Roy Moore justifications

[moevillini]

very good article here (it's long though)
https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2017/12/the-weaponization-of-awkwardness/548291/
https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2017/12/the-weaponization-of-awkwardness/548291/

I hadn't heard or read anything about the "Cat Person" essay this article references, but the gist of what follows is so very true. We've heard (or used) the cliché "Just like a woman, always changing her mind" so many times - and it's generally used in a disparaging way.

So by acquiescing (definition: to accept something reluctantly but without protest) to the man's advances, the woman "saves face" at the time of the event because in the moment, that is what seems the most important.

“Young women say yes to sex they don’t actually want to have all of the time. Why? Because we condition young women to feel guilty if they change their mind.”

That was the writer Ella Dawson, in her essay reacting to “Cat Person,” the New Yorker short story that went viral, and indeed that is still going viral, this week. Kristen Roupenian’s work of fiction resonated among denizens of the nonfictional world in part because of its sex scene: one that explores, in rich and wincing detail, the complications of consent. Margot, a 20-year-old college student, goes on a date with Robert, a man several years her senior; alternately enchanted by him and repulsed by him, hopeful about him and disappointed, she ultimately sleeps with him. Not because she fully wants to, in the end, but because, in the dull heat of the moment, acquiescing is easier—less dramatic, less disruptive, less awkward—than saying no....

Consent, concession, the blurred lines between the two: The work of fiction, and the analysis of it, are each in their own ways deeply true. And they struck a cultural nerve this week—Dawson’s essay, titled “Bad Sex, or the Sex We Don’t Want but Have Anyway,” went viral along with Roupenian’s story—because they highlight, together, something that is widely recognized but rarely talked about: the version of sex that is bad not in a criminal sense, but in an emotional one. The kind that can happen, as Dawson suggested, partly as a result of cultural forces that exert themselves on women in particular: the demand that they be accommodating. That they be pleasing. That they capitulate to the feelings of others, and maintain a kind of sunny status quo—both in the immediate moment of a given social situation, and more broadly: Wait for the raise to be offered. Put in that extra minute of effort with the eye makeup. Nod. Smile. Once you’ve consented, don’t make things weird by saying, out loud, that you’ve changed your mind. “Cat Person,” on top of everything else, is an exploration of awkwardness as a form of social coercion; the conversation it sparked, accordingly, in “Bad Sex” and Facebook posts and essays and tweet threads, has been a consideration of that kind of awkwardness as a condition—and a chronic one.

That these conversations would be occasioned by a work of fiction is both ironic and revealing: The world itself, the one that is all too real, has long provided its own stories of perilous awkwardness. As revelations of sexual harassment and assault have come to light in recent months, awkwardness and discomfort and embarrassment and, in general, Americans’ deeply ingrained impulse to avoid involvement in an “awkward moment when” have also shown their darker sides. Harvey Weinstein, on the tape recorded by the model Ambra Battilana Gutierrez as part of a New York Police Department sting operation, told her, “Don’t embarrass me in the hotel.” And: “Honey, don’t have a fight with me in the hallway.” And: “Please, you’re making a big scene here. Please.” So many of the other men accused of predation, it has now become painfully clear, have in their own ways used those soft but crushing social pressures as weapons, both in moments of abuse and beyond: Don’t be dramatic. Don’t make a scene. Please.

I think ALL women have been through this - perhaps not with actual sexual activity but even just with "making-out" - when you're with someone you feel rather ambivalent about, and it's just easier to go along with things than "make a scene" at the time.

Back in my younger days when I was dating, I had plenty of those AWKWARD moments where I finally told the guy that "No, in spite of those couple of times we were making out and you thought I was enjoying it, I really DON'T like you "that way" and I don't want to have "that kind" of relationship with you"

Guys, I'm sure most of you have been on the receiving end of that sort of awkward moment yourself.

