aflanigan wrote: 
unless you're a miner or digging a well

then all bets are off

 kurtster wrote: 
People may have any number of reasons for not coming forward sooner than later.  I don't think it would be preferable that only 'newer' victims of priest sexual crimes or victims of Jerry Sandusky came forward.

 aflanigan wrote: 
I think he's regretful that Al Franken's initial accuser was coached and scripted by Roger Stone et al, would not have come forward without their urging, and tweeted a scripted message that she immediately walked back as far as her own level of upset was concerned. I would be, too.

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 
The Law of Holes is one that some people are apparently unfamiliar with.

 kurtster wrote: 
If this is an allusion to Moore's many accusers, the initial ones did not "come forward" as his craven, dissembling defenders have suggested.  They were approach by reporters working on a story. They were reluctant to tell their story publicly (understandable given how the GOP rage monkeys have reacted) and only agreed to go public after several interviews.

Is that where you're going with this? 

 kurtster wrote: 
How do you want it to go? Translation: Choose your poison.

 kurtster wrote: 
in the real world people may not speak up immediately for fear of repercussions, shame, intimidation, threats, violence, proof, etc.

could be a number of reasons

for instance if your career, reputation or marriage is on the line, then you may hesitate

look at the cosby case

if you think you're going it alone could be different than pursuing something like this in a group

the good news is that this will help give people the courage to speak up and be an incentive to discourage abuse and violence (bad behavior)

newer technology will probably help too (forensics)

the bad news is that some politicians won't hesitate to use this for political purposes...

regards

 miamizsun wrote: 
Absolutely. 

However, if someones sits on something because they are a nobody and then becomes a somebody, it would be reasonable to consider the veracity of the complaint because there are absolutely no reasons not to speak up in real time anymore.  Either you were violated or you were not.  Should not matter by whom anymore.

I cannot disagree with your points or black's or sird's.  That is the reality I see, too.

 miamizsun wrote: 




Yep, we both have the same sentiment but I must say yours is more clearly expressed so thank you. lol

 kurtster wrote: 

victims should be able to speak up anytime regardless

once something becomes politicized it will be leveraged and most likely weaponized

the rulers are the rule-makers and the reality is that they will write them in such a way to benefit and empower them or their party

but it has to be framed as a benefit to the conditioned masses

most likely using an emotional angle

 kurtster wrote: 





You think? Unfortunately as humans do with everything else we have completely perverted this opportunity to raise awareness of a long overdue issue. There are already teams assembled to collect life long dirt, pay off anyone involved that can give strategic and very public accusations and get to work. The politicization and polarization is complete, the victims get used and the backlash and subversion of what should be a simple sentiment of don't assault or abuse people gets lost in the shuffle. Sexual assault and harassment has been coopted into the political game of scoring points and power. This is why we can't have nice things.

 miamizsun wrote: 
These are real honest questions.  Undoubtedly, fleshing this issue out is critical.  But is it simply getting its 15 minutes of fame from the media...just interested in selling stories?  I'm not sure how to articulate this, and certainly dont want to offend, but I think we are reaching the point of it getting ridiculous, at least in terms of how this is being managed...mainly through social or traditional media.  How many are starting to say, "Who cares?"  But maybe that's because its just uncomfortable to live in a society/culture where this s#$t is rampant?  But the culture part is real.  the other night i'm watching a story on this topic...and then later, watching some christmas special with scantily clad women singing suggestive Christmas songs.  I'm not saying we shouldn't be sexual, or even embrace our sexuality...but as miami said, we are "swimming in a sea of sexual marketing."

 kurtster wrote: 
i'm sorry kurt

you may not

 miamizsun wrote: 
And one more question to ask if I may ?

With all of this coming out now and we have an attempt to reconcile all this, is the next step to say that if you haven't spoken up now about what happened to you 10, 20, 30 or 40 years ago, forever hold your peace ...  Can we let someone out of the blue still come forward at some very critical time and accuse them in order to influence an election ?  

 kurtster wrote: 
i didn't see your post, but i just brought up some of the same considerations

people are angry, shocked, etc., etc.

a huge range of emotion(s)

i even heard on the news that a female politician says they need a dress code

this will probably get a bit nutty before it gets better

edit: meanwhile a female egyptian singer just got sentenced to two years for eating a banana suggestively in her music video...wtf

a few random thoughts/questions

is all behavior learned and or taught?

how much influence does culture have on behavior?

and especially what children see at home growing up?

who is a serial abuser and who isn't?

can people change and can they be forgiven?

should we require that some form of evidence be presented?

lives, families and careers are being snuffed here

most of the consequences are severe

practically everything i've seen so far is one-sided, women coming out against men

can women be the aggressors and what constitutes that definition?

we're swimming in a sea sexual marketing and hormones

turn on the tv, open a magazine and it's dominant form of advertisement 

should women (or men) be allowed to offer sex to influence outcomes?

there are so many variables here...

i'm thinking we're going to need more definition to get a handle on this

if not, it could get ridiculous

To whom it may concern ...

I'm just trying to figure out exactly what is being dealt with in here.  Is it just from the woman's side as victim ?   Kevin Spacey anyone ?  Or is it more ok because he is gay as he said when he got busted ?  What about female predators ?  I'm not sure about her but Leona Helmsley comes to mind.  In the workplace ?  In politics ?  How about that secret Congressional slush fund that has paid out $17 million of taxpayer money so far to keep their staff quiet ?  And we can't find out who has used it and why.

Is this about morals, ethics or legal issues ?  Early on in the other thread I tried to deal with consent as the central issue when Franken got busted but that was brushed away real fast.

If this only about the woman as the victim, somebody say so.  That's fine, I'll restrict any further thoughts to that.

Tavis Smiley?!?!!?   

PBS Host Tavis Smiley Suspended After Sexual Misconduct Investigation

PBS will no longer distribute Tavis Smiley following what a spokeswoman called "multiple, credible" allegations of sexual misconduct uncovered by a recent investigation into the late-night show host's behavior.

News of the suspension of Smiley's show, produced by TS Media, an independent production company, was first reported by Variety.


...

According to Variety:

"The investigation found credible allegations that Smiley had engaged in sexual relationships with multiple subordinates, sources said. Some witnesses interviewed expressed concern that their employment status was linked to the status of a sexual relationship with Smiley. In general, witnesses described Smiley as creating a verbally abusive and threatening environment that went beyond what could be expected in a typical high-pressure work environment. Several expressed concerns about retaliation."

Generally speaking, there is a desire for order and decorum in society. It also is true that those who benefit most from the prevailing order are prone to protest the most when disorder is introduced by those who are not benefitting from that prevailing order. At that intersection, decorum breaks down. 

 Coaxial wrote: 
I know, right?