Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

From Weiners EX Girlfriend........

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
boston bean Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 04:59 AM
Original message
From Weiners EX Girlfriend........
Edited on Thu Jun-09-11 05:03 AM by boston bean
But even if I could see past the lying and extreme narcissism that is noteworthy even by Washington standards, there is the issue of his attitude toward women. What has emerged is a picture of a predator trolling the Internet for women—some half his age—with which to engage in cybersex. We know only about the women who were responsive to his overtures. The odds are very high that he struck out with many, and other women were victim to his unsolicited sex talk. Women should be able to “friend” a married—or unmarried—congressman on Facebook or follow him on Twitter without fear of being the recipient of lewd talk or behavior. Just because a woman “likes” your video on Facebook doesn’t mean you can send her a picture of your penis. This is textbook sexual harassment. It may not be illegal, but it’s definitely unethical. He is in a position of influence, and many women—especially a 21-year-old—would be afraid to report a congressman doing that to them because he holds so much power. Also, he claims none of the women he contacted were underage, but how could he possibly know that?

By far the most disturbing information that we have been privy to—there is, no doubt, more out there that we don’t know—is the transcript of a nine-month "sexting" relationship Weiner had with a Las Vegas blackjack dealer. Radar Online posted the transcript, and it is rife with misogyny and distorted views about women. In referring to oral sex, Wiener tells her, “You will gag on me before you c** with me in you” and “ thinking about gagging your hot mouth with my c***.” This is not about sex. It’s about dominating and inflicting physical pain on a woman, a fantasy the hard-core porn industry makes billions of dollars on selling to men. You don’t want to gag a woman with your penis unless you have some serious issues with the way you see women. What has emerged is a picture of a predator trolling the Internet for women—some half his age—with which to engage in cybersex.

As for his other views of women, he tells her, “I hear liberal girls are very, uh, accommodating of other(s),” playing on a bogus stereotype that politically liberal women are promiscuous. When he asks the woman, who is Jewish, “You give good h**d?” and she says yes, he exclaims: “Wow a Jewish girl who sucks c***! this thing is ready to do damage.”

A whisper campaign has started in New York that Weiner’s wife was partly to blame for what happened. “You know, she does travel a lot” is what one New York political operative told me they have heard from multiple reporters. So now we have the “blame the woman” campaign even though what Weiner did had zero to do with sexual satisfaction and everything to do with his own mental issues and attitude toward women. And, by the way, plenty of men have wives who travel and they don’t start preying on women on the Internet and sending pictures of their private parts.



http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-06-08/anthony-weiners-ex-kirsten-powers-he-lied-to-me/full/

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 05:02 AM
Response to Original message
1. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 05:19 AM
Response to Reply #1
10. Uh, where is the text where the girl says STOP?
I'm sure it's there somewhere as you prowl through every lurid moment. When did she say STOP?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boston bean Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 05:30 AM
Response to Reply #10
22. she deleted her account and believed Weiner when he said it wasn't from him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 05:36 AM
Response to Reply #22
26. So she never said STOP?
Why would she have to delete the account if what she said on it was STOP!?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boston bean Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 05:38 AM
Response to Reply #26
29. It was the first picture of his erect penis he ever sent her.
She didn't believe he sent it.

So you can jump to whatever conclusion you want, but in this case it's pretty clear he sent her an unsolicited photo of his erect junk in drawers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 05:42 AM
Response to Reply #29
41. After how many sexual conversations?
And when did she say STOP? Please let me know which law was broken by that photo.

Is the right wing really that afraid an investigation of Clarence Thomas' finances will turn up how much he spends on porn?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boston bean Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 05:46 AM
Response to Reply #41
44. According to Weiner and her NONE. There were NO sexual conversations.
If you are going to speak to the issues, please educate yourself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 05:59 AM
Response to Reply #44
62. That's why people ask questions. You saw the question mark?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boston bean Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 06:00 AM
Response to Reply #62
65. Now you know, so you can stop with all the girls wanted it too, schtick. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 06:05 AM
Response to Reply #65
69. Uh, you did see the dialog about watching the Daily Show?
Where the woman suggested they make mad passionate sex?

You are desperately trying to make victims of participants....as if women would never be interested in sex fantasies. Now THAT is misogynist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boston bean Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 06:08 AM
Response to Reply #69
70. Not all of the women were victims, we know one that was. You like to overlook that though.
Doesn't work for your case, right.

Yeah, I'm a misogynist against my own gender. LOL
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tunkamerica Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-10-11 08:02 AM
Response to Reply #70
176. Like that's never happened:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boston bean Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-10-11 08:12 AM
Response to Reply #176
178. are you calling me a misogynist too. is it because i don't think men should be flashing their penis
at unsuspecting women?

I'm a prude who hates men, right?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tunkamerica Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-11-11 10:10 PM
Response to Reply #178
181. where you got that from is anyone's guess.
My point was that a woman lobbying against women has and does happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tblue37 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-12-11 03:10 AM
Response to Reply #41
183. People keep confusing the various women. The one he had that sex chat
with was the Las Vegas blackjack ealer. The college girl he sent the gray undies shot to was not the same woman he had the sex chat with. The person who is replying to you is confusing Lisa in Las Vegas with Genette the college girl.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
formernaderite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 06:31 AM
Response to Reply #29
87. this is the part of the story that disturbs me the most
I have daughters and grand-daughters... I am incensed that some individuals see this as no big deal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #87
153. Yeah, she seems real traumatized.
And it's clear your daughters and granddaughters don't tell you a whole lot you have no business knowing.

This puritanical faux outrage is disgusting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 06:12 AM
Response to Reply #22
74. Not the same person, given that the boxer shot was with dozens of other regular shots...
...it is unlikely that he intended it to go to her. Given that he's been doing this awhile I doubt he'd send photos unsolicited or at least without an idea that they'd be received well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boston bean Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 06:16 AM
Response to Reply #74
79. so how do you think the conversations started?
And it's really beside the point, isn't it. Congressmen and women should not be sending out photo's of their naughty bits to women or men who befriend them on twitter and FB.

Especially if they're married, and their wife if pregnant. And then lie, making a fool of everyone who defended you. That doesn't win friends and he won't have any in Congress. he needs to resign.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 06:20 AM
Response to Reply #79
83. He did not intend to send the photo to Cordova, so all of your allegations about unsolicited photos.
...are untrue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boston bean Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 06:27 AM
Response to Reply #83
85. he didn't??? he admitted to it in his press conference that he sent it to her as a joke and that
Edited on Thu Jun-09-11 06:28 AM by boston bean
she was completely innocent in it and that he apologized. She stated a week prior she had never gotten a DM from him prior except the welcome to his twitter feed DM.

