in the past but are willing to address it and try to be a better person, good luck to you.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

True. But the problem is that they have also developed the 'ability' to simply ignore transgressions because "better a child molester than a democrat".

Moore took 52% of white college educated women and 68% of white college educated men.

Politics is no longer about the same things it once was. It is tribalism, pure and simple these days.

But how is that different to what happened in the 90s with Bill Clinton? Democrats, educated and uneducated alike, defended a man accused of rape because he was a Democrat. And they just ran his wife, who has called the accusations a conspiracy and attacked the accusers, for president. I don't think anything has changed in that respect other than that a man who the Democrats really hate sits in the white house and they are prepared to make some sacrifices to remove him. The idea that this is a generational shift is more of a rationalisation, although the attitudes may well stick because they give women an advantage not least because they are less of a potential liability when it comes to sexual harassment and assault allegations.

Of course, none of this was planned but the Democrats have themselves been caught up in the storm they created and they probably won't be able to get it under control. Middle class women now demand their place in the sun and the Democratic party is their vehicle to achieve it.

[skinster]

Salma Hayek: Harvey Weinstein Is My Monster Too

[Drlee]

But how is that different to what happened in the 90s with Bill Clinton? Democrats, educated and uneducated alike, defended a man accused of rape because he was a Democrat. And they just ran his wife, who has called the accusations a conspiracy and attacked the accusers, for president.

Not much different really. If I had to try to articulate one it would be that the more liberal someone is the more they have a hard time not assuming that they are guiltless because their hearts a pure.

Of course, none of this was planned but the Democrats have themselves been caught up in the storm they created and they probably won't be able to get it under control. Middle class women now demand their place in the sun and the Democratic party is their vehicle to achieve it.

This also is true. They have let the genie out of the bottle for sure. What will be interesting is seeing whether the democrats can move over and make room for practicing Christians. My sense is that they can't. Or won't. And it will cost them dearly.

[blackjack21]

The Right were calling for a 'New Puritanism' back in the 1970s and 80s. Well, they've got their wish. Why aren't they happy about it? Lol.

I don't think they were suggesting we abandon due process of law.

Why is Bill Clinton not in jail? Because Monica Lewinski pursued him as much as he pursued her. Everybody understood that. Even her. But if that matter had come up today and she has simply claimed that he put his hand on her butt, he would be out with the dog.

Clinton isn't in jail, because of your understanding of the charges against him. What he did with Lewinsky wasn't criminal at all. What he was alleged to do with Paula Corbin Jones was on trial, and he committed a felony in trying to prevent her from seeking damages. That was not the purpose of the Ken Starr investigation into Whitewater real estate transactions. So the Democrats were successful in changing the topic and obfuscating what he did, which was felony lying under oath to prevent a woman from seeking damages for Clinton's alleged actions. He has been accused of worse by others, such as Juanita Broderick and has never been held to answer for it. At this point, there is no forensic evidence. So he may have well gotten away with one, but it is also another case where a woman did not come forward until the man accused reached a high office.

As much as I liked Bill Clinton for his middle-of-the-road conservative political views I have always said that his actions were the very definition of sexual harassment in the marketplace. This defined as someone using their position of power to gain sexual favors. But there is a problem with this. Always has been. The thing is that woman are very good at playing the game too. Every man who has ever been in a position of power or wealth knows that there are plenty of women who make it known that they are 'available'.

My first time in Washington DC, about 30 years ago, I was checking out all the gals who were doing their level best to look hot and professional simultaneously. I remember how many of them were wearing the "Lady Diana" hairdo--bit of a timesake memory.

They don't have to lie about what happened or that it happened at all. They simply have to say they were "uncomfortable".

That is the essential nature of political correctness too. It has become all about someone's feelings, and being offended.

So what do we do? Do we want to take away the possibility of flirting? About one in five married people met at work. (Coworkers.)

Yes, but that is declining because it is too great a risk for men now. I've only been in one job where a couple was married and worked at the same company. I've used to go to a pub where two of the bartenders were dating, and we were always told to keep it a secret or they'd be fired. This was in the 1990s after the Clarence Thomas deal.

I was once taught in a class about sexual harassment that if I was to do this to a man it was a good compliment but if I was to do it to a woman it would be called "signaling". I brought up to the instructor that perhaps the women in the class should be taught that this is not to be thought of as "signaling" but I was told that was close to "blaming the victim".

