Values Added: Salacious Details (Allison Hoffman & Michael B. Dougherty)

[Bloggingheads]

[T.G.G.P]

She's right that it doesn't make much sense for Occupy Wall Street to be taking a stand on an issue like Israel-Palestine. But O.W.S has always been exceptionally, even explicitly, inchoate. And it was common at Iraq war protests for A.N.S.W.E.R or the Revolutionary Maoist Party to show up and advocate communism, and some Palestinian supporters in keffiyehs (if you're in Frisco, perhaps the odd Queers For Palestine) to show up.

She also mentions the suspect motivations of Christian Zionists that "at the end, you all convert". Michael just goes "yeah". But my recollection is that he's a serious Christian (albeit Catholic, ho ho), and Christian doctrine says you can only be saved by accepting Christ as your savior, salvation is for everyone and it is incumbent upon Christians to spread the faith. So shouldn't Michael similarly support the idea of massive (voluntary!) conversions to Christianity?

[Sulla the Dictator]

This Cain business is absurd on its face. There has never been a serious chance Cain was going to win the nomination. Cain's poll positions are better seen as a vote of no-confidence in Mitt Romney. I've done that myself when polled, though not for Cain, for Gingrich. But Cain has no real organization in Iowa, or NH, or South Carolina, or anywhere else. Which means he has never had any chance.

On the issue of sexual harassment, let me take the unpopular position. I *do not* believe in most modern claims of sexual harassment. Grabbing women, attempting to establish a sex/work quid pro quo, repeated explicitly sexual jokes and advances after rejection are obviously sexual harassment. But from my experience in the corporate world, that is not the majority of cases. We have advanced far from the 1960s.

These days, sexual harassment claims mostly seem to be made by the hyper sensitive, or the rent seekers, or the prudish. Asking someone out on a date once isn't sexual harassment, nor is being bumped, nor is a bawdy joke told after the end of work. I can assure you, these are far more common than the serious variety. And we need to be far more serious in how we treat false claims of this type. This has changed from an attempt to address wrong doing into a scalpel with which feminists can continue their furious effort to feminize men within the culture.

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

This Cain business is absurd on its face. There has never been a serious chance Cain was going to win the nomination. Cain's poll positions are better seen as a vote of no-confidence in Mitt Romney. I've done that myself when polled, though not for Cain, for Gingrich. But Cain has no real organization in Iowa, or NH, or South Carolina, or anywhere else. Which means he has never had any chance.

On the issue of sexual harassment, let me take the unpopular position. I *do not* believe in most modern claims of sexual harassment. Grabbing women, attempting to establish a sex/work quid pro quo, repeated explicitly sexual jokes and advances after rejection are obviously sexual harassment. But from my experience in the corporate world, that is not the majority of cases. We have advanced far from the 1960s.

These days, sexual harassment claims mostly seem to be made by the hyper sensitive, or the rent seekers, or the prudish. Asking someone out on a date once isn't sexual harassment, nor is being bumped, nor is a bawdy joke told after the end of work. I can assure you, these are far more common than the serious variety. And we need to be far more serious in how we treat false claims of this type. This has changed from an attempt to address wrong doing into a scalpel with which feminists can continue their furious effort to feminize men within the culture.

There again, sexism and distracting from the real issue.

The women that brought up allegations against Cain aren't talking about jokes after work. So, why get off on a tangent? What are you trying to do? See if you can discredit the whole category of "sexual harassment" so that people don't think about what the actual allegations are?

And you really seem to have such problems with feminists. What have they done to you?

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by Ocean

There again, sexism and distracting from the real issue.

Distracting from the real issue? The topic of the portion of the diavlog was "Do Conservatives even believe in sexual harassment?"

I'm saying that I believe in a small amount of real harassment claims, but the majority are rubbish.

The women that brought up allegations against Cain aren't talking about jokes after work.

How would you know, exactly?

So, why get off on a tangent? What are you trying to do? See if you can discredit the whole category of "sexual harassment" so that people don't think about what the actual allegations are?

What are the actual allegations?

And you really seem to have such problems with feminists. What have they done to you?

They're fantasists who engage in a war with reason. They seek to blur gender distinctions, and shame men. I have never been one for shame.

[Wonderment]

What are the actual allegations?

Sexual assault.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

Sexual assault.