It is so important to teach girls and young women that it is NOT their job to try to please other people, particularly not those with whom you're involved in casual relationships.

 

[Ron Mexico]

very good article here (it's long though)
https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2017/12/the-weaponization-of-awkwardness/548291/

I hadn't heard or read anything about the "Cat Person" essay this article references, but the gist of what follows is so very true. We've heard (or used) the cliché "Just like a woman, always changing her mind" so many times - and it's generally used in a disparaging way.

So by acquiescing (definition: to accept something reluctantly but without protest) to the man's advances, the woman "saves face" at the time of the event because in the moment, that is what seems the most important.








I think ALL women have been through this - perhaps not with actual sexual activity but even just with "making-out" - when you're with someone you feel rather ambivalent about, and it's just easier to go along with things than "make a scene" at the time.

Back in my younger days when I was dating, I had plenty of those AWKWARD moments where I finally told the guy that "No, in spite of those couple of times we were making out and you thought I was enjoying it, I really DON'T like you "that way" and I don't want to have "that kind" of relationship with you"

Guys, I'm sure most of you have been on the receiving end of that sort of awkward moment yourself.

It is so important to teach girls and young women that it is NOT their job to try to please other people, particularly not those with whom you're involved in casual relationships.

I really enjoyed the Cat Person essay. It was pretty well written.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/12/11/cat-person

 

[Ron Mexico]

Just like people who are not guilty of murder have no need to be concerned, right? After all, innocents never get imprisoned or even accused.

Yes, I am not concerned about being sent to prison for Murder since I dont murder. Yes, there are a minuscule amount of people wrongfully convicted of crimes.

In the case of sexual abuse and sexual harassment the wrongfully convicted are in the very very very very very very very minority in comparison to the people who are not convicted that commit these awful things. The vast majority of women are sexually harassed and/or sexual abused it is a much bigger issue than wrongful convictions.

Not that I dont think we should continue to improve our judicial system to eliminate wrongful convictions and be better but its a lesser issue. Although the majority of wrongful convictions come because of racism in our system, so that is also something we need to work on.

 

[babe]

Link to the recent palo alto studies, pls.

And marijuana use amongst youth has been declining for a long time now from what I've read, I'll get a link for that if you want, but particularly in states where it has been legalized recreationally.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...e-is-down-in-colorado/?utm_term=.57f3e455bd44

RINOs, you say that like it's an insult. How lock-step should a party be? How narrow should a major political ideology for a nation of over 300 million people be? Is Republican purity really the way forward for that party? Can such purity be accomplished in a honest way, or does it require individuals to conform to something and to pretend to believe it and be 100% loyal, even though they sometimes have different views?

I think..... well, I should say..... according to the leading expert true "Republican" credentials.... lol.....

Let me be clear. I come from a contentious band of knowitalls who all have their own opinions, which further expect the deplorable wage slaves, the unwashed heathens and in general all trailer trash to listen respectfully.... and I'm the babe who endured all that crap with nobody ever listening to me. In that context, it is truly empowering to have liberals cowering at my muddled musings day in and day out.

Yes it is an "insult" to call a Republican a RINO because it means they campaign on Republican slogans and then do pretty much exactly the opposite of what they promised. I don't think very many dems exactly do that. Except I do think the dems crap on blacks and minorities pretty bad. Gotta get some kind of plan to actually help the disadvantaged, I mean.... other than keep them dependent on some form of welfare.

A modern Homestead Act giving them a home if they "prove up" by developing a sustainable business working outta their home..... I dunno..... selling pot or something. Any idea is worth trying.....

Here's one report, pure science sans the interpretive extrapolations:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4250161/

So here's my link to the Palo Alto (Stanford) research:

https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/marijuana/what-are-marijuanas-long-term-effects-brain

For whatever it's worth, I wish to distance myself from Jeff Sessions' penchant for filling the jails with harmless potheads. Let'em outta jail and make'm find some J.O.B. if they can.