I remember the objections to women in the military being that there would be lots of sexual impropriety allegations and that it would harm unit cohesion, etc. It seems to have come to pass. It's one thing to try to change learned behavior. It's another thing to try to change the essential nature of human beings--incidentally why communism always fails.

Now I totally get that bosses should not use their power to get sex. I totally get, for example, that professors should not chase students and that even when their advances are welcomed they should realize that they are sailing very close to the wind.

Yes, but that is to ensure that some people aren't given special treatment. If it is consensual, as in the Monica Lewinsky case, you are dealing with a complex issue where the criminal law doesn't effectively apply since their is no plaintiff between the two parties, as modern theories go. In the past, it was in fact criminal to commit adultery or to seduce a married person. So both Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky could have been prosecuted in the past. This has been overlooked for politicians for a very long time. Yet, public examples include people like Frank Sinatra was charged with seducing a married woman.

One of my long-standing points about liberal arguments is that they usually start with: "There is no reason why... blah blah blah." The reason it is effective is that people often have no idea where traditional societal norms and folkways came from. So in their effort to create a "new society," they tore down one hell of a lot of norms and folkways designed to protect women. Something that may have seemed quaint and charming, like walking a lady to her car, is now seen as retrograde. Yet, it was designed to prevent women from getting raped.

Smart people do not do that.

Well, now you are calling Bill Clinton an idiot. He's not an idiot though. It's reasonable to disagree with him politically and socially, but he is a relatively high IQ person. People with high IQs become addicted to alcohol and drugs too. You could say it is smarter to never start such habits, but once it plays on a person's prefrontal cortex, it's often "game over" as far as decision making goes.

After many (how many?) years, women just have to realize that while they are still a victim, their window of opportunity has closed. I am not talking about rape here. Be clear about that.

Yes, but even with rape--and I'm not saying people can't claim it or talk about it--if there is no forensic evidence or a material witness, there is really no way that the law can do much about it.

The allegations against Franken, for example, are simply absurd. He was a comedian in show business FFS. He kisses a women in front of dozens of people and years later it is sexual harassment? I don't think so. After 40 years of faithful marriage to the same woman Roy Moore is defenseless against allegations is terrifying.

Well, I've never been in favor of sexual harassment as a civil tort, precisely because it lowered the bar to court complaints and people were likely to settle out of embarrassment than their being any truth to the charge. I knew it would become a cottage industry for lawyers who were running out of people to sue for asbestos/mesothelioma, etc.

As I said at the outset, the problem for Franken was the photos, and that he attempted to take the high ground in the Moore case. That prompted a rebuke from Leann Tweeden; then, a bunch of other women piled on. It sort of snowballed all on its own. I think it is fine for women to come forward. I think women should be allowed to tell their story without judgement. However, to suggest that they should automatically have their story accepted as biblical truth violates everything our justice system is about. I don't think what happened to Franken or Moore was fair at all. However, I think the Democrats laid the groundwork for this, and some are still doing that. For example:

Mika Brzezinski Questions First Franken Accuser: ‘Playboy Model Who Goes on Hannity, Voted for Trump’
Mika Brzezinski seems to think it's okay to attack the woman if she might be a Republican. Not even Al Franken did that. Yet, this is exactly what Hillary Clinton did, and part of why she had no credibility in running a "war on women" campaign.

Anyway, we now have a woman accused of sexual harassment who is now bowing out of a run for public service:

Kansas Dem Andrea Ramsey, accused of sexual harassment, will drop out of U.S. House race

“In its rush to claim the high ground in our roiling national conversation about harassment, the Democratic Party has implemented a zero tolerance standard,” Ramsey said in a statement Friday. “For me, that means a vindictive, terminated employee’s false allegations are enough for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) to decide not to support our promising campaign. We are in a national moment where rough justice stands in place of careful analysis, nuance and due process.”

Leave it to a woman to strike the right tone... That's why we should try Mitch Romney for witchcraft and find him guilty no matter what...

Well, anyways, I turn 50 today, so I'm going to get pissed tonight, I think.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

Salma Hayek: Harvey Weinstein Is My Monster Too

I had to stop halfway into this piece because the self pity became a bit nauseating. I guess we are supposed to believe that Weinstein had all of Hollywood spellbound and that he was akin to a mafia boss who ruled the industry with an iron fist.

Not much different really. If I had to try to articulate one it would be that the more liberal someone is the more they have a hard time not assuming that they are guiltless because their hearts a pure.

