Hollywood/Political Sex Offense Scandals (Now Louis CK and AL-GOPSenateNom Roy Moore)
- Thread starter The Tariff King
- Start date
lol
goldfly
<B>if my thought dreams could be seen</B>
huh?
Runnin
Well-known member
The Old Testament myth blames the fall on Eve and the New Testament story begins with rape. The subordination and mistreatment of women is deeply embedded.
jpx7
Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is.
I mean, he's right.
Right in what sense?
He's overwhelmingly wrong (and sadly mistaken) in the belief that we have to consider Trump, at all, when self-determining whether or not Bill Clinton was a serial sexual deviant.
He has grounds to call Trump a sexual abuser, but they aren't remotely as solid as those used to label Franken or Rose or Weinstein. There's no definitive proof, no photographic evidence, no hush money exchanges.
Oh, yeah, and no staunch denial from the accused (which used to mean something to Americans).
I guess you can award a technical "right" point there if you so choose. I don't.
But these trivial equivocations are fun - if only because of the extent they intentionally squirm around the point: We had a serial sexual rapist as President, who raped (at least one, that we know of, and that he's admitted to and "apologized" for) while President and should have resigned due, foremostly, to his actions as President.
Failing to properly adjudicate the past left the door ajar for what's happening today. Across the board.
jpx7
Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is.
(a) Indeed: we do not have to consider Trump when adjudicating Clinton, and I wasn't suggesting we do.
(b) I'm not why you're recapitulating this Clinton junk to me, when I've already been pretty clear on the issue.
(c) We do have pretty solid evidence in the form of an admission of serial misogyny and groping from Trump. Moreover, what he's been multiply accused of doing is much worse than what Franken was pictured doing, though obviously a photograph is harder to refute.
(d) I guess, if we're giving passes for what was done prior to holding office, you're likewise satisfied giving Franken a pass.
BedellBrave
It's OVER 5,000!
Not really, but whatever.
57Brave
Well-known member
Joy ReidVerified account @JoyAnnReid
14h14 hours ago
Watching "man on the street" interviews with Roy Moore supporters felt a lot like viewing clips of rank and file southern segregationists interviewed on TV in the 1950s. People in deep, thoughtless denial and completely unbothered about the judgment of history.
14h14 hours ago
Watching "man on the street" interviews with Roy Moore supporters felt a lot like viewing clips of rank and file southern segregationists interviewed on TV in the 1950s. People in deep, thoughtless denial and completely unbothered about the judgment of history.
Joy reid interjectING race into an argument? Never would have guessed. She's just a better educated more well spoken AL sharpton.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
We really need an iq test for voting. Too many blithering idiots voting. Heres question 1 " your friend has been shot, do you A) call an ambulance and apply first aid. B) get on your knees and pray to God your friend doesn't die.
sturg33
I
We will nver get past racial issues in this country because the left won't allow it
sturg33
I
More preferable than watching idiot young voters talking about how great it would be to be like Venezuela
This all day and all night. Tell people they are victims and eventually you convince them. I NEED DADDY TO HELP ME!!!
BedellBrave
It's OVER 5,000!
"A wave of sexual harassment allegations is ripping through the White House press corps and broadcast networks, forcing a reckoning on sexism and power dynamics inside newsrooms at a time when the media’s credibility is already under attack.
The list of men in political media accused of sexual misconduct is long and growing by the day.
Glenn Thrush of The New York Times, Charlie Rose of CBS, author Mark Halperin, NBC’s Matthew Zimmerman, NPR’s Michael Oreskes, Vox’s Lockhart Steele, The New Republic’s Hamilton Fish and The Atlantic’s Leon Wieseltier have all been suspended or fired in the last month over varying degrees of alleged harassment or assault....
“Further complicating the media's image in all of this is the sanctimonious manner in which the media has covered sexual harassment in other corners of society,” McCall said. “It is difficult for the news media to parade around as haughty overseers of right and wrong in broader contexts of society when they clearly have in-house confusion about first principles of decency.”...