 

[Red]

Here's one report, pure science sans the interpretive extrapolations:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4250161/

So here's my link to the Palo Alto (Stanford) research:

https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/marijuana/what-are-marijuanas-long-term-effects-brain

For whatever it's worth, I wish to distance myself from Jeff Sessions' penchant for filling the jails with harmless potheads. Let'em outta jail and make'm find some J.O.B. if they can.

Just a personal observation. It will be 52 years this 12/26, since I first lit up, and my mind is still operating just fine, with no cognitive impairment.....

 

[Stoked]

Just a personal observation. It will be 52 years this 12/26, since I first lit up, and my mind is still operating just fine, with no cognitive impairment.....

Debatable

 

[babe]

Debatable

I think Red demonstrates a high level of competence in reading and re-posting lengthy Politico articles and such, and is otherwise a fairly intelligent poster who can make me look like an imbecile sometimes......

with the pot research, it's some kind of statistical distribution of effects superimposed on what nature initially gifts us with. If Einstein was a pothead we might not have E=mc2 but, perhaps, E=mc3/THc.

 

[franklin]

Back in my younger days when I was dating, I had plenty of those AWKWARD moments where I finally told the guy that "No, in spite of those couple of times we were making out and you thought I was enjoying it, I really DON'T like you "that way" and I don't want to have "that kind" of relationship with you"

Guys, I'm sure most of you have been on the receiving end of that sort of awkward moment yourself.

I think the girls here aren't giving most guys as much credit as deserved. I've been in a few situations where either the girl changed her mind or I tried to take things too far. I could sense it and ended those interactions. I think what @Gameface said awhile back is true for most men - something along the lines that it's not pleasing if it's not reciprocated affection.

But the assholes ruin it for the rest of us and give this interpretation that men demand women please them. That's not true for most of us at all. I could easily argue the opposite.

 

[fishonjazz]

I think the girls here aren't giving most guys as much credit as deserved. I've been in a few situations where either the girl changed her mind or I tried to take things too far. I could sense it and ended those interactions. I think what @Gameface said awhile back is true for most men - something along the lines that it's not pleasing if it's not reciprocated affection.

But the assholes ruin it for the rest of us and give this interpretation that men demand women please them. That's not true for most of us at all. I could easily argue the opposite.

Good post.

BTW, i have been on the other (women) side of things. Where a female was too aggressive with me and i wasn't interested and she kept trying even after i told her no multiple times.
I was also basically raped by a women once as well.
#metoo

 

[franklin]

Good post.

BTW, i have been on the other (women) side of things. Where a female was too aggressive with me and i wasn't interested and she kept trying even after i told her no multiple times.
I was also basically raped by a women once as well.
#metoo

I've been there plenty of times. Once I had to throw a hot girl off of me when she persistently tried to give me a lap dance. She turned around and said "[franklin] if you weren't married I'd be ****ing your brains out right now". I had several persistent girlfriends who broke up with me because I wouldn't bang them and then they made fun of me to my friends for it.

It's a two way street.

 

[JazzGal]

Having girls hit on you is not exactly the same as being afraid for your life if you refuse someone.

 

[Stoked]

Having girls hit on you is not exactly the same as being afraid for your life if you refuse someone.

On average I would agree with you but this is a really broad brush. It is far bigger than anyone wants to admit IMO. No need to down play these cases due to gender swap. We can condemn them while still condemning what happens to virtually all women. If anything it gives some small, partial insight into what others experience.

I have also had women go way to far. Doesn't mean I am lessening others experiences by relating my own.

 

[JazzGal]

On average I would agree with you but this is a really broad brush. It is far bigger than anyone wants to admit IMO. No need to down play these cases due to gender swap. We can condemn them while still condemning what happens to virtually all women. If anything it gives some small, partial insight into what others experience.

I have also had women go way to far. Doesn't mean I am lessening others experiences by relating my own.