You don't believe Anthony Weiner??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 06:36 AM
Response to Reply #85
90. OK I got things mixed up, you're correct, he did send it, but given their complicity I'm not sure...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boston bean Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 06:39 AM
Response to Reply #90
92. Anthony Weiner said she was completely innocent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 06:41 AM
Response to Reply #92
93. He said she was " unwittingly dragged into this and bears absolutely no responsibility"
Far cry from innocent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boston bean Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 06:45 AM
Response to Reply #93
98. even better......
Last Friday night, I tweeted a photograph of myself that I intended to send as a direct message as part of a joke to a woman in Seattle.

Once I realized I had posted it to Twitter, I panicked, I took it down, and said that I had been hacked. I then continued with that story to stick to that story, which was a hugely regrettable mistake.

This woman was unwittingly dragged into this and bears absolutely no responsibility. I am so sorry to have disrupted her life in this way.

To be clear, the picture was of me, and I sent it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 06:41 AM
Response to Reply #92
94. Put it this way, if the woman is innocent she should file a sexual harrassment suit immediately.
And I would support her 100% if she did and would call on him to resign.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boston bean Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 06:46 AM
Response to Reply #94
99. You don't want to believe Anthony Weiner now. Blame the woman too.....great..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 06:49 AM
Response to Reply #99
101. No blame, she should file a suit if it was unsolicited, his behavior indicates it's receptive.
He would've been toast long before this if he was acting this way without understanding reception.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boston bean Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 06:52 AM
Response to Reply #101
103. Anthony admitted it. She would might have a good law suit, but that is up to her.
not you. to besmirch her for not wanting to move forward with a sexual harassment suit is just par for the course.

Do you know what women go through when they file such claims.

Stop casting doubt on Anthony's admissions. He finally told the truth. DEAL WITH IT.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 06:52 AM
Response to Reply #103
104. Actually, she has everything to gain from filing such a suit if she is innocent.
She has absolutely nothing to lose.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boston bean Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 06:54 AM
Response to Reply #104
106. So she's not innocent unless she files a sexual harassment suit?
PURE and utter bs.

Sexist bs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 06:56 AM
Response to Reply #106
108. All women who are sexually harassed should file a sexual harassment suit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boston bean Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 06:57 AM
Response to Reply #108
110. You have no idea WTF you are talking about.
Unless a woman files a suit, there is no sexual harassment. Is that what you are saying?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 06:58 AM
Response to Reply #110
112. Not at all, I'm saying ultimately that Weiner shouldn't be allowed to get away with it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boston bean Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 07:02 AM
Response to Reply #112
115. She is not the only arbiter of his punishment. He is not getting away with it.
At the very beginning of this, she said she felt violated and couldn't imagine AW sending her anything like this and that it must have been a hack. She wants privacy at this point. She may or may not file a suit. It has no bearing on whether he sent the pic unsolicited. He did. He admits that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 07:03 AM
Response to Reply #115
117. I did not see anywhere where he admits it was unsolicited.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boston bean Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 07:06 AM
Response to Reply #117
120. Please read his statement again...
Last Friday night, I tweeted a photograph of myself that I intended to send as a direct message as part of a joke to a woman in Seattle.

Once I realized I had posted it to Twitter, I panicked, I took it down, and said that I had been hacked. I then continued with that story to stick to that story, which was a hugely regrettable mistake.

This woman was unwittingly dragged into this and bears absolutely no responsibility. I am so sorry to have disrupted her life in this way.

To be clear, the picture was of me, and I sent it.

and then read hers, I can't dig it up. She stated he never sent her any Direct Messages other than the welcome to his twitter feed Direct Message. And that she believed it was someone else who sent the pic.

So I presume, with much evidence, that she wasn't expecting a link with no description to be sent to her of his erect junk in drawers..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 07:09 AM
Response to Reply #120
123. "Part of a joke."
Cordova said that, after Weiner began following her on Twitter, critics of the congressman started sending her harassing messages. She said she then began communicating, always electronically, with the congressman about their shared annoyance with those critics.

Cordova shared a portion of her communications with Weiner with The New York Times, but she would not make all of her interaction with him available for review.


http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2015269311_weinerpattern09.html

She's hiding something.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boston bean Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 07:15 AM
Response to Reply #123
125. So you are blaming her, even though AW states she was unwitting and that he apologized
for dragging her into it.

Thank you for coming clean with your true intentions. You would prefer to smear the woman, than to look at AW own words.

And what if it does come out that he paid her off or something. Is she the wicked evil person? I have no doubt you would still defend Weiner. Afterall, it's always the hussy's fault, and she took $$ to keep her mouth shut.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 07:19 AM
Response to Reply #125
127. Weiners own words say it was "part of a joke." What was her part of the joke?
Edited on Thu Jun-09-11 07:21 AM by joshcryer
She of course shares no responsibility for it becoming public.

If she takes money it would prove 100% that he sexually harassed her. This would be sexual harassment if unsolicited, I have maintained that. But I have seen no evidence so far that it was unsolicited as you falsely claim. You have not provided that evidence. If it exists I have stated consistently that I will back down and call on him to resign. Now we're just going in circles and you're attempting to insult my integrity.

You refuse to accept that she's hiding something even though she physically, literally, is hiding the chats between her and Weiner.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boston bean Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 07:26 AM
Response to Reply #127
129. You might want to look at the "joke" as a partial defense of Weiner,
however there is another way to look at it. There was no other reasonable explanation.

What was he suppose to say, "I sent her that pic because I'm a horny bastard obsessed with my own dick"?

I think his statement is pretty clear. She had nothing to do with it. And he apologized. She was an unwitting participant in it all.

I dont' think whether she files a sexual harassment suit or not helps determine that she is hiding something, as you say.

Stop blaming the woman, look to AW and his own words.

If what he said wasn't true, then he is a conspirator. He deserves your wrath.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 07:56 AM
Response to Reply #129
135. I think you misunderstand. Simply filing a suit would be evidence.
Him admitting it was unsolicited would be evidence.

Him or her showing the full chat logs between him and her would be evidence.

So far I see no evidence either for or against.

In these situations I always, 100% back the accuser (since false accusations are so rare). I used filing a suit as an example for me of incontrovertible evidence. I would back her 100% and he would get no more "support" from me. I completely disagree with the other poster that it's OK to just send suggestive pics to people randomly, that's not okay, it's sexual harassment. When I was in my late teens early twenties I sent a lot of those kinds of pictures, but always with permission ("I gotta... blankty blank" "yeah right!" "wanna see!" "yeah sure write my name..."), it is hard for me to believe Weiner would send unsolicited pictures as he has done, but I have not ruled it out as you think I have.

I personally think he's acting like an idiot and his actions would likely fall under sexual harassment. But I haven't seen the final bit of evidence that would say that in my mind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boston bean Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 08:15 AM
Response to Reply #135
137. He admitted to it. What evidence do you need?
You are trying to wrap yourself in finding the truth as if her filing a sexual harassment lawsuit is the only way to find the truth.

I think you may be trying to defend AW by implying the girl has something to hide if she doesn't file a law suit.

We are done here. I'm pretty sure I understand where you are coming from.