Link
The list of men in political media accused of sexual misconduct is long and growing by the day.
Glenn Thrush of The New York Times, Charlie Rose of CBS, author Mark Halperin, NBC’s Matthew Zimmerman, NPR’s Michael Oreskes, Vox’s Lockhart Steele, The New Republic’s Hamilton Fish and The Atlantic’s Leon Wieseltier have all been suspended or fired in the last month over varying degrees of alleged harassment or assault....
“Further complicating the media's image in all of this is the sanctimonious manner in which the media has covered sexual harassment in other corners of society,” McCall said. “It is difficult for the news media to parade around as haughty overseers of right and wrong in broader contexts of society when they clearly have in-house confusion about first principles of decency.”...
Link
BedellBrave
It's OVER 5,000!
BedellBrave
It's OVER 5,000!
"One of the oddest aspects of the sexual revolution is its tendency to present the problem as the solution. For instance, during the 1980s, the least acceptable response to the AIDS crisis was the promotion of abstinence. Promiscuity was held to be normative, opponents of it were decried as idiotic and prudish, and any acceptable solution had to be built on these foundational truths.
Thirty years on, the failed pattern continues. Britain's Daily Telegraph reports that researchers are calling for sex education to reflect the increasing range of sexual activity in which young people are engaged. The change in sexual habits is presented not as a problem, but as a reality to be accommodated. This makes perfect sense, given the divorce of sexual activity from any kind of moral framework or personal narrative. As sex is essentially amoral (except when consent is absent—and then it is only the violation of consent, not the sex, that is immoral), so the education that surrounds it is amoral, too.
The proposal raises certain issues, which it fails to address in a satisfactory manner. Without providing any details, the Telegraph implies that these changes in behavior must bring with them new risks—hence the need for sex education to change with the times. And the change, as always, is couched in terms of the technical, not the moral. It must therefore be toward the more graphic (read: explicit and amoral). The article’s acknowledgment of the role of Internet pornography in all this merely states the obvious.
Yet why should sex education be “tailored to the realities of young people’s experiences,” as the article says? Why not address instead the factors that determine those experiences, by putting sex back in its rightful place, within an appropriate moral framework? The “tailoring” of sex education to patterns of behavior divorced from morality is one of the things that brought on the current situation. The problem is, by definition, not part of the solution, and to claim otherwise is to perpetuate the scam that is the sexual revolution. It promised freedom; it has brought us a moral and social deficit, evident in broken families and damaged bodies.
The problems of sexual activity divorced from morality are implicitly acknowledged by those who are involved in maintaining the myth of sex’s amorality. The spate of sexual harassment accusations in Hollywood and beyond provide ample evidence that sex is not merely recreational, but has deeper significance. And then, strange to tell, a recent report on the development of sex robots highlights the fact that clients of prostitutes often want to pretend that the sex occurs in the context of a real relationship. Some kind of narrative, however false, somehow makes the act more satisfying. Thus, to be most effective, sex robots will need to be programmed with personal histories. This is surely testimony to an innate human need to set sexual activity within a larger relational framework. And to set it within a larger relational framework is to grant it a moral status.
Modern sex education keeps failing to deliver on its promises—indeed, it keeps plunging society into deeper and deeper problems—and it keeps proposing as the solution more and more of the same. Sexual assault is heinous, and even the clients of prostitutes want something more significant than an anonymous encounter. The notion that sex can be pursued as recreation, isolated from a larger relational and moral context, is an obvious scam. But we keep getting mugged by reality.
It has often been observed that the victims of scams have a remarkable ability to ignore the obvious fact that, hey, they have fallen for a confidence trick. To accept that one has been conned out of a sum of money and thereby cut one’s losses may be more difficult than to keep giving the con artist more, in the hope that somehow the scheme is not a fraud after all. So it is with the scam known as the sexual revolution. It has institutionalized irresponsibility to such an extent, and demonized its critics so effectively, that even as it falls apart under the weight of its own contradictions, we keep pouring cultural capital into the same old schemes, hoping that all will turn out well in the end.