I completely agree. I was commenting on Franklin's examples of women aggressively hitting on him. People sometimes don't take the first "no" as an answer and continue their pursuit too long. That means they are horrible people, but not necessarily sexual abusers. I didn't detect in his examples any element of fear, that he was threatened with his life, his health, his safety, his livelihood, his reputation, etc. To me, that's what makes it different.

I'm sure there are plenty of men who have experienced sexual harassment and abuse. And I did not mean to lessen anyone's experiences at all.

 

[Stoked]

I completely agree. I was commenting on Franklin's examples of women aggressively hitting on him. People sometimes don't take the first "no" as an answer and continue their pursuit too long. That means they are horrible people, but not necessarily sexual abusers. I didn't detect in his examples any element of fear, that he was threatened with his life, his health, his safety, his livelihood, his reputation, etc. To me, that's what makes it different.

I'm sure there are plenty of men who have experienced sexual harassment and abuse. And I did not mean to lessen anyone's experiences at all.

Agreed, just as I'd expect some of the #mettoo examples from women to fall more in line with Franklin's experiences. So many variables. The individual people involve, the setting, was there any mind altering substances in play, violence, groups instead of individuals, peer or power pressure...

We need to be more aware of what is around us and act when needed. I've stepped in and complete redirected a scenario I felt was headed the wrong way a couple times. Challenging some drunk guy to beer pong or my wife and I walking up to a bar to talk to a guy and girl that didn't appear to be together. I step in and buy the guy a drink and my wife removes the woman form the situation. slap my money down and when the guy grabs the drink I disappear. I haven't, thankfully, seen anything in this type of scenario that requires a violent reaction.

And a negative response the first time was all I needed to wish them an awesome night and move on. Plenty off fish in the sea.

 

[franklin]

I completely agree. I was commenting on Franklin's examples of women aggressively hitting on him. People sometimes don't take the first "no" as an answer and continue their pursuit too long. That means they are horrible people, but not necessarily sexual abusers. I didn't detect in his examples any element of fear, that he was threatened with his life, his health, his safety, his livelihood, his reputation, etc. To me, that's what makes it different.

I'm sure there are plenty of men who have experienced sexual harassment and abuse. And I did not mean to lessen anyone's experiences at all.

I was going to point out that that is the big difference but didn't want to be long winded. Women are much more vulnerable from a physical standpoint and the amount of women who are violated at some point in their life is astonishingly high. I picked the situation of having to physically remove someone from my lap for a subtle reason that demonstrates exactly what you responded with. I'm not trying to take any of your main argument away from you other than the generic portrayal that men in general demand women please them through beauty and sex. A whole lot of that mentality comes from women competing with their peers. That's a typical evolutionary action just as it is with men acting macho or top of the social food chain or having a ton of money.

Also to add, I believe it is so much more traumatizing for a woman to be raped by a man than a man to be raped by a woman. I'm pretty sure I could get raped by a woman and the only grief I would have would be worrying about contracting an STD and not being able to be with my wife for an extended period of time. I wouldn't need special counseling or lose sleep over it. The reverse definitely is not true (nor is it true for all men, but I think most fit this mentality).

 

[Red]

Debatable

Lol, well I must confess my short term memory is not what it once might have been, so, who knows....

I've never been "victimized" by an overly aggressive woman. But, I used to hitchhike everywhere as a teen, and one time I caught a ride by a guy who might have been in his early thirty's. Within a couple of minutes, he was stroking my leg with his right hand, while steering the car with his left. We're doing a good clip, I can't start fighting him without risking cracking the car up with me in it. But I was very concerned, I don't know what this guy is capable of, and I'm in a moving vehicle. So I try to act like somehow this is cool. Meanwhile, first red light and you couldn't shoot me out of a cannon faster then I bolted from that car. And there I am in the middle of a major interesection shaking my fist and screaming my block off.