Do you really believe that story?

Let me be clear, I have no interest in Herman Cain. I find the number of women complaining to be indicative of some kind of misconduct, as far as I'm concerned.

But that yarn yesterday was ridiculous. Just the physical description of events is absurd.

[sugarkang]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

I find the number of women complaining to be indicative of some kind of misconduct, as far as I'm concerned.

I agree, though we might disagree on the further implications. Number four seems like a typical rent seeker. "I don't want any money." Sure you don't, lady. You just want the whole world to know what a victim you are.

What this tells me is that there aren't just four women. There were probably forty women and most of them did want the job.

[Peter Sibley]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

Just the physical description of events is absurd.

That was my first thought, too. One hand under the skirt, another on the back of the woman's head or neck. Not impossible, of course, but more likely a conflation of events, or non-events.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by Peter Sibley

That was my first thought, too. One hand under the skirt, another on the back of the woman's head or neck. Not impossible, of course, but more likely a conflation of events, or non-events.

Exactly. But the boldness of such a thing sounds like a cartoon. What exactly is the point of upgrading someone to a suite if you're going to swive them in a parking lot in front of an office? What is the point of driving to the office from a hotel to do this? Couldn't wait until in an actual office?

I can't conceive of a man who isn't either a frustrated fifty year old virgin or a rapist opening a sexual advance in the manner this woman describes. And nothing suggests Cain is either.

This woman strikes me as a flake. Her narrative makes little sense: She meets Cain at an after conference party one time, years before, and believes this is the basis upon which she can get a job recommendation or an actual hire? And based on one phone call she flies to DC and gets a hotel room to meet him? In the lobby of her own hotel?

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

I can't conceive of a man who isn't either a frustrated fifty year old virgin or a rapist opening a sexual advance in the manner this woman describes. And nothing suggests Cain is either.

Perhaps he got caught up in the moment and couldn't wait any longer. She is, after all, quite well endowed. And she may have been flirting with him the whole time. If things were as she said they were, as in upgraded suite, fancy restaurant, she'd be an idiot not to know something was up.

I really hope Cain is as innocent as he claims to be. That would be a first in this type of scenario.

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

I really hope Cain is as innocent as he claims to be. That would be a first in this type of scenario.

As a believer in original sin, I have to say that there isn't a human being on earth who is as innocent as Cain claims to be.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by miceelf

As a believer in original sin, I have to say that there isn't a human being on earth who is as innocent as Cain claims to be.

I can only hope. There's got to be someone, somewhere.

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

I can only hope. There's got to be someone, somewhere.

As I understand it, He was crucified more than 2000 years ago.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by miceelf

As I understand it, He was crucified more than 2000 years ago.

Wait just a minute. So you think that it's impossible that a man accused of sexual harassment could be innocent of the charges? That seems quite illiberal of you.

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

Wait just a minute. So you think that it's impossible that a man accused of sexual harassment could be innocent of the charges? That seems quite illiberal of you.

I didn't say that. i said it's impossible for any human being to be as innocent as Cain claims to be. He has recently claimed to not only be innocent in these particular cases, but to have "never acted inappropriately with anyone ever."

It's certainly possible for someone to be innocent of the specific charges in this case (although as the number of separate accusations increases, the odds of innocence seem to go down).

But his blanket claim of metaphysical innocence is what I was talking about.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by miceelf

I didn't say that. i said it's impossible for any human being to be as innocent as Cain claims to be. He has recently claimed to not only be innocent in these particular cases, but to have "never acted inappropriately with anyone ever."

It's certainly possible for someone to be innocent of the specific charges in this case (although as the number of separate accusations increases, the odds of innocence seem to go down).

But his blanket claim of metaphysical innocence is what I was talking about.

I still think it is possible for a man in high office to claim that he never acted inappropriately and be correct. The problem lies in the word inappropriate. I guess Cain should have stipulated that he never acted inappropriately in a sexual way. That, I believe is possible.

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

I still think it is possible for a man in high office to claim that he never acted inappropriately and be correct. The problem lies in the word inappropriate. I guess Cain should have stipulated that he never acted inappropriately in a sexual way. That, I believe is possible.

Yes, or he could have stipulated in a work context, or as an adult, or any of another variety of stipulations that would have made his claim less nonsensical.

[kezboard]

So you think that it's impossible that a man accused of sexual harassment could be innocent of the charges?

I think it's safe to assume that a politician who has acted so sketchily when faced with sexual harassment allegations is probably hiding something. I thought the same thing when Anthony Weiner wouldn't deny that it was his pecker in the picture.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by kezboard

I think it's safe to assume that a politician who has acted so sketchily when faced with sexual harassment allegations is probably hiding something. I thought the same thing when Anthony Weiner wouldn't deny that it was his pecker in the picture.

I think he said something about someone hacking the pecker picture. But largely, I agree. However, it is possible, is it not, that a man accused of sexual harassment may be innocent of said charges.

[sapeye]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

I can only hope. There's got to be someone, somewhere.

Why must there be someone somewhere? It seems to me that that's like saying the moon must be made of green cheese just because someone said it. We've all got shadows, it's just that many try to deny it.

I sort of like that Cain's response to the accusations was to sing a hymn with a tune pretty much lifted from Oh Danny Boy, the pipe(s) the pipe(s) is (are) calling.

[stephanie]

Originally Posted by sapeye

I sort of like that Cain's response to the accusations was to sing a hymn with a tune pretty much lifted from Oh Danny Boy, the pipe(s) the pipe(s) is (are) calling.

The funniest bit of any of the stories I've read (which, to be fair, is not actually about a sexual harassment accusation) is this, from the Washington Examiner:

Cain exhibited no inappropriate sexual behavior during the dinner, though he did order two $400 bottles of wine and stuck the women with the bill, she said.

The next time the women heard from Cain was Christmas, when he sent them his gospel CD.

[sapeye]

Originally Posted by stephanie

The funniest bit of any of the stories I've read (which, to be fair, is not actually about a sexual harassment accusation) is this, from the Washington Examiner:

That's Great. Apparently Cain is a master of euphemisms as well as sly humor.

"And after the seminar was over," Donella told The Washington Examiner, "Cain came over to me and a colleague and said, 'Could you put me in touch with that lovely young lady who asked the question, [wait for it...] so I can give her a more thorough answer over dinner?'"

I suppose the women should be grateful that he stuck them only with the bill. But $800 is still a pretty sharp prick. Guy seems sleazy to me. And I am sick to fucking death of hypocrisy.

[miceelf]

"Cain exhibited no inappropriate sexual behavior during the dinner, though he did order two $400 bottles of wine and stuck the women with the bill, she said.

The next time the women heard from Cain was Christmas, when he sent them his gospel CD."


Maybe he really wanted the job.
Or the wine.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by sapeye

Why must there be someone somewhere? It seems to me that that's like saying the moon must be made of green cheese just because someone said it. We've all got shadows, it's just that many try to deny it.

Hoping for integrity is nothing like your silly analogy.
And yes I know we're all imperfect. I doubt there are many who are unaware of this.

[sapeye]

Originally Posted by miceelf

As a believer in original sin, I have to say that there isn't a human being on earth who is as innocent as Cain claims to be.

LOL

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by Peter Sibley

That was my first thought, too. One hand under the skirt, another on the back of the woman's head or neck. Not impossible, of course, but more likely a conflation of events, or non-events.

1. Did she claim that both happened exactly simultaneously?
2. I tried this out with a willing partner, seated beside me in a car. It's not really all that difficult.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by miceelf

1. Did she claim that both happened exactly simultaneously?

Yes.

2. I tried this out with a willing partner, seated beside me in a car. It's not really all that difficult.

It is an implausible configuration for anyone familiar with how sex should go. It isn't impossible, or "difficult", but it is clearly awkward and unnecessary.

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by miceelf

2. I tried this out with a willing partner, seated beside me in a car. It's not really all that difficult.

I didn't go as far as you did in testing this with a willing partner, but I don't see why others would have such difficulty imagining this scene in all its salacious details.

[sapeye]

Originally Posted by Ocean

I didn't go as far as you did in testing this with a willing partner, but I don't see why others would have such difficulty imagining this scene in all its salacious details.

All this is far to general. I want to know which hand went to the leg and which to the back of the head. I mean, really, how can we reconstruct the scene in our depraved yearning minds without such vital details?

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by sapeye

All this is far to general. I want to know which hand went to the leg and which to the back of the head. I mean, really, how can we reconstruct the scene in our depraved yearning minds without such vital details?

Which hand to which leg and to what part of the leg. Furthermore, where were the woman's hands?

(Okay, we better leave it there, or else Bhtv will have to create another category of threads where to move sexually charged comments.)

[sapeye]

Originally Posted by Ocean

(Okay, we better leave it there, or else Bhtv will have to create another category of threads where to move sexually charged comments.)

That's a great idea, Ocean! Of course it might thin the traffic to this main family thread.

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by Ocean

I didn't go as far as you did in testing this with a willing partner, but I don't see why others would have such difficulty imagining this scene in all its salacious details.

I don't see why a reporter doesn't ask Cain to re-enact the scenario, with a staffer, or something, so that everyone can evaluate how plausible it is.

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by miceelf

I don't see why a reporter doesn't ask Cain to re-enact the scenario, with a staffer, or something, so that everyone can evaluate how plausible it is.

Well, how much effort do you think he will put in making it believable?

I thought you were going to volunteer a video or something...

(Just kidding!)

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

They're fantasists who engage in a war with reason. They seek to blur gender distinctions, and shame men. I have never been one for shame.

Whatever wounds these alleged feminists have inflicted on you are interfering with your capacity to reason or you truly believe that men (and not women) hold the gold standard of all appropriate behavior.

[eeeeeeeli]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

I have never been one for shame.

Only if you have nothing to be ashamed of. That's the question though. If you take a historical, progressive view of history, we've all had a lot to be ashamed of. The basic feminist critique isn't interested in shaming, but in changing attitudes. If your attitude isn't a problem, then no worries, right?

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by eeeeeeeli

Only if you have nothing to be ashamed of. That's the question though. If you take a historical, progressive view of history, we've all had a lot to be ashamed of. The basic feminist critique isn't interested in shaming, but in changing attitudes. If your attitude isn't a problem, then no worries, right?

Such a simple straight forward message, and yet so difficult to understand for some.

When it comes to men that have that defensive attitude, always complaining about women's right to live in an environment of safety, free of harassment, intimidation or threat, I wonder how they would like their mothers, sisters or daughters to be treated.

[Don Zeko]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

These days, sexual harassment claims mostly seem to be made by the hyper sensitive, or the rent seekers, or the prudish. Asking someone out on a date once isn't sexual harassment, nor is being bumped, nor is a bawdy joke told after the end of work. I can assure you, these are far more common than the serious variety. And we need to be far more serious in how we treat false claims of this type. This has changed from an attempt to address wrong doing into a scalpel with which feminists can continue their furious effort to feminize men within the culture.

Well I'm sorry to hear that you're upset, Sullla, but I've got good news. It turns out that none of those things are actually going to allow you to win a sexual harassment suit. This is right up there with the McDonald's Coffee lawsuit myth. Also, what does it mean for men to be "feminized?"

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by Don Zeko

Well I'm sorry to hear that you're upset, Sullla, but I've got good news. It turns out that none of those things are actually going to allow you to win a sexual harassment suit. This is right up there with the McDonald's Coffee lawsuit myth.

Actually Don, you're confusing "winning a suit" with making a claim. What I described make up the lion's share of actual claims. Do you dispute that? Is that a myth?

Also, what does it mean for men to be "feminized?"

fem·i·nize

   [fem-uh-nahyz]

verb (used with object), verb (used without object), -nized, -niz·ing.
to make or become feminine.

[Don Zeko]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

Actually Don, you're confusing "winning a suit" with making a claim. What I described make up the lion's share of actual claims. Do you dispute that? Is that a myth?

I don't dispute that there are some cases of spurious sexual harassment claims being brought, but I do dispute that such claims are common or that they result in large out-of-court settlements or what have you. Given the cost of hiring a lawyer and filing suit at all, plus the near-certainty that bringing a suit will have negative consequences for that person's work environment, I think the burden is on you to provide evidence supporting your prejudices.

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

fem·i·nize

   [fem-uh-nahyz]

verb (used with object), verb (used without object), -nized, -niz·ing.
to make or become feminine.

Well that wasn't a waste of anyone's time, no sir. Let me wring an answer out of you then. What qualities do you consider feminine that feminists are trying to foster in men? Why do you find those qualities undesirable?