The hypocrisy of a Hollywood that lauds Roman Polanski while damning Kevin Spacey is just one example of how chaotic and confused our culture has become. This latest sex education proposal is another. At some point somebody will need to acknowledge what is going on. But that, alas, is not the psychology of those who fall for plausible grifters and attractive scams. For the time being at least, the problem will continue to be presented as the solution."
Carl R. Trueman is William E. Simon Visiting Fellow in Religion in Public Life at the James Madison Program at Princeton University.
Link
Thirty years on, the failed pattern continues. Britain's Daily Telegraph reports that researchers are calling for sex education to reflect the increasing range of sexual activity in which young people are engaged. The change in sexual habits is presented not as a problem, but as a reality to be accommodated. This makes perfect sense, given the divorce of sexual activity from any kind of moral framework or personal narrative. As sex is essentially amoral (except when consent is absent—and then it is only the violation of consent, not the sex, that is immoral), so the education that surrounds it is amoral, too.
The proposal raises certain issues, which it fails to address in a satisfactory manner. Without providing any details, the Telegraph implies that these changes in behavior must bring with them new risks—hence the need for sex education to change with the times. And the change, as always, is couched in terms of the technical, not the moral. It must therefore be toward the more graphic (read: explicit and amoral). The article’s acknowledgment of the role of Internet pornography in all this merely states the obvious.
Yet why should sex education be “tailored to the realities of young people’s experiences,” as the article says? Why not address instead the factors that determine those experiences, by putting sex back in its rightful place, within an appropriate moral framework? The “tailoring” of sex education to patterns of behavior divorced from morality is one of the things that brought on the current situation. The problem is, by definition, not part of the solution, and to claim otherwise is to perpetuate the scam that is the sexual revolution. It promised freedom; it has brought us a moral and social deficit, evident in broken families and damaged bodies.
The problems of sexual activity divorced from morality are implicitly acknowledged by those who are involved in maintaining the myth of sex’s amorality. The spate of sexual harassment accusations in Hollywood and beyond provide ample evidence that sex is not merely recreational, but has deeper significance. And then, strange to tell, a recent report on the development of sex robots highlights the fact that clients of prostitutes often want to pretend that the sex occurs in the context of a real relationship. Some kind of narrative, however false, somehow makes the act more satisfying. Thus, to be most effective, sex robots will need to be programmed with personal histories. This is surely testimony to an innate human need to set sexual activity within a larger relational framework. And to set it within a larger relational framework is to grant it a moral status.
Modern sex education keeps failing to deliver on its promises—indeed, it keeps plunging society into deeper and deeper problems—and it keeps proposing as the solution more and more of the same. Sexual assault is heinous, and even the clients of prostitutes want something more significant than an anonymous encounter. The notion that sex can be pursued as recreation, isolated from a larger relational and moral context, is an obvious scam. But we keep getting mugged by reality.
It has often been observed that the victims of scams have a remarkable ability to ignore the obvious fact that, hey, they have fallen for a confidence trick. To accept that one has been conned out of a sum of money and thereby cut one’s losses may be more difficult than to keep giving the con artist more, in the hope that somehow the scheme is not a fraud after all. So it is with the scam known as the sexual revolution. It has institutionalized irresponsibility to such an extent, and demonized its critics so effectively, that even as it falls apart under the weight of its own contradictions, we keep pouring cultural capital into the same old schemes, hoping that all will turn out well in the end.
The hypocrisy of a Hollywood that lauds Roman Polanski while damning Kevin Spacey is just one example of how chaotic and confused our culture has become. This latest sex education proposal is another. At some point somebody will need to acknowledge what is going on. But that, alas, is not the psychology of those who fall for plausible grifters and attractive scams. For the time being at least, the problem will continue to be presented as the solution."
Carl R. Trueman is William E. Simon Visiting Fellow in Religion in Public Life at the James Madison Program at Princeton University.
Link