 

[babe]

But babe did fall into the base of Roy Moore supporters. Old White Males who don't really consider sexual assault a big deal.

Good job supporting a sexual assaulter babe.

But please, break down the evidence, with a detailed explanation of the portion of it that was written by the victim. How it has been established which portion was written by whom and what that means about Roy Moore's LIE about "knowing the accusers".

Roy Moore knew those women and he lied about knowing those women. That's a fact, babe. That's not in dispute by anyone residing in reality. Pick where you want to be, in reality, on in your own self-created fantasy. I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for your answer, I know you're getting on in years and prefer your fantasy.

What will you do if you live long enough that the truth becomes inescapable?

The fact that facts are, and always will be, escapable when pitted against the human mind, is daily proven, in my view, by the rhetoric of delusional believers in any kind of politically-based utopia worth fighting for.

I think the "judge" Roy Moore is charming in his career of pretending to be the indefatigable defender of the Ten Commandments displays on public property. In an age of totally self-absorbed secular humanists who wake up every morning and find "God" leering back at them over the bathroom sink in the mirror.

It just seems necessary to keep up some kind of debate when people en masse finally decide they already know it all.

That's the reason our mainstream media needs to be taken out behind the woodshed and beaten for being such flagrant liars and agenda dogs. The whole reason why a "Free Press" has always been the necessity to oppose power, not enforce it.

I am never going to agree with public trials by media without principled due process before judges and juries committed to basic human rights and the determination that the accused are innocent until proven guilty in a factual manner.

And no, I don't give celebs any preference in setting public morals.

 

[Gameface]

The fact that facts are, and always will be, escapable when pitted against the human mind, is daily proven, in my view, by the rhetoric of delusional believers in any kind of politically-based utopia worth fighting for.

So you don't deny that Roy Moore, at the very least, has provided a false account of his interactions with those women?

 

[babe]

So you don't deny that Roy Moore, at the very least, has provided a false account of his interactions with those women?

I got your point about the possibility that part of the yearbook scribble might have been Moore's, and I don't really doubt he knew some of the women who accused him. His denials were standard legal blandishments all lawyers, including prosecutors, blather out instantaneously at any hint of truth, but that pales in the context of determined political assassination attempts like the Washington Post article.

Did you notice that the Post article that originated the controversy contained some deliberate falsifications..... that the accusers were without political bias, even Republicans? Do you disbelieve the obvious truth that someone went down to Alabama with some real cash in real envelopes, offering money for suitable stories?

Of course I'm not a great forensics analyst, and I haven't seen the scribblings, but I'm wondering why anyone would scribble in a yearbook over the Holidays to authenticate a place and a time for the link to be established. I think that was the part that was added, recently, in the context of some cash flows.

I don't think Moore is going to press his case, but that is the only way any investigation of the yearbook scribblings is ever gonna be done, so we will not really "know" the truth here.

Hannity had some pretty good comments on the case recently. He said that his man in the Alabama primary runoff was Mo Brooks, and that the establishment Rs supported Luther Strange, a prosecutor who until this campaign was pushing an investigation into the AL governor. When he got the political deal to be the interim Senator, he stopped that case cold. Sounds corrupt to me.

Hannity says Mo Brooks would be pretty much a pain in the arses of the establishment Republicans, say, sorta like a new Ted Cruz in the Senate.

Hannity denies that Moore's loss was any kind of reflection on Trump, and further asserts that Trump can't be impeached for offenses that may have occurred before the election. But hey, in todays world, facts really don't matter any more. In fact, I recently heard an interview from a normally-balanced and objective sort of guy, who wrote a book analyzing the Trump victory as "Win Bigly: Persuasion in a world where facts don't matter".
Amazon product ASIN 0735219710

 

[Gameface]

Trump can be impeached for whatever congress decides to impeach him for. You get that impeachment is a political process, not a legal one, right?