If what you think might be true, he lied. Deal with it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PeaceNikki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 07:07 AM
Response to Reply #117
121. Here:
"This woman was unwittingly dragged into this and bears absolutely no responsibility. I am so sorry to have disrupted her life in this way. To be clear, the picture was of me and I sent it."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1395081/Anthony-Weiners-press-conference-confession-Ive-hurt-people-I-care-about.html#ixzz1OmPiXWDv
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 02:50 PM
Response to Reply #103
164. She wouldn't have any kind of law suit.
SHE WASN'T DAMAGED. And I'm guessing a lawyer told her so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jbnow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-12-11 02:58 AM
Response to Reply #101
182. You think he'd ask before he sent it? How would she indicate being "receptive"?
At some point there is a first overtly sexual offering...
He had probably picked up a little on the jokey flirty part and she responded well enough he was giving this a try... This "joke"
Maybe a follow up to his cape and tights, big, strong or whatever comment that he used on the 17 year old and others before her
If she didn't respond negatively he'd go on with his routine

But it isn't certain they had already done any 'dirty' talk and I bet you she hadn't sent any crotch shots

He might not have been toast as he likely goes in incremental steps. If someone seems offensive he'd say sorry, just joking around and he'd back off. Young impressed girls are not likely to turn in a Congressman whose friendship she is flattered by
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odious justice Donating Member (117 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-15-11 12:10 PM
Response to Reply #94
187. She has no damages....
There is no point to her filing a lawsuit other then to inflict harm upon a party that you do not like.

Sexual harassment cannot be extrapolated from one incident...you have to show an ongoing pattern in order for it to be considered harassment(usually) AND you have to demonstrate intent. You can't harass someone by accident.

The cause of action here would be intentional or unintentional infliction of emotional distress
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 06:43 AM
Response to Reply #92
95. If she does *not* file a sexual harrassment suit it is because there was something going on...
...that she hiding, otherwise she and everyone around her should be telling her to file sexual harassment on him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maine-ah Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 01:40 PM
Response to Reply #95
150. I'd say it's up to her and nobody else as to what
she considers to be sexual harassment. If she feels it's necessary, then fine, and if she doesn't feel it's necessary, that's her choice.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 02:53 PM
Response to Reply #95
165. No, it's because the judge would laugh.
She wasn't damaged. She might have a teeny tiny cause of action against Breitbart, but her life goes on as before except she's now eligible for Celebrity Apprentice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tblue37 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-12-11 03:16 AM
Response to Reply #95
184. Nonsense. Women often do not file suits when harassed just
because they don't want to deal with the hassle, and in this case the publicity would turn her life into a nughtmare, which she obviously does not wan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 05:50 AM
Response to Reply #10
48. How about waiting for the lady to say "go"?
Since when is it true that all behavior toward a woman is acceptable until/unless she says "stop"?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 06:02 AM
Response to Reply #48
67. We are talking about internet sex talk.
Which either party is safely free to terminate.

Did she terminate immediately after receiving the picture? What did she do? Mail it around to her friends? What?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 06:15 AM
Response to Reply #67
76. Actually, the person in question got an unintended picture sent to her.
Weiner has been clear on that issue. If you look at the pictures he posted half of them are shots of congress and various offices, the picture obviously wasn't intended for her at that time (perhaps he did have a desire to attempt to get into an erotic chatting relationship with her in the future).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 06:15 AM
Response to Reply #67
77. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough.
It is NOT true to say that behavior is acceptable until someone asks for it to stop. "Consent" is NOT the same thing as "lack of refusal".

"She never said no!" won't get you off of a rape charge

even if it's true
even if she went on a date with you
even if she kissed you

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 06:29 AM
Response to Reply #10
86. aquart, you're arguing with two people about two different things.
The facebook chats are what you are defending, but the "unsolicited photo" thing is what got him caught in the first place. He accidentally published a lewd photo either intended for someone else or just saved for another time on his feed with other congressional photos (offices and the like). Breitbert the stalker had been watching his feed continuiously (easy to do with RSS feed and automatic screenshot software), caught it immediately, and the person who got the photo was immediately called out. She deleted her account due to the overwhelming messages and media attention she was getting.

As far as the facebook chats are concerned, it appears to be a jilted "internet ex" trying to get back at him for ignoring her and trying to downplay things. What is telling is that as the thing was blowing up she baited him with "I'm the only fb chick you can trust" and then repeating the fact that they had fb sex chats before. Very very telling, actually.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boston bean Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 06:31 AM
Response to Reply #86
88. You are not correct. AW admitted to purposely sending her a photo as a 'joke'.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 06:44 AM
Response to Reply #88
96. And you believe him?
Edited on Thu Jun-09-11 06:44 AM by FBaggins
As a child... did it take three or four times burning your hand before you realized the stove was hot?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 06:44 AM
Response to Reply #88
97. Apologies, you're correct on that count. If she is innocent she should file a sexual harrassment...
...suit immediately.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boston bean Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 06:48 AM
Response to Reply #97
100. he admits it, and you don't believe it, and then it's still partly the womans fault.
please stop while you are ahead.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 06:51 AM
Response to Reply #100
102. How did I say it was "partly the womans fault"? Please don't put words in my mouth.
Otherwise I admitted to being wrong that Weiner admitted it, I wasn't aware how it worked, I remember seeing a lot of yfrog pictures of various congressional meetings and then pow dick pic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boston bean Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 06:53 AM
Response to Reply #102
105. You are intimating that if she doesn't file a suit then she could possibly be lying about the
context of her twitter relationship with Anthony Weiner.

Taking the light off of him and shining it on her.

Afterall, if she was really harmed, as if she hasn't already been harmed, she would sue. If she doesn't sue, what is she hiding.

BULL SHIT

Find another argument please and try to make it less sexist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 06:55 AM
Response to Reply #105
107. So she shouldn't sue for being sexually harrassed? Are you saying she shouldn't?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boston bean Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 06:56 AM
Response to Reply #107
109. It is up to her and I base her innocence on Anthony Weiners words, not whether she files
a sexual harassment suit.

You should try it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 06:57 AM
Response to Reply #109
111. Hey, you're convincing me, but I don't think she should let someone send her an unsolicited photo...
...without making sure that they're punished for such depravity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boston bean Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 06:59 AM
Response to Reply #111
113. have you ever been involved in a sexual harassment suit?
Do you have any idea what can happen. Do you know how many women can't say anything because it ruins every facet of their life.

Many women are crushed when they bring these suits. It's not a rosie situation.

Anthony Weiner admitted sending it to her unsolicited, that is enough. Maybe she doesn't want her whole entire life dragged through the mud. Or, she might file one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 07:02 AM
Response to Reply #113
114. The way you're framing it this is the most cut and dry suit that there could be.
Edited on Thu Jun-09-11 07:03 AM by joshcryer
Innocent person gets sexually harassed by pictures sent directly to her on the internet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boston bean Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 07:03 AM
Response to Reply #114
118. you ever hear of depositions. maybe she doesn't want the national media following the suit.
maybe she doesn't want the entire world to know everything about her life.