I think that's right. Partisanship has probably always existed on both sides. One difference is that the self-styled centrist media has a history of siding with the left or Democrats in these situations. It may have been more subtle a few decades ago but still quite obvious to people on the right politically. The NYT is a good gauge in that respect.

I think that a lot of what is happening today needs to be understood in that context. If the centre skews to one side it's no longer really in the centre politically and it has a hard time when it comes to balanced reporting, despite its own pronouncements to the contrary.

This also is true. They have let the genie out of the bottle for sure. What will be interesting is seeing whether the democrats can move over and make room for practicing Christians. My sense is that they can't. Or won't. And it will cost them dearly.

I just want to add that there's obviously nothing wrong with wanting a place in the sun. The problem is that women are still operating under the assumption that they are oppressed and disadvantaged. I believe that's a dangerous combination and to my knowledge it's historically unprecedented that a group wields considerable power while viewing itself as powerless.


---------------------------------------------------

Another one bites the dust:

Lorin Stein, editor of The Paris Review, resigns after misconduct investigation

Never heard of him but he's apparently a big name in the literary world. Again, what I'm seeing here is a backlash by the left against its own past movement which was led by artsy and intellectual men and women who were finally liberated from strict sexual mores.

Simone de Beauvoir and Jean Paul Sartre also come to mind:

In 1943, de Beauvoir was suspended from her teaching job, due to an accusation that she had seduced her 17-year-old lycée pupil Natalie Sorokine in 1939.[24] Sorokine's parents laid formal charges against de Beauvoir for debauching a minor and as a result she had her license to teach in France permanently revoked.[25] She and Jean-Paul Sartre developed a pattern, which they called the "trio", in which de Beauvoir would seduce her students and then pass them on to Sartre.[26] De Beauvoir and Sartre would both take part in political campaigns to abolish the age of consent laws for sexual relationships in France.

[skinster]

I had to stop halfway into this piece because the self pity became a bit nauseating. I guess we are supposed to believe that Weinstein had all of Hollywood spellbound and that he was akin to a mafia boss who ruled the industry with an iron fist.

How a Handful of Billionaires Kept Their Friend Harvey Weinstein in Power

[Decky]

Deleted - see viewtopic.php?f=45&t=169316 . Even if this was a joke. - Prosthetic Conscience

[skinster]

The problem with consent - Women’s role in sex is still primarily framed—in the legal system and in society—as gatekeeper to men’s desires.

When it comes to rape, the idea of consent is necessary but fundamentally flawed. It is primarily a legal term that has failed women in Canadian criminal law and its popular use in dialogue around sexual assault misses the point. The idea of consent unwittingly reinforces the premise of rape culture.

I once worked in a transition house in British Columbia for a decade. I used to lament to other advocates that the only battered woman police cared about was a murdered one since she was so much easier to deal with. On the other hand, frontline workers spend a lot of time uncovering the sexual abuse of married women. Unlike police officers, they asked about the “make-up sex” he so often insisted they have, and the role of pornography in his expectations.

It was not lost on me that in Canadian law, up until 1983, it was impossible to rape your wife. As far as the law was concerned, husbands owned unrestricted access to their wives’ bodies. A wife’s choice to have sex or not was legally non-existent. It seems absurd these 30-odd years later, although it has meant little difference for women—much like the legal debates about consent, which thanks to feminists, have shifted onus away from women proving they meant no, to men proving she signalled yes. But sexual assault statistics haven’t changed over the last 30 years, and yet we cling to this idea of consent because women are desperate to legitimize our right to refuse.

Over the last 30 years, especially on campuses across the country, public education campaigns have relied on this narrow legal understanding where consent boils down to an issue of permission. We therefore imagine consent as a distinct moment or set of moments in which a woman allows access to her body. But once granted, we presume a man is entitled to sexual gratification. We are unconcerned with hers.

Well-meaning slogans like ‘no means no’ and ‘yes means yes’ reinforce these explicit moments but disregard the significance of sex requiring ongoing enthusiasm. Women’s sexual gratification is completely disconnected from the idea of consent. In the context of consent, women are not expected to enjoy themselves despite the fact that women’s enjoyment guarantees consent. Women’s role in sex is still primarily framed as gatekeeper to men’s desires and channel for male orgasm, reinforcing rape culture’s premise that men’s sexual entitlement comes at women’s expense.

