This Harvey Weinstein thing.....

[Maurice Ballstein]

Actually, it's a pretty damn clear line when work (and associated professional settings) and/or minors are involved, which is what this discussion is generally centered around. The "dating scene" is largely irrelevant here.

I'm aware that the current kerfuffle isn't specifically implicating the dating scene. My question is whether the current discussion will make its way there and if so, what it will mean.

Imagine you were receiving what you thought were positive signs from a person, and you went in for a kiss, and that person was not receptive and regarded it as unwanted sexual advance. The current climate won't be doing you any favors.

[Dantheman]

It's not so clear cut given the number of relationships in the office.

Another year, another sign that office romances are gradually becoming more and more acceptable in workplaces throughout the United States. Indeed, the most striking statistic from this year's Vault Office Romance survey is that just 5 percent of respondents believe that no office romances are appropriate, down from 9 percent in 2011. Additionally, more respondents than ever (29%) are of the opinion that all romantic connections in the workplace are appropriate—including those between managers and their direct reports.

Link.

True, but the consequences of misread signals are a lot higher at work than they are at a bar. If you are interested in someone at work, you're probably best off politely asking them out on a date rather than jumping straight into sticking your tongue in their mouth or whipping your dick out.

Does that pic - where he's clearly goofing around and mugging for the camera-really bother anyone? I mean, come the fuck on. Really? So being dopey is a crime now?

The kiss story, if true, is bad I'd agree. But that's a big "if" in my mind, considering the Stone/Hannity links.

The pic alone doesn't bother me at all. In the larger context of the kiss story it's unsettling, but doubts are definitely rising there.

color me ignorant, and maybe this has been discussed here, but if there will be an investigation into Frankens questionable behavior in the past...why the isn't the same being done to that simple fuck in the oval office?

Many congressional Republicans are terrified of being primaried by the party base who are still solidly on the Drumpf train. The rest don;t give a fuck and want to return to the days when slapping your secretary's ass, calling her sugar tits, and asking for BJs in return for raises was normal behavior.

[PNWbrit]

Does that pic - where he's clearly goofing around and mugging for the camera-really bother anyone?

the Pussy grabber in chief is bothered. He tweeted this morning...

The Al Frankenstien picture is really bad, speaks a thousand words. Where do his hands go in pictures 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 while she sleeps? .....

[MontuckyFried]

color me ignorant, and maybe this has been discussed here, but if there will be an investigation into Frankens questionable behavior in the past...why the isn't the same being done to that simple fuck in the oval office?

It's simple. It's because inappropriate shenanigans have been deemed acceptable ever since Clinton (maybe even JFK?). Back when the Right was calling for his head, people on the Left were saying that we shouldn't be such prudes and pretty much that boys will be boys. I always thought that Trump's former exploits should make him unacceptable to hold the office of President, but the moral standard (or the lack thereof) had already been set.

What's unfortunate is how sexual misconduct has become a partisan thing with both sides being guilty of giving pervs on their side of the aisle a free pass (although this is rapidly changing thankfully).

What I REALLY don't get is that when somebody takes a Pence approach and tries to conduct themselves appropriately at all times, they get labeled a "prude" or people say they're somehow secretly a perv or racist. But when somebody's hand hangs a bit too low (Bush, Sr.), makes inappropriate comments, or looks inappropriately at a woman, then it's OFF WITH HIS HEAD!!! Well, which is it? Either we need to make some definitive, clear lines, or quit getting so worked up about the non-rape/grope incidents. Take a stand...or don't. We'll see what society does. Hopefully we see some real change for the better.

[KQ]

not to make this political but we have Kellyanne to thank for bringing this all to light:

Kellyanne Conway Says She Started The Discussion On Sexual Harassment
“I tried to do it 13 months ago; nobody wanted to listen to me because of the campaign I was managing.”

[Kinnikinnick]

It's simple. It's because inappropriate shenanigans have been deemed acceptable ever since Clinton (maybe even JFK?). Back when the Right was calling for his head, people on the Left were saying that we shouldn't be such prudes and pretty much that boys will be boys. I always thought that Trump's former exploits should make him unacceptable to hold the office of President, but the moral standard (or the lack thereof) had already been set.

What's unfortunate is how sexual misconduct has become a partisan thing with both sides being guilty of giving pervs on their side of the aisle a free pass (although this is rapidly changing thankfully).

What I REALLY don't get is that when somebody takes a Pence approach and tries to conduct themselves appropriately at all times, they get labeled a "prude" or people say they're somehow secretly a perv or racist. But when somebody's hand hangs a bit too low (Bush, Sr.), makes inappropriate comments, or looks inappropriately at a woman, then it's OFF WITH HIS HEAD!!! Well, which is it? Either we need to make some definitive, clear lines, or quit getting so worked up about the non-rape/grope incidents. Take a stand...or don't. We'll see what society does. Hopefully we see some real change for the better.

Totally only the left. All sexual misbehavior came from the left.

What a partisan dipshit you are. If Trump started a nuclear war you'd say "Well it was FDR who started the Manhattan Project and Truman who dropped the first one. The leftists started this nuclear bomb thing"

[MontuckyFried]

Totally only the left. All sexual misbehavior came from the left.

What a partisan dipshit you are. If Trump started a nuclear war you'd say "Well it was FDR who started the Manhattan Project and Truman who dropped the first one. The leftists started this nuclear bomb thing"

You obviously didn't read my post clearly. Go back and read it slowly and digest it a bit better before spouting off. Without repeating myself, I'll just say that whether you like it or not, Clinton's escapades (Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky, Gennifer Flowers, and whole host of unconfirmed stuff from when he was in Arkansas) simply made it acceptable in the public eye for powerful men to behave a certain way. That in NO way excused Trump's despicable behavior. It just set the standard as far as the public is concerned. Back when Clinton was being accused of these things, people like Joy Behar and others called these women "tramps" and "sluts" instead of taking the accusations seriously like we would today. I remember this stuff in the 90s clearly (perhaps you don't?) and I was told over and over that I was being too prude, that what Clinton did was simply his own business, and "hey, that's just what powerful men do." The same super liberal, feminist friends of mine who were absolutely obsessed with JFK and Clinton rail on Trump for doing a FRACTION of what those guys did. You want to see some naughty stuff, take a look at JFK's past. SOOOOO many more stories than just Marilyn Monroe.

No more excuses...for anybody. D or R. Shouldn't matter. I've never been inconsistent on this topic. Always thought sexual misconduct should keep people out of higher office (by virtue of electing better people of course) as anybody in those positions SHOULD be held to a higher standard than your average Joe Blow citizen (who should also be held to a higher standard than what we have today in all honesty).

[Mazderati]

Another bombshell drops. Caitlyn Jenner accuses Bruce Jenner of years of sexual abuse.



https://imgur.com/gallery/L9QrJ

[KQ]

You obviously didn't read my post clearly. Go back and read it slowly and digest it a bit better before spouting off. Without repeating myself, I'll just say that whether you like it or not, Clinton's escapades (Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky, Gennifer Flowers, and whole host of unconfirmed stuff from when he was in Arkansas) simply made it acceptable in the public eye for powerful men to behave a certain way. That in NO way excused Trump's despicable behavior. It just set the standard as far as the public is concerned. Back when Clinton was being accused of these things, people like Joy Behar and others called these women "tramps" and "sluts" instead of taking the accusations seriously like we would today. I remember this stuff in the 90s clearly (perhaps you don't?) and I was told over and over that I was being too prude, that what Clinton did was simply his own business, and "hey, that's just what powerful men do." The same super liberal, feminist friends of mine who were absolutely obsessed with JFK and Clinton rail on Trump for doing a FRACTION of what those guys did. You want to see some naughty stuff, take a look at JFK's past. SOOOOO many more stories than just Marilyn Monroe.

No more excuses...for anybody. D or R. Shouldn't matter. I've never been inconsistent on this topic. Always thought sexual misconduct should keep people out of higher office (by virtue of electing better people of course) as anybody in those positions SHOULD be held to a higher standard than your average Joe Blow citizen (who should also be held to a higher standard than what we have today in all honesty).

I read your post and didn't think it was partisan but I have to say - men behaving badly has been acceptable in the public eye since there have been kings sitting on a thrown somewhere.

[My Pet Powder Goat]

[KQ]

Yeah well he's a special kind of freak

[Danno]

You obviously didn't read my post clearly. Go back and read it slowly and digest it a bit better before spouting off. Without repeating myself, I'll just say that whether you like it or not, Clinton's escapades (Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky, Gennifer Flowers, and whole host of unconfirmed stuff from when he was in Arkansas) simply made it acceptable in the public eye for powerful men to behave a certain way. That in NO way excused Trump's despicable behavior. It just set the standard as far as the public is concerned. Back when Clinton was being accused of these things, people like Joy Behar and others called these women "tramps" and "sluts" instead of taking the accusations seriously like we would today. I remember this stuff in the 90s clearly (perhaps you don't?) and I was told over and over that I was being too prude, that what Clinton did was simply his own business, and "hey, that's just what powerful men do." The same super liberal, feminist friends of mine who were absolutely obsessed with JFK and Clinton rail on Trump for doing a FRACTION of what those guys did. You want to see some naughty stuff, take a look at JFK's past. SOOOOO many more stories than just Marilyn Monroe.

No more excuses...for anybody. D or R. Shouldn't matter. I've never been inconsistent on this topic. Always thought sexual misconduct should keep people out of higher office (by virtue of electing better people of course) as anybody in those positions SHOULD be held to a higher standard than your average Joe Blow citizen (who should also be held to a higher standard than what we have today in all honesty).

I agree wholeheartedly on your second paragraph.

I think you're not entirely remembering correctly on your first. I do agree that Clinton was important in perception, but what was really front and center in the public eye for him was Flowers during the campaign, which was just an extra-marital affair. And while Jones alleged sexual harassment after he was President (at least I didn't hear about it till then), and while her allegations did precipitate lots of things, they were entirely overshadowed by the Lewinsky thing (if you don't believe me, ask 20 random people if they know who Paula Jones is, and ask 20 random people if they know who Monica Lewinsky is). Which again, was an affair. Though of course it was a young intern messing with her boss so had those undertones. So when people were saying "it's no big deal" or "it's his private business" they were mostly/entirely talking about affairs (I know I was thinking that way). And to the extent people knew about the other allegations, I do think there was some willful blindness, people simply ignored them or disbelieved them. It didn't help that one of his chief attackers was a guy who left his wife who was dying of cancer for another woman, and then left that second wife after having an affair. And his supposed successor also got derailed for affairs.

[XXX-er]

A woman comic on CBC refered to LOUIS CK as the elephant masturbating in the room

at the risk of sounding insensitive ... I thot that was pretty funny

[frorider]

And now Charlie Rose is accused by 8 women. Groping etc.

He had a move the called the Crusty Paw.

Nice.

[wyeaster]

always thought he was creepy

[MagnificentUnicorn]

Next it will be Larry King.

[Vt-Freeheel]

And now Charlie Rose is accused by 8 women. Groping etc.

He had a move the called the Crusty Paw.

Nice.

[willywhit]

.......Made me think of this today.

yup. and the dumbass masses missed these as well http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-1...missed/9039152

[willywhit]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jfmp9Iagxhk

[My Pet Powder Goat]

Not Charlie Rooossseee!!! Harvey I could handle, but Spacey, Frankin, and now Rose is starting to cut deep in talent pool. I never assume a person's character, expecially if I don't know them, but god damn...

[FLS]

Lost any respect for Charlie when he went to network news.

Oh well.

[XXX-er]

absolute power corrupts ...absolutely

[BmillsSkier]

I never assume a person's character, expecially if I don't know them, but god damn...

That's not true. We all assume a person's character here. All the time.

[Alaskan Rover]

Next it will be Larry King.

Holy crap...I just came on to say that. As soon as I heard Charlie Rose, I thought of Larry King next. I can't imagine Larry King from a woman's point of view....it would be some sort of groping dried-up apple doll. A nightmare!

[mcski]

Idk Larry king has married pretty much everyone left hasn't he?