I don't know. She will or she won't. It means nothing in the scheme of things, unless one is trying to sully the woman in defense of Anthony Weiner.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 07:05 AM
Response to Reply #118
119. A woman defending herself from sexual harassment means nothing?
Edited on Thu Jun-09-11 07:06 AM by joshcryer
Are you serious?

Given how cut and dry it would be it would be settled quietly out of court, no media circus.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boston bean Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 07:08 AM
Response to Reply #119
122. Whether she files one means nothing. Many women don't want their life put under a microscope.
many women have many other reasons for not wanting to file one.

i can think of many reasons why she wouldn't. I have named them above.

And no woman owes you that fight.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 07:13 AM
Response to Reply #122
124. No one owes me anything. I would be disheartened if a sexually harassed person with a cut and dry...
...case failed to file for it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boston bean Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 07:16 AM
Response to Reply #124
126. These things are never cut and dry. You just don't want to admit that.
You would rather cast doubt upon her than looking to AW own words.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 07:20 AM
Response to Reply #126
128. Actually, it would be cut and dry if it is as you frame it, and she should file suit.
It's simple, you're the one saying he sent an innocent woman an unsolicited photo. That's cut and dry. That's boardwalk, that's the whole shebang, she wins, settled out of court, no media circus, just a few twitter copy-pastes and pow it's over.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boston bean Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 07:28 AM
Response to Reply #128
130. You want to cast aspersions on this woman to make AW look better.
Edited on Thu Jun-09-11 07:29 AM by boston bean
This is despicable behavior to engage in, imho.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 07:57 AM
Response to Reply #130
136. Nope. I merely need actual evidence. You want to make false claims about someone.
False claims would be in my mind hypocrisy at worst.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boston bean Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 08:16 AM
Response to Reply #136
138. He admitted it. deal with it. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BuelahWitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #107
154. If every woman sued every time she was sexually harassed
do you know how clogged the courts would be? But if we don't we were "asking for it," is that what you're saying? :wtf:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LAGC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 05:07 AM
Response to Original message
2. I give Weiner till the end of the week before he steps down.
He could have defused this whole situation by just coming clean when first confronted with the evidence. But he had to lie about it, make up the hacker story, and blow the whole situation up turning it from a simple news blurb on the bottom of the screen to a weeks-long "investigation" by the MSM, causing all his other online flirtations to start speaking up and coming forward against him.

Stick a fork in him, he's done.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boston bean Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 05:08 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. anyone who thinks he shouldn't resign is only helping to perpetuate the story.
If the guy would just resign, this would die.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 06:11 AM
Response to Reply #3
72. Deleted message
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Tunkamerica Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-10-11 08:04 AM
Original message
Maybe he will, but he shouldn't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xphile Donating Member (565 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-15-11 12:30 PM
Response to Reply #3
189. This would die if people stopped fucking talking about it.
There are slightly more important things going on than someone sending pictures of his dick around.

And let's not pretend this is the first time it's ever happened. IT's not. It'll happen again but I'll be damned if we should get stuck with some milquetoast go along to get along punk as congressman because Democrats have no spine and are taking advantage of a stupid act to get rid of someone who made the rest of them look bad by showing up the rest of the Dems for not doing a damn thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 05:15 AM
Response to Original message
4. Okay, this IS hostile. If these emails are real, he doesn't belong
Edited on Thu Jun-09-11 05:36 AM by pnwmom
in Congress representing and working with women.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tuesday Afternoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 05:39 AM
Response to Reply #4
34. +1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 06:09 AM
Response to Reply #4
71. Which was exactly your position before the emails came up.
But you'll have to expel most of Congress with him, or don't you know what diehard sexist pigs they are?

Really, you are talking like the male senators who were aghast that Anita Hill didn't immediately quit her job.

What bloody nonsense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DevonRex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #4
145. ITA. Nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 05:17 AM
Response to Original message
5. Deleted message
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 05:17 AM
Response to Original message
6. That is par for the course with sex chats, I assure you. After awhile certain stuff gets boring...
...so it gets increasingly explicit, sometimes violent, and very very naughty, from both sides.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 05:18 AM
Response to Reply #6
9. that makes sense. it still doesn't help Weiner.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 05:23 AM
Response to Reply #9
15. Weiner must be above being an average dick idiot.
Why, again?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 05:27 AM
Response to Reply #15
18. because he's an elected official. sorry, that's just the way it is.
it may not be fair, but it's reality. He knew the rules of the game when he entered it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 05:37 AM
Response to Reply #15
27. House Ethics Rules for one thing.
Asking staffers to help prepare a "girlfriend" to lie about him, if he did it, would probably be against the rules.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 05:48 AM
Response to Reply #27
45. "If"? Did he? And what is the punishment ?
How many staffers tell lies for their boss every day in DC?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 01:36 PM
Response to Reply #45
148. There is an email purported to be his in which he asked her
to deny their relationship, and in which he offered the services of a member of his "team" in preparing such a statement.

If this team member is a Congressional staffer, this would go beyond telling a lie for a boss; it would mean having a paid Congressional staffer engaged in Weiner's personal business, which is against the rules.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 05:20 AM
Response to Reply #6
11. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 05:27 AM
Response to Reply #11
17. You don't know me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 05:29 AM
Response to Reply #11
21. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 05:22 AM
Response to Reply #6
13. Yup. Because it's FANTASY.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 05:28 AM
Response to Reply #13
20. It can be a bit more than that, but usually it won't play that way in real life, so yeah...
...it's more fantasy than reality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lapislzi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #6
160. Disagree.
Now, I may be damning myself here, BUT, I have engaged in plenty of cyber and phone sex, with people with whom I've been in a "real" relationship, and people with whom I haven't (and never met). Naughty is one thing. I do naughty. I get "naughty." Naughty uses the vernacular in a variety of creative ways, with the intent of arousing the other.

Never, never, in my dozens of encounters, has anyone ever threatened to choke me with their genitals, or suggested anything more severe than "maybe it would be fun to play with handcuffs someday."

If someone had used the imagery of violence with me, I would have immediately ended the encounter, and the liaison.

Let's not pretend that there's no misogyny here, OK?

And that has nothing to do with Weiner's ability to govern, although it might make me question his judgment regarding gender and reproductive issues.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fasttense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 05:18 AM
Response to Original message
7. And yet David Vitter continues to hound prostitutes
while serving as a Senator. I bet he called them while on the floor of the Senate. I guess it's OK if you are a RepubliCON.

If we are going to be prudish and demand our politicians have sex only in marriage, or show their naked bodies only to their wives, we should apply the rule consistently.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 05:22 AM
Response to Reply #7
12. and repub rep Mark Souder was forced to resign last year after
admitting an affair. And repub Chris Lee was forced to resign after sending a shirtless pic of himself to some woman.