We prefer to talk about consent because it keeps the lid shut on the Pandora’s box of systematic and historical inequality between the sexes. We are too scared, and ashamed, to face just how many women have ‘consensual’ sex but don’t like it, and just how many men are okay with this. We avoid discussions about men’s antagonism to women’s sexual pleasure because men who rape and those who don’t are connected through these shared sexist attitudes.

Through complacency and defensiveness men reveal their biases and insecurities. They fear and loathe women’s sexual appetites because they equate sexual prowess with dominance. They must believe that if given the chance women would hurt them the way they’ve hurt us. What a depressing paranoia.

The legal system is part of rape culture. Its inadequate language and concepts won’t do. Consent is the lowest bar. Women want the sky.

[Stormsmith]

I once worked in a transition house in British Columbia for a decade. I used to lament to other advocates that the only battered woman police cared about was a murdered one since she was so much easier to deal with.

Absolute horse feathers

They would have solved the Pinkerton murders and resolved the Highway of Tears fiasco years earlier if this were true

[skinster]

[Stormsmith]

Sorry that should be Pickton, a property developer who kept hogs. He spent 20 years raping and killing hookers. The nabs did worse than drop the ball

From wikipedia, Highway of Tears Murders:

The Highway of Tears murders is a series of murders and disappearances of mainly aboriginal women along the 720 km (450 mi) section of Highway 16 between Prince George and Prince Rupert, British Columbia, Canada from 1969 until 2011.[1][2] Highway 16 is northern British Columbia's east-west corridor, extending from Jasper in the east to Prince Rupert in the west.[3] This route is a section of the Trans-Canada Yellowhead Highway, also known as the "Park-to-Park Highway", which spans across British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba.[4] There are numerous municipalities and twenty-three First Nations communities that border the Highway of Tears.[3][5] The region is plagued with poverty and lack of public transportation, forcing its occupants to turn to hitchhiking as a form of transit.[6] Police list the number of Highway 16 victims at nineteen, but estimates by aboriginal organizations range into the forties, largely because they include women who disappeared a greater distance from the highway.[7] Thirteen of the nineteen victims were teenagers while ten out of the nineteen victims were women of aboriginal descent.[7]

Highway of Tears Murders

Sign on Highway 16 warning girls not to hitchhike

DetailsVictims16-40+

Span of killings

1969–2011CountryCanadaLocation(s)Prince George, British Columbia
Prince Rupert, British ColumbiaExternal video B.C.‘s infamous Highway of Tears, CBC Archives, 2:32, June 21, 2006, reported by Miyoung Lee[1]

To date, only one murder has been solved, for which serial killer Cody Legebokoff was convicted, although American serial rapist and suspected serial killer Bobby Jack Fowler, who died while imprisoned in the United States for other crimes, is a suspect in many of the murders. Authorities have persons of interest in several other cases, but insufficient evidence to press charges.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

Skinster, wherever you found that, it's a load of bollocks. Is it a parody?

[Potemkin]

Skinster, wherever you found that, it's a load of bollocks. Is it a parody?

I have to disagree. I think the analysis which skinster posted is on the button. The basic issue is, as the article describes, the alienation between men and women in our society. Men are socially conditioned to regard women as a resource (in this case, of sexual gratification). Women have something which men want, and we have to find some way of obtaining it without ending up in prison or with a paternity suit. Women give (or withhold) their consent to our obtaining what we want from them - this way of looking at the sexual relationship is based on the metaphor that the relationship between men and women is one of exploitation at worst or a legal business contract at best. Just as we exploit the land to extract oil or coal or whatever, we exploit women to obtain sexual gratification. With their legally defined 'consent', of course, to avoid the involvement of the courts. Can we think of no better way of relating to women?

[skinster]

Potemkin <3

Sorry that should be Pickton, a property developer who kept hogs. He spent 20 years raping and killing hookers. The nabs did worse than drop the ball

I know all about that psychopath, but the part of the article you quoted, the writer looks like she's being sarcastic about cops caring for...dead women.

Skinster, wherever you found that, it's a load of bollocks. Is it a parody?

Oops I forgot to post the link. What's your problem with it?

[Prosthetic Conscience]

Can we think of no better way of relating to women?

It's not about how we relate to women; it's a complaint that the law doesn't think about how satisfied some women are during sex. It's utter tosh. I don't base my relationships with women just on the law.

we exploit women to obtain sexual gratification

You and who else? I don't. You have admitted to a shitty way to relate to women. Don't think that you speak for us in general.