Hollywood/Political Sex Offense Scandals (Now Louis CK and AL-GOPSenateNom Roy Moore)

Carp said:
Forgive me on the retweeted part. I do not tweet myself. That may be where at least part of the confusion lays.

Still, it seems flimsy at best, to associate that as some of admittance by ML that she was raped (which you initially responded with to the question of "Did Monica ever call it rape?")
Click to expand...

It is flimsy, in a very direct sense ... but it should't be. We, collectively, should not be okay with pawning off what Clinton did to her by saying, "Oh, but it wasn't actually rape ... it wasn't technically penetrative rape."

That kind of mentality disgusts me, partially because it's such a dongheaded defense, but also because it's tacitly giving Clinton a pass (whether these dongs want to admit it or not).
 
Hawk said:
It is flimsy, in a very direct sense ... but it should't be. We, collectively, should not be okay with pawning off what Clinton did to her by saying, "Oh, but it wasn't actually rape ... it wasn't technically penetrative rape."

That kind of mentality disgusts me, partially because it's such a dongheaded defense, but also because it's tacitly giving Clinton a pass (whether these dongs want to admit it or not).
Click to expand...

But their relationship is definitively agreed to have been penetrative, right? I thought the question rests on whether she was coerced or consenting (with your argument being that, because of the power dynamics of the situation, she was inherently coerced)?
 
jpx7 said:
But their relationship is definitively agreed to have been penetrative, right? I thought the question rests on whether she was coerced or consenting (with your argument being that, because of the power dynamics of the situation, she was inherently coerced)?
Click to expand...

I think you'll still find plenty of people who don't believe that oral penetration is as serious a form of rape as vaginal/anal penetration. That's chiefly what I meant by that. That was one of the most prominent Clinton defenses publicly debated at the time. Was it really even sex? Dude just got his nob slobbed.

But yeah, I believe that there was a baseline element of coercion (fueled by power dynamics, sure, among other things).
 
Hawk said:
While we're here, it's worth mentioning that Montana had some of the most ****ed up sexual assault laws in the country until they were essentially forced to rewrite the statues involving consent a few months ago.
Click to expand...

Also worth mentioning that in my former state of Arizona, "sexual assault" is defined only as "sexual intercourse or oral sexual contact with another person without their consent"—with no mention of unwanted non-penetrative touching—and carries with it a much shorter minimum first-time punishment of "up to 14 years in prison", relative to Montana's "rape" statute.

My former-former state (Illinois) likewise defines sexual assaults as only those including "an act of sexual penetration" (with no mention of unwanted touching), but gets into the weeds a bit more with the "and: uses force or threat of force; knows the victim lacks capacity to give consent [problematically including "force" and non-consent by incapacitation, but excluding coercion]; is a family member of the victim and the victim is under 18 years old; is at least 17 years old, holds a position of authority or trust over the victim, and the victim is between 13 and 18 years old." The first-time sentencing guidelines are likewise a little shorter than Montana's ("4-15 years in prison").

My birth-state (Florida) formerly gave "a separate legal definition for rape", but now just calls penetrative assaults "sexual battery" and defines that as: "Oral, anal, or vaginal penetration by, or union with, the sexual organ of another or the anal or vaginal penetration of another by any other object, without the other party's consent or capacity to provide consent; however, sexual battery does not include an act done for a bona fide medical purpose." Florida gets more into the weeds when delineating punishments—and can straight up kill adults who commit "sexual battery" towards a under-12 minor.

Considering those, Montana's revised sexual assault/rape statutes seem pretty solid.
 
Hawk said:
I think you'll still find plenty of people who don't believe that oral penetration is as serious a form of rape as vaginal/anal penetration. That's chiefly what I meant by that. That was one of the most prominent Clinton defenses publicly debated at the time. Was it really even sex? Dude just got his nob slobbed.

But yeah, I believe that there was a baseline element of coercion (fueled by power dynamics, sure, among other things).
Click to expand...

Well that's silly: oral sex is clearly (and tautologically) "sex", and it's clearly penetration.

It's also pretty clear that Bill Clinton is a serial sexual abuser, and—given what I know (having not been personally raped by him)—very likely a serial rapist, as well. And, as I said, it's crazy to me that liberals don't want to go there, considering it's not only hypocritical but strategically stupid not to exorcise his ghost from the left movement going forward.
 
jpx7 said:
Well that's silly: oral sex is clearly (and tautologically) "sex", and it's clearly penetration.

It's also pretty clear that Bill Clinton is a serial sexual abuser, and—given what I know (having not been personally raped by him)—very likely a serial rapist, as well. And, as I said, it's crazy to me that liberals don't want to go there, considering it's not only hypocritical but strategically stupid not to exorcise his ghost from the left movement going forward.
Click to expand...

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/01/26/time/kirn.html
 
I don't recall the word "rape" being bandied during that process.
Unless of course you listened to BillO,the Scaifes and Drudge .
Who seems to be the main source of your late 90's history

As a matter of fact, more people were outraged by the process and the dress and blackmailing Lewinsky to testify than they were Clinton
You can look that up

I'd also like to see links to these "debates"

http://www.nytimes.com/1998/12/21/u...r-president-for-closure-emerges-unshaken.html

http://news.gallup.com/poll/4609/presidential-job-approval-bill-clintons-high-ratings-midst.aspx

or here the google age "Clinton Rape Lewinsky
https://www.google.com/search?q=clintonrape+lewinsky&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b

Hawk, you are wrong ----again

No where in any of this does the word rape and Lewinsky make hay in the same sentence.
Let alone " That was one of the most prominent Clinton defenses publicly debated at the time "

Monica Lewinsky never herself used the word rape
So stop with the revisionist history

You may have beefs with Bill and Hillary that is well and good . but get your ducks in a row
 
The Rude Pundit‏ @rudepundit
3m3 minutes ago

Are we really gonna do this Bill Clinton thing? I mean, seriously, if you're young, read a goddamn book about the 1990s.
 
Lol. "clintonrape lewinsky"

And you use Firefox.

Stop skimming and start trying to make peace - with yourself - about continuing to enable a rapist.

Sad.
 
Hawk said:
Lol. "clintonrape lewinsky"

And you use Firefox.

Stop skimming and start trying to make peace - with yourself - about continuing to enable a rapist.

Sad.
Click to expand...

Excuse me , dang I should have checked the South Koreans

Link the debates please.
Circa 1998
 
Brett Lieberman‏ @brett_lieberman
6m6 minutes ago
Replying to @rudepundit

Having an affair with the adult intern is not on par with sexually assaulting teenage girls. People defending Moore are truly the bottom of the barrel.
 
 
"having an affair with an adult intern"

Once sick in the head, always sick in the head.
 
57Brave said:
Brett Lieberman‏ @brett_lieberman
6m6 minutes ago
Replying to @rudepundit

Having an affair with the adult intern is not on par with sexually assaulting teenage girls. People defending Moore are truly the bottom of the barrel.
Click to expand...

But why? Why we do have to keep relitigating and rehabilitating Bill Clinton's legacy? He's irrelevant to the left, going forward, so there isn't even strategic danger in "outing" him (as if that hasn't already fully happened)—and there is a strategic danger in not accepting his sins, denouncing him/them, and moving forward.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top