Vitter got away with it chiefly because what he'd done had happened years before it was actually revealed. Now he may be continuing to this day, but there's not evidence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
notadmblnd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 06:34 AM
Response to Reply #12
89. Chris Lee was not forced to resign
— Speaker John Boehner said Thursday that former Rep. Christopher Lee, who resigned Wednesday after photos of his bare torso were posted on a website, made "his own decision" to resign and was not forced out.

The scandal surrounding Lee, a married second-term Republican congressman from western New York who allegedly used the personals site Craigslist to send photos of himself to at least one woman, unfolded as rapidly as any in congressional history. Just hours after the photos were made public, Lee submitted his resignation letter to Boehner.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/feb/11/news/la-pn-boehner-lee-20110211
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 05:39 AM
Response to Reply #7
32. If there were pictures out there of Vitter in a diaper,
he wouldn't have gotten re-elected to the Senate. His constituents were forgiving, but they wouldn't be THAT forgiving. I'm sure a lot of them never believed or wanted to forget the accusations against him, but the photos would have been pretty unforgettable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 05:18 AM
Response to Original message
8. Deleted message
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
JI7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 05:23 AM
Response to Original message
14. it's stupid to analyze a private sex chat in this way
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 05:27 AM
Response to Reply #14
16. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
JI7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 05:28 AM
Response to Reply #16
19. you should worry about the one in diapers who actually did something illegal on your side
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boston bean Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 05:34 AM
Response to Reply #19
23. you want Vitter to resign? Me too. They both should resign..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 05:41 AM
Response to Reply #23
38. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 05:35 AM
Response to Reply #14
24. It's not analysis, it's sh!t flinging.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boston bean Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 05:36 AM
Response to Reply #24
25. Call it what you will, but there are no untruths in it. Shit truth flinging??
If you don't like what you are reading, then why the hearty defense of Weiner?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 05:37 AM
Response to Reply #25
28. It's full of innuendo and conjecture which are not the same as truth.
Edited on Thu Jun-09-11 05:38 AM by EFerrari
Did you read what you posted? And is this ex a psychiatrist? And is she one of the ones that got paid to fling sh!t at Weiner?

Etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boston bean Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 05:39 AM
Response to Reply #28
31. from top to bottom. Have you read his sex chats?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 05:45 AM
Response to Reply #31
42. I just did. I liked this part: "I am the only fb chick u can trust"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
piedmont Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #42
156. +1!
LOL
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 05:48 AM
Response to Reply #31
46. This is a hit piece and that's all it is.
But it's true, when I want an accurate assessment of a Congressman, the go-to person is an ex who deals in pseudo-logical and unlicensed diagnosis.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boston bean Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 05:50 AM
Response to Reply #46
49. When I want a true assessment of a congressman, i look at what he wrote
how he conducted himself.

Not true for you though...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 05:54 AM
Response to Reply #49
57. No, you don't. You look at what is presented to you

in hit pieces and take that as the sum of Anthony Weiner. Forgive me if I don't join your myopia.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boston bean Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 05:56 AM
Response to Reply #57
59. No, I know what he did, and so don't you. She wrote about it.
I agree with her. you see something different. Stick to defending why you see it different. I'll continue to stick with those icky facts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 06:02 AM
Response to Reply #59
66. So, you heard one side of the story. Congratulations.
Edited on Thu Jun-09-11 06:02 AM by EFerrari
Truthiness will out!

LOL
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boston bean Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 06:03 AM
Response to Reply #66
68. No, I read the transcripts. Did you? Or too much truth in there for you to read? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 06:15 AM
Response to Reply #68
78. .You read the transcripts?
How do you know if you inflected them as they were intended? I mean, you don't know any of those people, you don't know what they sound like and you weren't in the relationship.

Too much truth, my granny. The truth is, Anthony Weiner was targeted because he is effective. He broke no law, none of these women were his employees, his adversaries are openly paying people to trash him. You want to join that crowd, that's your prerogative.






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boston bean Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 06:18 AM
Response to Reply #78
82. so we're down to my reading skills? Listen the women who engaged in this with him
said he almost immediately started sending them graphic messages and pics. It was he who initiated it.

You believe what you want. Disappointing as it is, coming from you, whom I like and admire as a fellow feminist.

We will disagree and disagree strongly on this. I wish you would reconsider your defense of him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 05:40 AM
Response to Reply #28
37. It's full of quotes from his emails in which he talks about gagging her
with his cum.

Nice guy. Great attitude toward women.

:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 05:51 AM
Response to Reply #37
51. I think I'll leave you to your fantasy, which apparently is innocent
of context.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jberryhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 05:52 AM
Response to Reply #51
55. ...and likely devoid of fantasy

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boston bean Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 05:59 AM
Response to Reply #51
61. yeah, go read the transcript and see what she was saying.
have you actually read them.

They basically consist of the woman saying Hi, and him asking her if she is hot can he put his throbbing dangerous cock down her throat.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 01:12 PM
Response to Reply #51
140. What context makes hostility toward women okay?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Starbucks Anarchist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #51
155. How could those statements be taken out of context?
Edited on Thu Jun-09-11 01:53 PM by Starbucks Anarchist
If a Republican wrote this, DU would call for his head.

People on this site go apeshit when someone says a congressmember has "balls," yet a congressman saying he wants a woman to choke on his dick is apparently okay.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jberryhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 05:52 AM
Response to Reply #37
53. These were, I gather one-sided conversations?

I gather that every couple who engages in consensual fantasy role play requires that they actually hold odious personal convictions.

Like that corner of the sex toy shop with the big sign that says "Misogyny Supplies".

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 01:15 PM
Response to Reply #53
141. No, she was encouraging his fantasies.
She wasn't playing a victim part -- she was pretending to love what he was saying.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tunkamerica Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-10-11 08:00 AM
Response to Reply #141
174. pretending? are you pretending to be outraged?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tunkamerica Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 06:00 AM
Response to Reply #37
63. obviously that's literal since 94% of gagging deaths happen that way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 01:16 PM
Response to Reply #63
142. Doesn't have to be literal to be hostile. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anAustralianobserver Donating Member (440 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 07:42 AM
Response to Reply #37
131. not with his "cum". with his "c*** " - 4 letters.
Edited on Thu Jun-09-11 08:07 AM by anAustralianobserver
The former sounds violent to me while the latter sounds possibly but not necessarily violent. I'm not going to read the transcript to put it into more context (assuming it's a real and unedited transcript).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #131
143. You're right. I noticed that too late to edit.
But in the context of his "dangerous" member, the one sounded as bad as the other.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tunkamerica Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-10-11 07:59 AM
Response to Reply #143
173. truthfully that's a judgement call and you find it offensive while someone else might find it
totally appropriate to the conversation. How about you stop trying to make other people adhere to your ideas about how their relationships should be?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 05:38 AM
Response to Reply #25
30. No untruths? NO CRIME, EITHER.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 05:41 AM
Response to Reply #30
39. House Ethics Rules apply here, not just the criminal code. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumberjack_jeff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 06:18 PM
Response to Reply #25
170. A lie of omission is still a lie.
These chat excerpts don't include the responses.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ganja Ninja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 05:39 AM
Response to Original message
33. I just don't care about the views of ex-girlfriends.
Who knows what the background behind her comments is. The point of view of the ex is usually not positive and I don't care to listen to her axe grinding.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boston bean Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 05:40 AM
Response to Reply #33
36. She was actually very kind to him in the beginning and defended at the beginning
after he personally called her to do so.

Read the article please...then get back with me on your opinion regarding ex-girlfriends.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 05:52 AM
Response to Reply #36
54. Read it. And she had some bloody nerve.
Also, a really poor understanding of mental defects and disorders. If he's a narcissistic sociopath now, then he was one when she dated him and called on him for help. It's not a late-blooming condition.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boston bean Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 05:55 AM
Response to Reply #54
58. I guess you have your opinion, but what makes yours correct?
He sent naughty bit pics, had sex chats, sent atleast one pic we know of unsolicited, asked a porn star lie, did this all newly married and with a pregnant wife.

Please, I think all that describes some sort of narcissistic behavior.

But to each his own I guess.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 01:43 PM
Response to Reply #58
151. I didn't say it didn't, ducky.
I said it didn't start AFTER she knew him.

Reading comprehension is a fucking lost skill.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boston bean Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 02:01 PM
Response to Reply #151
159. Well Duck, atleast I read, if you look up thread you got your ass handed to you for not reading. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 05:40 AM
Response to Original message
35. Did he tie these women to their keyboards and pry their eyes open?
Clockwork Orange style?

Huh?

Tangos require two.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boston bean Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 05:41 AM
Response to Reply #35
40. He didn't send that first girl a warning of what was in the hot pic link.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 05:50 AM
Response to Reply #40
50. "hot pic"
Seriously? That is the complaint?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boston bean Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 05:51 AM
Response to Reply #50
52. the hot link to a picture... there were no words with the tweet, just the hot link...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 05:53 AM
Response to Reply #52
56. "I was wearing a trenchcoat officer... what did she THINK I was going to do!?"
The behavior we put up with because the man shares our politics.

How can he share my politics when he clearly doesn't share my values?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 06:00 AM
Response to Reply #56
64. Clearly these are overlapping sets.
Values and politics are not the same thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 06:12 AM
Response to Reply #64
73. They aren't?
Edited on Thu Jun-09-11 06:42 AM by FBaggins
Why is "shares my values" one of the key polling questions?

If your politics don't procede from your values, you need to replace one of them. :)

On edit - apologies. I see now that you were saying they aren't EXACTLY the same thing but that they relate.

My opinion of him stands however. Would have loved to see him rise to senator a month ago... but now I have no desire to see him hold any public office.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 05:59 AM
Response to Reply #52
60. Oh well then off with his head
both of them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JI7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 05:45 AM
Response to Original message
43. i just clicked on the link and see this Ex GF is Kirsten Powers
didn't she agree with some woman who was claiming if women didn't want to be raped they shouldn't dress certain ways ?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boston bean Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 05:49 AM
Response to Reply #43
47. I have no idea....
But the person your defending dated her and called her to lie for him.........so.....

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 06:17 AM
Response to Reply #47
81. And the person in the transcript participating in a sex chat openly lied about trust.
So...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 06:12 AM
Response to Reply #43
75. OMG, one of those?
Get it confirmed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 06:16 AM
Response to Reply #75
80. Confirmed, fairly recent, too, wow:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boston bean Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 06:25 AM
Response to Reply #80
84. yep, blame the messenger. it's a great tactic.
I don't like Kirsten Powers, but she's right about this. Anthony Weiner like her enough though.

So what's that say about Anthony?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 06:37 AM
Response to Reply #84
91. I was merely confirming the report.
Take it as you will.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 02:45 PM
Response to Reply #80
161. Oh, they should have mentioned that with the ex-girlfriend disclaimer.
A FOX News piece of work she is.

Thanks for doing the legwork (with your fingers).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blaukraut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 07:02 AM
Response to Original message
116. Like Freud said - sometimes a cigar is just a cigar
This is sex talk, nothing more nothing less. I wouldn't read too much into it. There are plenty of married couples even who engage in 'dirty talk' during sex. Would you claim that the husband is automatically a misogynist? What if the woman does the dirty talking? Is she a secret man hater?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lillypaddle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 07:44 AM
Response to Original message
132. Let me guess ...
you've never liked to talk "dirty." Do you really believe that base sexual talk is misogynistic? Sounds like this activity was consensual between adults.
unrecommended for sheer prudishness and your sexism against men.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Grabo Donating Member (13 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 07:47 AM
Response to Original message
133. why do you care what other adults fantasize about ?
"This is not about sex. It’s about dominating and inflicting physical pain on a woman, a fantasy the hard-core porn industry makes billions of dollars on selling to men. You don’t want to gag a woman with your penis unless you have some serious issues with the way you see women."

You have no idea what two consensual adults want to do in the bedroom or what they want to fantasize about. You sound like a right wing evangelical christian trying to impose your moral views on the followers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boston bean Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 08:18 AM
Response to Reply #133
139. you need to bone up on the issues in this case.
It's not merely between two consenting adults.

The women who went on to have these cyber sex relations did not join his twitter feed for the purpose.

He was quick to the draw sharing his prowess and pics. He started it not them. I don't think most women would be expecting that friending a congressman on twitter would result in cybersex. But it happened and some went along.

According to AW, he sent atleast one unsolicited pic to an "unwitting" participant.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marions ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 07:49 AM
Response to Original message
134. bottom line = Bingo
"what Weiner did had zero to do with sexual satisfaction and everything to do with his own mental issues and attitude toward women. And, by the way, plenty of men have wives who travel and they don’t start preying on women on the Internet and sending pictures of their private parts."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
renate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 01:27 PM
Response to Original message
144. if this is true I am beyond disappointed
Putting his wife through this and being so cataclysmically stupid as to leave an electronic footprint everywhere he went were bad enough, but not resignation-worthy, in my opinion. But to have this virulent attitude towards women is really repellent--and so upsetting to me, because I loved the guy and his sense of humor and what I perceived to be his sense of decency. Although I'm sure he loves his wife and his mother and his sister if he has one, he seems to see women he interacts with in a sexual context as not having any feelings. I mean, does he think she'd enjoy being gagged? Presumably not, but too bad--it's all about him and his penis. And that is just plain gross.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
closeupready Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 01:32 PM
Response to Original message
146. Oh, bullshit. She's not a psychiatrist, she's "The Other Woman".
Give me a fucking break. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Whisp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 01:35 PM
Response to Original message
147. sick fuck
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joeybee12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 01:37 PM
Response to Original message
149. Ah, amateur psychology at its finest! kur
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MikeMc Donating Member (636 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 01:45 PM
Response to Original message
152. Is Weiner's ex Michelle Malkin {q mark inoperative} NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 02:48 PM
Response to Reply #152
163. No. Merely a Fox contributor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MikeMc Donating Member (636 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 06:00 PM
Response to Reply #163
166. Thanks aq, NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MikeMc Donating Member (636 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 07:30 PM
Response to Reply #163
172. What to say
Edited on Thu Jun-09-11 07:42 PM by MikeMc
I opened your thread, and opened a big can of worms. Sweet Mother of Mercy. Very important to all Dems.

Thanks to fascisthunter for post 54 in the thread.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boston bean Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-10-11 08:02 AM
Response to Reply #163
175. and anthony weiners ex girlfriend....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Generic Other Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 01:56 PM
Response to Original message
157. I was gonna chastise you all for being voyeurs
but then I saw the transcripts. Now I am ashamed of myself. Oh well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Xithras Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 02:00 PM
Response to Original message
158. Some people like their sex rough and dirty.
Nothing wrong with that, though it's certainly not for everyone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 02:47 PM
Response to Original message
162. Ex is a FOX CONTRIBUTOR.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1077716

And what a nasty, disloyal piece of work she is. Oh, wait. She's loyal to whomever pays her. FOX.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Starbucks Anarchist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 06:16 PM
Response to Reply #162
169. And a former official in the Clinton Administration.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LoZoccolo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 06:08 PM
Response to Original message
167. POSTING IN EPIC THREAD! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumberjack_jeff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 06:15 PM
Response to Original message
168. Fear of lewd talk or behavior? I have a right to be free from it?
More to the point, I should be free to click on anything I want and expect that nothing lewd will be there? I'm sorry. If the "remove from friends list" button is too hard to manipulate, the internet may not be for you.

This poor lady. 9 months before she could recover from her shock enough to figure out how to turn off her computer?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jillan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-09-11 06:18 PM
Response to Original message
171. The Ex girlfriend? For all we know he dumped her and she is trying to get even. This reminds me of
High School.

unrec
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boston bean Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-10-11 08:04 AM
Response to Reply #171
177. did you read the article. They are friends too. He called her the day before he confessed lying to
her, and she defended him on FOX.

Kill the messenger, once again, w/o even taking the time to click the link and read the article.

If you have such contempt for her, why aren't you contemptuous of Anthony Weiners relationship with her?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
InvisibleTouch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-10-11 08:23 AM
Response to Original message
179. You know, if a guy sent me a text or pic that offended me...
...I would tell him to go to hell and refuse to accept any further communication from him. That's one of the nice things about online communication - you can make people disappear at the touch of a button, and never have to think about them again. Someone who didn't want to receive these kinds of texts, could easily have stopped them. Not saying it wasn't stupid/questionable for him to send stuff like that in the first place, but the girl also has the ability to determine her response.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluenorthwest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-10-11 09:09 AM
Response to Original message
180. These threads are soooo amusingly ironic...
Seeing the Straight Choir leap up and virtually scream that all sexual matters are private and should never be the subject of public discussion, should never be politicized. I've even read posts that claim 'we Democrats always say sexual matters are private'! The irony is clear, even without DU search, which makes it even more fun.
The 'leave Tony alone you prudes' crew is comprised of folks who, when GLBT people have been targeted with very public discussions of our basic rights, our families. They sat nodding along when Obama declared that straight marrieds are 'Sanctified by God' and share a 'spiritual element' that gay people lack. Sanctified? Is the sexting, in your minds, Sanctified by God? But gay sexting would not be I must assume?
I've read posts from people who pretend to be proponents of freedom and sexual tolerance who, when gay people were targeted, droned on and on about how 'the faith community' needs to hear some homophobic talk to approve of a candidate, or we were told that the slanders would be short (just one song) and to the point (on two minute prayer) we were told to stop the poutrage and stop to demanding ponies.
I offer to the assembled Straights of the OFA that if you desire to defend a politician, ever, with talk of private matters and by claiming sexuality does not matter, it is important for the Straights of the OFA to never make our sexuality an issue, never to drag our private lives into the political square.
Folks who are currently claiming that Tony is getting a lousy deal because of American prudery really should have been loudly up in arms each time Dogma and Religion was spouted against gay people, by any one, at anytime. Understand this: if it is acceptable to sit and speak of a minority being inferior because of their sexuality, if you hear such crap from Obama or anyone, McClurkin, Warren, Biden, anyone, if you intend to take the free love stance for some troubled straight politician, it will not fly if on alternate days you are holding 'faith and family' rallies with anti gay 'ministers' who rail against sexuality. If you are going to wave the Bible at me, kids, and then demand that Tony's sex life is no one's business, you will need to cite the Bible to defend your position on Tony. The Bible is calmly cited at the GLBT community and the OFA kids say 'calm down, pony wanter'.
The standards the Straight Community is best known for currently is the standard of the Bible, which you all allow to be hurled at teh gay. Thus, that is the standard for all of you, Tony and everyone. You do not get to impose dogmatic Biblical standards on others while claiming that you yourselves get to be Woodstock Nation or an orgy room at Plato's Retreat.
The Tony Defenders, I just note that precious few of them had a word for John Edwards, who went on and on about how inferior gay people are, citing his deeply held Baptist views of marriage as a Sacrament for 'one man, and one woman only'. I can not think of a single straight DUer who heard about Edward's truths and said 'That man slandered good people to make himself look better'. No, again the insisted that what John does is his business, apparently he is free to lie about others and fuck whoever he wants as well. He gets to be a whore and call other people whores, while claiming Deaconhood for himself.
Those who are gushing for Tony should have been doing the same for others who have been the targets of sexual inquisitions. But they were actually on the other side then, defending the slander mongers. It's just one song, did you expect instant everything?
Candidate Obama employed surrogates who had called gay people murderers of children, prostitutes, thieves, and had in fact called for war against us, gloves off full tilt warfare. When we complained about that, the candidate said we would have to sit and compromise with those who called us child killers. It is easy to look up what was said by whom at that time. Many who mocked us and used the term 'poutrage' are now exhibiting a good deal of pouting outrage about some politician getting the same treatment we got, except that he actually lied and cheated. Which is what Straights say about us, and other Straights silently allow, again and again and again. Those who heard GLBT people called names, and our basic rights opposed who did not stand up and shout and are now shouting for Tony are hypocrites of the very worst kind. The bigotry that says 'we get to do as we wish, including slander gay people for our own agenda's sake' is a deep bigotry.
God is in the mix. McClurkin. Sister Sister. Caldwell. Warren. By letting them slander us with impunity, you have grown a garden of recrimination and impossible standards. But it is the garden you all wanted so badly, the Biblical Sacrament Garden.
Obama says marriage is a holy sacrament which must be defended. This is based on Biblical Law. The Bible says Tony should be executed (OT) or that he should be treated as a 'whoremonger' (NT). And according to Obama, the rules of marriage come only from the Bible. So to be consistent as coat holders for the anti gay set, you really, really need to pick one Testament and treat Tony accordingly, just as you have done with 'teh gay' and the McClurkin shit. Or maybe it is time for Val Jarrett to pontificate on the 'lifestyle' of sexting Congressmen?
But clearly in a Bible based world, Tony can not and must not go unpunished. All who vote for Obama claim to believe the Bible makes marriage law. You can not claim today to be into open marriage and tomorrow to be Bible based defenders of of the Sacrament.
The selective outrage of the Straight Community is a wonder to behold. How long after they defend this will they be back to smugly stating that marriage is all about God and faith and that it just can not be sullied by those people? Do you think we've heard the end of that shit? I don't. I think the OFA crowd has been clear, they think straights have no rules at all, but God sends telegrams to Obama about how gays must follow the Bible to the letter.
Being a hypocrite with double standards is not groovy, it is not enlightened, if half the standard is tolerant but the other half is dogmatic prejudice. Those who say 'Tony was just being human' who also rationalize anti gay policy of any sort are simply self serving short sighted liars.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-12-11 05:03 AM
Response to Reply #180
185. I think you have the dynamics of this wrong. The' OFA kids' from
what I have observed are the ones who would like to see him hang. There appears to be a fear in the Party that he 'might embarrass the president'. How or why that should be a consideration I have no idea. The only people who matter are his constituents and they want him back.

Do you know his record on Gay Rights btw? He was one of the fiercest defenders of Gay Rights in Congress and Women's rights. He's a Liberal, don't you understand, the Party is being purged of Liberals.

His score is 100% on Gay Rights issues. He is one of your most staunch supporters in Congress. Maybe THE most.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tblue37 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-12-11 11:55 AM
Response to Original message
186. She says he was a "doting boyfriend," but that his sex chats
show a desire to dominate and harm women.

When I read that, my immediate reaction was to think of Portnoy's Complaint.

I also wonder whether Weiner has the Madonna-Whore attitude toward sex: i.e., that maybe he saves "nice" sex for the women he cares about, and uses other women that he can distance himself from as partnersz for his "dirty" sex--or at elast for his "dirty" sex talk.

It seems a lot of people need "dirty" or "nasty" sex to feel completely satisfied, but if a man doesn't want to engage in that sort of sex with the woman he is emeotionally involved with, then usually he will find other women that he is less protective of for that sort of sex.

I suspect that this might be a factor in his behavior.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chrisa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-15-11 12:24 PM
Response to Original message
188. Hey Weiner!
Edited on Wed Jun-15-11 12:31 PM by chrisa




By the way, I love how all the losers like Kirsten Powers are showing up now to pick up the scraps of the fallen giant. Where were you guys before the 360 degree firing squad started happening?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odious justice Donating Member (117 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-15-11 12:31 PM
Response to Original message
190. Everything you say is wrong and sad
"there is the issue of his attitude toward women. What has emerged is a picture of a predator trolling the Internet for women—some half his age—with which to engage in cybersex."

Predator would imply that there are victims...and people that he is preying on....every relationship had been consensual or accidental(one isolated boner picture sent)

"We know only about the women who were responsive to his overtures. The odds are very high that he struck out with many, and other women were victim to his unsolicited sex talk."

Victim? What do you consider a victim? if striking out with a women victimizes her...wait, never mind. No need for a clever metaphor. Striking out with a woman does not victimize her. That's easy enough.

"Women should be able to “friend” a married—or unmarried—congressman on Facebook or follow him on Twitter without fear of being the recipient of lewd talk or behavior."

That is a true statement. Lets see some of these women who were living in fear come forward and talk about being the recipient of lewd talk and behavior. If they can overcome their fear. We should all pray for this huddling timid mass of women who are terrified of the social network sites that they join.


"Just because a woman “likes” your video on Facebook doesn’t mean you can send her a picture of your penis. This is textbook sexual harassment."

Textbook eh? Is this textbook written by you in crayon? Or is it scrawled on the wall in cat feces? Either way this would seem to be "textbook indecent exposure" or an accident. Despite the one college student, did anyone receive any unsolicited junk(pun intended)?


"It may not be illegal, but it’s definitely unethical."

Sexual harassment is sort of illegal...until you said it wasn't. Good to know.

"He is in a position of influence, and many women—especially a 21-year-old—would be afraid to report a congressman doing that to them because he holds so much power. Also, he claims none of the women he contacted were underage, but how could he possibly know that?"


He also claims that none of these women were buried alive. How could we possibly know that?!! he also claimed that none of these women could recite all 50 states. How...How I ask...can we verify that??????

And yeah, 21 year old women are going to be terrified to tell people that a powerful man is sending them dick pictures. This is the number one fear of women in their twenties.


"By far the most disturbing information that we have been privy to—there is, no doubt, more out there that we don’t know—is the transcript of a nine-month "sexting" relationship Weiner had with a Las Vegas blackjack dealer. Radar Online posted the transcript, and it is rife with misogyny and distorted views about women. In referring to oral sex, Wiener tells her, “You will gag on me before you c** with me in you” and “ thinking about gagging your hot mouth with my c***.” This is not about sex. It’s about dominating and inflicting physical pain on a woman, a fantasy the hard-core porn industry makes billions of dollars on selling to men. You don’t want to gag a woman with your penis unless you have some serious issues with the way you see women. What has emerged is a picture of a predator trolling the Internet for women—some half his age—with which to engage in cybersex."

By far the most disturbing thing in your incoherent post is that you find the content of someones private conversation more disturbing than the mass dissemination of that conversation. Yeah...this is called dirty talk. Do you want the whole world to hear what you say when you're having sex? Probably not. But most people have said or heard very similar things in their own intimate moments. This would be very disturbing to a repressed fundamentalist that had limited sexual experience.

"As for his other views of women, he tells her, “I hear liberal girls are very, uh, accommodating of other(s),” playing on a bogus stereotype that politically liberal women are promiscuous. When he asks the woman, who is Jewish, “You give good h**d?” and she says yes, he exclaims: “Wow a Jewish girl who sucks c***! this thing is ready to do damage.” "

To be fair, we don't know if any of this is true. There is no proof that she gives good head.



"A whisper campaign has started in New York that Weiner’s wife was partly to blame for what happened. “You know, she does travel a lot” is what one New York political operative told me they have heard from multiple reporters. So now we have the “blame the woman” campaign even though what Weiner did had zero to do with sexual satisfaction and everything to do with his own mental issues and attitude toward women."

I just whispered to my computer that you're making things up.

"And, by the way, plenty of men have wives who travel and they don’t start preying on women on the Internet and sending pictures of their private parts."

There are plenty of men that don't eat jelly beans out of top hats when their wife travels. PLENTY.


Here's the bottom line- if having Weiner resign was the right thing to do the Republicans would not be demanding it.

Period.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 24th 2024, 08:49 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC