Sometime soon this subject is going to blow over and everyone will stop talking about it but nothing will have changed because it is a subject about humans acting human. You can't solve a human problem by vilifying people who are merely following their instincts. Change comes from knowledge and understanding. As these men gain the light of Christ, they will act in more appropriate ways. Publicly humiliating and shaming them actually makes the problem worse.
Both the victims and perpetuators have responsibilities to stop this. Those who have been harassed are responsible for gaining self respect and doing what they can to eliminate the harassment in their lives. Those who are harassing are responsible for gaining the swarmed they need to bridle their inclinations. By focusing solely on the perpetuators and vilifying them, you are only focusing on half the problem and doing so in a way that will make the problem worse. If the perpetuators had respect for themselves and others, they would not act this way. By teasing them badly, you only deepen their lack of respect for themselves and those around them.
Sexual Harassment Scandals
-
Rose Garden
- Don't ask . . .
- Posts: 7031
- Contact:
-
MMbelieve
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 5072
Re: Sexual Harassment Scandals
I guess I should have stated, very few men that I have noticed....or very few men of all the men/boys I have come across.Gage wrote: ↑November 30th, 2017, 11:59 am yes some men are pigs and this sorta thing does go on, by both male and female I might add. All I am saying its not right nor fair that a mans life can be ruined over accusations alone. Your comment of "very few men who dont cross the line" is inaccurate and another unfair assumption. Blaming men because of a female's accusations should not hold up enough but unfortunately it does in this new girl power feminist anti male society.
Yes, women do it to.
Yes, I agree that a person life shouldn't be ruined just because of words blowing in the wind.
Have you wondered why a females words tend to hold water? Why do they tend to believe the average woman?
Your last statement of "new girl power....anti male society" is interesting. Why didn't you say new "female" power...anti male society? Or better yet why didn't you use other equivalent words such as, "new girl power. anti boy society"??
See, what you may not notice is that society has been demeaning women as less than men through such things as calling males men (out of respect, rather than calling them boy) but calling females girls, not women. I didn't even realize it until it was brought to my attention, now I hear it quite often.
The anti male movement is not something I condone, but I do accept the movement to gain respect for women. Real respect. It is something that I'm not sure society will accept in full. Women wanting to stand strong doesn't have to mean that men fall.
Despite what you may gather, I am in no way affiliated with the modern feminist movement and I don't believe that men are bad.
Last edited by MMbelieve on November 30th, 2017, 5:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
EmmaLee
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 10890
Re: Sexual Harassment Scandals
"I'm going to get in trouble for this piece, but I ask you to actually read it before you yell at me. I'm not making excuses for sex predators and I'm not defending anything that these men have allegedly done. All I'm saying is that we have set an extremely dangerous precedent.
The precedent is this: any man can be accused of anything, by anyone, from any point in his past, and he will automatically be presumed guilty, he will not be entitled to defend himself, his denials will be dismissed before they're even uttered, and his life will be ruined without a shred of evidence ever being presented against him.
Guys, this is dangerous. We are attacking the sexual assault problem through mob rule, and I am afraid that it's going to backfire. Big time." ~ Matt Walsh
Here's Walsh's article -
Slow Down, Lynch Mob. A Man Is Not Automatically Guilty Just Because He's Accused.
By Matt Walsh
November 30, 2017
Matt Lauer, former host of the Today Show, stands accused of a multitude of sins, including exposing himself to his coworkers, handing out sex toys as gifts, and even having a special locking mechanism installed at his desk so that he could trap his victims in his office/sex dungeon.
Garrison Keillor, a broadcasting icon who has spent 40 years in the business, has also this week been accused of, and fired for, his own "inappropriate behavior." Apparently he patted a woman on the back years ago, his hand went up her shirt slightly, and he apologized for it at the time. She forgave him, he says, but has now decided that it was assault. Maybe more accusations will surface against Keillor, but right now, as far as the public knows, that's it.
The only thing that links these two men and their alleged improprieties together is that both are immediately assumed guilty and cast aside as dangerous predators. They will both be added to the same list — a list that includes men accused of child rape, men accused of making lewd comments, and men accused of something in between those two vast extremes — and their careers and reputations will be ruined forever. Neither will be allowed to defend themselves, neither will be permitted to tell their side of the story, and no evidence whatsoever will need to be presented against them. This is how the process works now. If you are a man and you are accused of any inappropriate behavior, of any kind, at any time, by anyone, you are guilty, you are scum, and your life is over.
I think, perhaps, we are setting a troubling precedent.
It seems that many of the men so far accused of indiscretions are indeed guilty. Some have even admitted to it. Some have denied it. One of the men, actor Jeremy Piven, even took and passed a lie detector test. He claims that three women have invented stories about him for personal gain, and he's done what he can to achieve the impossible and prove a negative. Some of the men have been accused by hundreds of women, some have been accused by only one or two. But all are presumed guilty, all are assigned the same severity of guilt, and most have been fired from their jobs and will carry the mark of "Accused Sexual Predator" for the rest of their lives.
Does anyone else see a problem here?
As for Matt Lauer, he does seem to be a legitimate creep and a serial adulterer, at the very least. He has apologized for his behavior and implied that many of the stories about him are true or mostly true. Okay. But he also says, as several of these men have said, that not all of the accusations are correct and some of the incidents are being deliberately mischaracterized. That seems to be a relevant point. Shouldn't we ask which accusations are incorrect? Which are being mischaracterized? Were some of the "sexually harassed" women full and eager participants at the time? Is it possible that Lauer is a pig whose piggishness is, in some cases, being exaggerated by ambitious people who want to destroy him? I'm not saying that's the case, and I have no personal affection for Lauer whatsoever so I have no reason to hope that it is the case, but I also don't know that it isn't the case. And neither do you.
But we seem to be saying that none of this matters. A man who faces these sorts of allegations is expected to apologize, and if he does not apologize, if he attempts to explain, or add context, or defend himself to any extent, his stubbornness is just seen as a symptom of his guilt. Keillor denied the charges against him, and USA Today called his statement "defiant" and "weird." What's so weird about a guy claiming his innocence if he is in fact innocent? Have we completely ruled out that possibility?
The whole thing reminds me of the last scene of The Crucible, where John Proctor is told he must confess to witchcraft in writing or be hung for witchcraft. His choices are not ideal: either admit your guilt and be seen as a witch, or deny your guilt and be hung as a witch. Proctor chose the rope. Most of these men choose to confess. But does that mean they're all guilty?
And even if they are all guilty, do they all deserve to be destroyed? Why are we putting sexual harassers and sexual assaulters in the same category? Why are we acting as though an incident of harassment 10 years ago is as unforgivable as repeatedly assaulting teen boys or masturbating in front of unwilling spectators? Certainly the rapists and assaulters should be fired, shamed, and expelled from civilized society, but what about the guy who told a crass joke to a colleague in 2003, or the guy who has made a few awkward attempts at something we used to call flirting? What if Keillor really did place his hand a little too far up his "victim's" back on purpose? She rebuffed him, he pulled back immediately and apologized. Does that make him a predator or, actually, the exact opposite of one? Wouldn't his crime in this case be a failed and quickly aborted attempt to seduce a woman? It may be inappropriate at work, but does it warrant termination and alienation years after the fact, long after a personal apology has been issued and accepted?
Thank God I'm married. I really don't know how a man is actually supposed to strike up a romantic relationship with a woman now. Many women today think it is sexual harassment if a man compliments them or asks them on a date. Well, what is a guy supposed to do? Wait in a corner for a woman to grant him permission to speak to her?
Here's the other problem, and maybe the biggest: we insist that accused men provide "evidence" of their innocence. But what sort of evidence can a person provide to prove they didn't say or do something in private yesterday, let alone decades ago? A man can only point to circumstantial evidence. He could demonstrate that the "harassed" or "assaulted" woman who claims to have been living in fear and shame for years, actually remained friendly with him, and treated him perfectly normally, and even initiated contact with him, and sent him nice emails, and wrote him nice notes, and continued to work with him, and asked him for favors, and generally behaved in every way like someone who is not at all traumatized. But we're told that this kind of evidence is not legitimate, it means nothing, the accuser's past behavior and comments are irrelevant, she gets a pass for literally everything, and any man who would even try to defend himself this way is the biggest scumbag of all. You ask for evidence but you declare beforehand that only a guilty man would present evidence, and whatever evidence he provides doesn't count.
Well, okay then.
I'm worried where this all leads. Even if most of the currently accused perverts are actually perverts — and that may well be true — shouldn't we be a little wary of the method by which these perverts are being exposed? Namely, through a trial-by-mob where all accusations are not only presumed true, but also seen in the worst possible light, and automatically equated with sexual assault even if nothing approaching assault actually occurred?
I do not know how many of these men — if any of them at all — have been victims of utterly false allegations made by scheming, lying accusers who are seeking attention, money, vengeance, or simply to clear out the competition. It has not escaped my attention that the current rash of accusations are coming from extremely competitive industries filled with obsessively ambitious people. Could that have something to do with it? I don't know. Neither do you.
What I know for sure is that the environment is certainly ripe for false accusations. The net we cast seems designed to catch the Harvey Weinsteins and the John Proctors all at once. If it hasn't happened yet, I fear that it will. All it takes is one accusation, of any severity at all, from any point in his life, uttered by anyone, to ruin a man. If you think this would never happen and has never happened, you are a fool, and you are precisely the reason why it does happen and will probably happen even more in the future. ~ Matt Walsh
http://www.dailywire.com/news/24152/wal ... =mattwalsh
The precedent is this: any man can be accused of anything, by anyone, from any point in his past, and he will automatically be presumed guilty, he will not be entitled to defend himself, his denials will be dismissed before they're even uttered, and his life will be ruined without a shred of evidence ever being presented against him.
Guys, this is dangerous. We are attacking the sexual assault problem through mob rule, and I am afraid that it's going to backfire. Big time." ~ Matt Walsh
Here's Walsh's article -
Slow Down, Lynch Mob. A Man Is Not Automatically Guilty Just Because He's Accused.
By Matt Walsh
November 30, 2017
Matt Lauer, former host of the Today Show, stands accused of a multitude of sins, including exposing himself to his coworkers, handing out sex toys as gifts, and even having a special locking mechanism installed at his desk so that he could trap his victims in his office/sex dungeon.
Garrison Keillor, a broadcasting icon who has spent 40 years in the business, has also this week been accused of, and fired for, his own "inappropriate behavior." Apparently he patted a woman on the back years ago, his hand went up her shirt slightly, and he apologized for it at the time. She forgave him, he says, but has now decided that it was assault. Maybe more accusations will surface against Keillor, but right now, as far as the public knows, that's it.
The only thing that links these two men and their alleged improprieties together is that both are immediately assumed guilty and cast aside as dangerous predators. They will both be added to the same list — a list that includes men accused of child rape, men accused of making lewd comments, and men accused of something in between those two vast extremes — and their careers and reputations will be ruined forever. Neither will be allowed to defend themselves, neither will be permitted to tell their side of the story, and no evidence whatsoever will need to be presented against them. This is how the process works now. If you are a man and you are accused of any inappropriate behavior, of any kind, at any time, by anyone, you are guilty, you are scum, and your life is over.
I think, perhaps, we are setting a troubling precedent.
It seems that many of the men so far accused of indiscretions are indeed guilty. Some have even admitted to it. Some have denied it. One of the men, actor Jeremy Piven, even took and passed a lie detector test. He claims that three women have invented stories about him for personal gain, and he's done what he can to achieve the impossible and prove a negative. Some of the men have been accused by hundreds of women, some have been accused by only one or two. But all are presumed guilty, all are assigned the same severity of guilt, and most have been fired from their jobs and will carry the mark of "Accused Sexual Predator" for the rest of their lives.
Does anyone else see a problem here?
As for Matt Lauer, he does seem to be a legitimate creep and a serial adulterer, at the very least. He has apologized for his behavior and implied that many of the stories about him are true or mostly true. Okay. But he also says, as several of these men have said, that not all of the accusations are correct and some of the incidents are being deliberately mischaracterized. That seems to be a relevant point. Shouldn't we ask which accusations are incorrect? Which are being mischaracterized? Were some of the "sexually harassed" women full and eager participants at the time? Is it possible that Lauer is a pig whose piggishness is, in some cases, being exaggerated by ambitious people who want to destroy him? I'm not saying that's the case, and I have no personal affection for Lauer whatsoever so I have no reason to hope that it is the case, but I also don't know that it isn't the case. And neither do you.
But we seem to be saying that none of this matters. A man who faces these sorts of allegations is expected to apologize, and if he does not apologize, if he attempts to explain, or add context, or defend himself to any extent, his stubbornness is just seen as a symptom of his guilt. Keillor denied the charges against him, and USA Today called his statement "defiant" and "weird." What's so weird about a guy claiming his innocence if he is in fact innocent? Have we completely ruled out that possibility?
The whole thing reminds me of the last scene of The Crucible, where John Proctor is told he must confess to witchcraft in writing or be hung for witchcraft. His choices are not ideal: either admit your guilt and be seen as a witch, or deny your guilt and be hung as a witch. Proctor chose the rope. Most of these men choose to confess. But does that mean they're all guilty?
And even if they are all guilty, do they all deserve to be destroyed? Why are we putting sexual harassers and sexual assaulters in the same category? Why are we acting as though an incident of harassment 10 years ago is as unforgivable as repeatedly assaulting teen boys or masturbating in front of unwilling spectators? Certainly the rapists and assaulters should be fired, shamed, and expelled from civilized society, but what about the guy who told a crass joke to a colleague in 2003, or the guy who has made a few awkward attempts at something we used to call flirting? What if Keillor really did place his hand a little too far up his "victim's" back on purpose? She rebuffed him, he pulled back immediately and apologized. Does that make him a predator or, actually, the exact opposite of one? Wouldn't his crime in this case be a failed and quickly aborted attempt to seduce a woman? It may be inappropriate at work, but does it warrant termination and alienation years after the fact, long after a personal apology has been issued and accepted?
Thank God I'm married. I really don't know how a man is actually supposed to strike up a romantic relationship with a woman now. Many women today think it is sexual harassment if a man compliments them or asks them on a date. Well, what is a guy supposed to do? Wait in a corner for a woman to grant him permission to speak to her?
Here's the other problem, and maybe the biggest: we insist that accused men provide "evidence" of their innocence. But what sort of evidence can a person provide to prove they didn't say or do something in private yesterday, let alone decades ago? A man can only point to circumstantial evidence. He could demonstrate that the "harassed" or "assaulted" woman who claims to have been living in fear and shame for years, actually remained friendly with him, and treated him perfectly normally, and even initiated contact with him, and sent him nice emails, and wrote him nice notes, and continued to work with him, and asked him for favors, and generally behaved in every way like someone who is not at all traumatized. But we're told that this kind of evidence is not legitimate, it means nothing, the accuser's past behavior and comments are irrelevant, she gets a pass for literally everything, and any man who would even try to defend himself this way is the biggest scumbag of all. You ask for evidence but you declare beforehand that only a guilty man would present evidence, and whatever evidence he provides doesn't count.
Well, okay then.
I'm worried where this all leads. Even if most of the currently accused perverts are actually perverts — and that may well be true — shouldn't we be a little wary of the method by which these perverts are being exposed? Namely, through a trial-by-mob where all accusations are not only presumed true, but also seen in the worst possible light, and automatically equated with sexual assault even if nothing approaching assault actually occurred?
I do not know how many of these men — if any of them at all — have been victims of utterly false allegations made by scheming, lying accusers who are seeking attention, money, vengeance, or simply to clear out the competition. It has not escaped my attention that the current rash of accusations are coming from extremely competitive industries filled with obsessively ambitious people. Could that have something to do with it? I don't know. Neither do you.
What I know for sure is that the environment is certainly ripe for false accusations. The net we cast seems designed to catch the Harvey Weinsteins and the John Proctors all at once. If it hasn't happened yet, I fear that it will. All it takes is one accusation, of any severity at all, from any point in his life, uttered by anyone, to ruin a man. If you think this would never happen and has never happened, you are a fool, and you are precisely the reason why it does happen and will probably happen even more in the future. ~ Matt Walsh
http://www.dailywire.com/news/24152/wal ... =mattwalsh
-
Sarah
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 6737
Re: Sexual Harassment Scandals
This is why when the internet goes down and the economy crashes, you better be hiding.EmmaLee wrote: ↑November 30th, 2017, 12:00 pm We're A Nation Of Porn Addicts. Why Are We Surprised By The Perverts In Our Midst?
By Matt Walsh
November 30, 2017
As we enter our third month of the Pervert Explosion, it may be time to consider why we have so many perverts, where they come from, and what sorts of things might be contributing to their perverseness. On that end, might I point to the fact that we spend four billion hours a year watching porn?
Sorry. Let me correct myself. I've just understated the problem. We dedicated well over four and a half billion hours to watching porn on one porn site in 2016. Just on Porn Hub, humanity spent twice as much time viewing porn in a year as it has spent existing on planet Earth. The site had over 90 billion video views and 44,000 visitors every minute of every day. It all adds up to over 500 thousand years worth of porn consumed in the span of 12 months. Since 2015, human beings have spent one million years watching porn.
One million years.
One. Million. Years.
I'm telling you this not only because it's an interesting bit of trivia you may want to remember in case you're ever a contestant on the weirdest Jeopardy episode of all time, but also because these figures are serious. More than serious: staggering, incomprehensible, unthinkable, apocalyptic. All the more so for Americans, because we watch more porn than anybody else on Earth (at least we're still number one in something).
Porn is obviously America's favorite pastime. According to surveys, almost 80% of American men between the ages of 18 and 30 admit to watching porn regularly. Nearly 70% of men between 31 and 49 admit to it. Half of men from 50 to senior citizen age also confess to regular porn viewing. 30% of younger men say they watch porn every day. Porn viewership is not quite as common among women, but it's far more common today than it was 10 years ago. Remember, too, this is just what people will admit to doing.
It's no wonder that the porn industry is worth $97 billion, which is only slightly higher (about 100 times higher) than the $750 million it was worth 20 years ago. Today, porn grosses more in a year than Hollywood. It also brings in more money than the NFL, NBA, and MLB combined. And this is just "the porn industry" we're talking about: meaning only the respectable, official sort of smut, starring people who have "porn star" on their W-2. If we were to quantify amateur porn and figure out what it's all "worth" in dollars, who knows what the number would be. 200 billion? I have no idea.
The science is pretty clear that all this porn consumption is bad for the brain — it may even shrink your brain, according to some studies. It’s even worse for your marriage, with your chance of divorce doubling if you use porn. There is also a very clear and established link between sex predators and porn. It isn't that watching porn will automatically turn you into a predator, but it's no coincidence that rapists and pedophiles always begin with porn. You'd be hard pressed to find a criminal deviant in 2017 who didn't begin by exploring his "fetish" in the freedom and anonymity of cyberspace. This is especially concerning when you consider some of the most popular porn search themes: namely, "incest" and "teens."
You can read the studies and the statistics which I've provided in the links above. But you shouldn't need to study the issue extensively to figure out if four and a half billion hours of porn is healthy for human beings individually and human society as a whole. It also doesn't take a detective or a scientist to see how a guy who spends hours of his day indulging in perverse sexual fantasies may one day bring those fantasies into the "real world." If you enjoy the simulated version of something, it means, obviously, there is something about the thing itself that you enjoy. Watching rape porn doesn’t make you a rapist, but it does make you the kind of person who finds something tantalizing in rape. Watching porn where the woman is deliberately made to look like a school girl doesn’t make you a pedophile, but it does make you the kind of person who gets turned on by pedophilia.
But even if most people just watch regular, consensual, adult-on-adult porn, what do they like about the sex they see on the screen? Well, they like how it gives them pleasure. That's it. The porn viewer is not concerned with any other aspect of sex. Pornography completely severs the sexual act from any notion of love or dignity. Sex is used like a product, and the humanity of the person on the other side of the camera is not taken into account. They are just objects to be consumed. The porn watching experience is by design empty, hollow, lifeless, and dehumanizing.
This is what fuels us. Four and a half billion hours of this. A lifetime of this. The average child starts watching porn around 10 or 11 (an optimistic figure, I think). He is fed with a steady diet of soul-deadening, empathy-destroying hardcore porn throughout his formative years. Long before he ever has an intimate, real-life, physical moment with a woman, he has already seen women from every angle and position imaginable. He is bored of the naked female figure without ever having witnessed it in person. He never had the chance at a healthy sexual relationship because he's been in unhealthy, simulated ones since puberty.
Scores of young men are seeking prescriptions for Viagra because of a mysterious plague of early onset “erectile dysfunction.” It’s no mystery. They are not able to get excited about normal, in person sex because they are numb and desensitized from all the porn. And the problem just gets worse over time as they seek our weirder and weirder porn in order to make themselves feel something again. You don’t have to be a genius to see how, through this process, porn can take a decent man and turn him into a sex predator. It happens all the time.
I'm not making excuses for anyone. And I realize that many of the sex predators currently in the news did not grow up watching internet porn anyway. What I'm saying is that this current wave is nothing compared to what's on the horizon. The first step in becoming a sex predator is to see sex as an entirely selfish exercise. The next is to deny the humanity and dignity of the other person involved. The final stage is to develop a fetish for the weird and the depraved. Our porn-addled culture moves people through all three stages rapidly and at a very young age. Our society is now like a conveyor belt where narcissistic degenerates are assembled by the truckload each day.
You think it's bad now. Watch out.
http://www.dailywire.com/news/24137/wal ... =mattwalsh
-
Gage
- captain of 100
- Posts: 702
Re: Sexual Harassment Scandals
I never meant to say you were on the male hating bandwagon. Is this how women gain respect? Claim a celebrity groped them after they invited the "unsuspecting" female up to their room at 2:30 in the morning?
-
MMbelieve
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 5072
Re: Sexual Harassment Scandals
First reaction is certainly not. But many of these men were in position of power in these womens life.
-
Gage
- captain of 100
- Posts: 702
Re: Sexual Harassment Scandals
First reaction is certainly not. But many of these men were in position of power in these womens life.
[/quote]
Silly me, I thought women slept with rich powerful men to advance their own lives or careers. I never knew the men had power over them and they didnt have a choice.
[/quote]
Silly me, I thought women slept with rich powerful men to advance their own lives or careers. I never knew the men had power over them and they didnt have a choice.
-
Juliet
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 3732
Re: Sexual Harassment Scandals
In the satanic world, they know how to keep clean, it is very ritualistic and OCD.gardener4life wrote: ↑November 18th, 2017, 1:44 am How come nobody is asking how many STDs those guys have been exposing other people to? This needs to be asked. Those guys have been preying on people for over ten years each...right? Sometimes preying on people weekly? So how could they not have several STDs? And they are going around as serial predators...think about that.
And nobody is asking them...wait i mean holding them accountable to what diseases that are possibly fatal that they've been spreading around the public. I'm sure some of those guys know they have some bugs...particularly the Hollywood scandals.
-
Juliet
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 3732
Re: Sexual Harassment Scandals
Silly me, I thought women slept with rich powerful men to advance their own lives or careers. I never knew the men had power over them and they didnt have a choice.
[/quote]
Both women and men are tempted to sacrifice human affection for power. It is probably the most effective contract Satan makes with humans on big and small levels, from using sex for the wrong reasons to yelling at your child.
-
MMbelieve
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 5072
Re: Sexual Harassment Scandals
Silly me, I thought women slept with rich powerful men to advance their own lives or careers. I never knew the men had power over them and they didnt have a choice.
[/quote]
I said, "position of power" in these womens lives.
I said nothing of them having choice or not, so yes, silly you.
I assume you have a job or have had a job at some point in time, I think you understand the pressure of keeping your job..?..this makes your employer in at position of power in your life. No?
Of course you have a choice, but you may lose your job too.
-
Gage
- captain of 100
- Posts: 702
Re: Sexual Harassment Scandals
Women have been using their bodies for money for thousands of years, so why is it so shocking to many that some may use it to get ahead or to get that part in a movie? Some of these women used sex to get what they wanted, is why they said nothing back when it happened, years later after successful careers they claim it was not consensual and the dirty little man took advantage of them.
-
EmmaLee
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 10890
Re: Sexual Harassment Scandals
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... ium=social
Four Men Accuse Massachusetts Gay Senate President’s Husband of Sexual Misconduct
Massachusetts Senate President Stan Rosenberg speaks from behind a podium outside his office at the Statehouse to a throng of media Friday, Dec. 1, 2017, in Boston. Rosenberg said his husband, Bryon Hefner, will soon be entering treatment for alcoholism, one day after The Boston Globe reported that several men had accused Hefner of sexual assault and harassment. Some of the men had professional dealings with the Legislature.
by Dr. Susan Berry 4 Dec 2017
The Boston Globe reports Bryon Hefner, 30, who is legally married to Massachusetts Senate President Stanley Rosenberg, 68, (pictured) allegedly “sexually assaulted and harassed” four men over the past few years.
“Though three of the alleged incidents took place when Rosenberg was mere feet away, the Globe found no evidence that the Senate president knew about the assaults,” states the newspaper.
The Globe says it interviewed 20 people who know Hefner or his accusers. The report notes an alleged incident in 2015 when Hefner – who at the time was engaged to Rosenberg – appeared at the doorway of a lobbyist’s office as he was about to leave for the evening, and grabbed his genitals.
The man alleged Hefner asked him to “have some fun with him, telling him Rosenberg wouldn’t mind, that Hefner and the Senate president were a team on Beacon Hill, and that they would take care of him,” reports the Globe.
The lobbyist said earlier in the evening Hefner had bragged to him about his clout in state politics and about his influence with Rosenberg.
“Hefner left the man in no doubt that he was asking for sexual favors in return for help on Beacon Hill,” the report states.
According to the Globe, Hefner’s three other accusers also say he grabbed their genitals and one says Hefner kissed him against his will.
The news report states a couple of the alleged victims were worried about reporting the incidents for fear of “hurting Rosenberg, whose progressive priorities they admire.”
“I was shocked to learn of these anonymous and hurtful allegations,” said Hefner in a statement reportedly released by his attorney. “To my knowledge, no one has complained to me or any political or governmental authority about these allegations which are now surfacing years afterward. As one can imagine, it is incredibly difficult to respond to allegations by unnamed and unidentified individuals that involve an extended period of time, particularly in the current environment.”
The Senate president said he had never heard of accusations of sexual misconduct by his husband.
“Even though, based on what little I have been told, these allegations do not involve members or employees of the Senate and did not occur in the State House, I take them seriously,” Rosenberg reportedly said. “To the best of my recollection I was not approached by anyone with complaints during or after the alleged incidents made in this article or I would have tried to intervene.”
According to the Globe, Rosenberg and Hefner have been together since 2008 and “bonded” over the fact that both had spent years in foster care as children. They were legally married in September 2016.
“I would not have come out if he had not come into my life,” Rosenberg said at the time. “It was the greatest gift anyone has given to me.”
In December 2014, however, the Globe had interviewed Rosenberg over reports that Hefner had mocked outgoing state Senate president Therese Murray and had boasted to other senators about his influence with Rosenberg on key decisions.
Rosenberg then told the newspaper he had learned of some of Hefner’s behavior by other senators and had admonished his partner.
“Very clearly, very specifically, he’s not involved in making any of the decisions,” Rosenberg said. “All personnel decisions, all the chairmanships, are going though the normal internal processes.”
Four Men Accuse Massachusetts Gay Senate President’s Husband of Sexual Misconduct
Massachusetts Senate President Stan Rosenberg speaks from behind a podium outside his office at the Statehouse to a throng of media Friday, Dec. 1, 2017, in Boston. Rosenberg said his husband, Bryon Hefner, will soon be entering treatment for alcoholism, one day after The Boston Globe reported that several men had accused Hefner of sexual assault and harassment. Some of the men had professional dealings with the Legislature.
by Dr. Susan Berry 4 Dec 2017
The Boston Globe reports Bryon Hefner, 30, who is legally married to Massachusetts Senate President Stanley Rosenberg, 68, (pictured) allegedly “sexually assaulted and harassed” four men over the past few years.
“Though three of the alleged incidents took place when Rosenberg was mere feet away, the Globe found no evidence that the Senate president knew about the assaults,” states the newspaper.
The Globe says it interviewed 20 people who know Hefner or his accusers. The report notes an alleged incident in 2015 when Hefner – who at the time was engaged to Rosenberg – appeared at the doorway of a lobbyist’s office as he was about to leave for the evening, and grabbed his genitals.
The man alleged Hefner asked him to “have some fun with him, telling him Rosenberg wouldn’t mind, that Hefner and the Senate president were a team on Beacon Hill, and that they would take care of him,” reports the Globe.
The lobbyist said earlier in the evening Hefner had bragged to him about his clout in state politics and about his influence with Rosenberg.
“Hefner left the man in no doubt that he was asking for sexual favors in return for help on Beacon Hill,” the report states.
According to the Globe, Hefner’s three other accusers also say he grabbed their genitals and one says Hefner kissed him against his will.
The news report states a couple of the alleged victims were worried about reporting the incidents for fear of “hurting Rosenberg, whose progressive priorities they admire.”
“I was shocked to learn of these anonymous and hurtful allegations,” said Hefner in a statement reportedly released by his attorney. “To my knowledge, no one has complained to me or any political or governmental authority about these allegations which are now surfacing years afterward. As one can imagine, it is incredibly difficult to respond to allegations by unnamed and unidentified individuals that involve an extended period of time, particularly in the current environment.”
The Senate president said he had never heard of accusations of sexual misconduct by his husband.
“Even though, based on what little I have been told, these allegations do not involve members or employees of the Senate and did not occur in the State House, I take them seriously,” Rosenberg reportedly said. “To the best of my recollection I was not approached by anyone with complaints during or after the alleged incidents made in this article or I would have tried to intervene.”
According to the Globe, Rosenberg and Hefner have been together since 2008 and “bonded” over the fact that both had spent years in foster care as children. They were legally married in September 2016.
“I would not have come out if he had not come into my life,” Rosenberg said at the time. “It was the greatest gift anyone has given to me.”
In December 2014, however, the Globe had interviewed Rosenberg over reports that Hefner had mocked outgoing state Senate president Therese Murray and had boasted to other senators about his influence with Rosenberg on key decisions.
Rosenberg then told the newspaper he had learned of some of Hefner’s behavior by other senators and had admonished his partner.
“Very clearly, very specifically, he’s not involved in making any of the decisions,” Rosenberg said. “All personnel decisions, all the chairmanships, are going though the normal internal processes.”
-
Arenera
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 2712
Re: Sexual Harassment Scandals
A whole new concept of teamwork...EmmaLee wrote: ↑December 4th, 2017, 11:16 am http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... ium=social
Four Men Accuse Massachusetts Gay Senate President’s Husband of Sexual Misconduct
Massachusetts Senate President Stan Rosenberg speaks from behind a podium outside his office at the Statehouse to a throng of media Friday, Dec. 1, 2017, in Boston. Rosenberg said his husband, Bryon Hefner, will soon be entering treatment for alcoholism, one day after The Boston Globe reported that several men had accused Hefner of sexual assault and harassment. Some of the men had professional dealings with the Legislature.
by Dr. Susan Berry 4 Dec 2017
The Boston Globe reports Bryon Hefner, 30, who is legally married to Massachusetts Senate President Stanley Rosenberg, 68, (pictured) allegedly “sexually assaulted and harassed” four men over the past few years.
“Though three of the alleged incidents took place when Rosenberg was mere feet away, the Globe found no evidence that the Senate president knew about the assaults,” states the newspaper.
The Globe says it interviewed 20 people who know Hefner or his accusers. The report notes an alleged incident in 2015 when Hefner – who at the time was engaged to Rosenberg – appeared at the doorway of a lobbyist’s office as he was about to leave for the evening, and grabbed his genitals.
The man alleged Hefner asked him to “have some fun with him, telling him Rosenberg wouldn’t mind, that Hefner and the Senate president were a team on Beacon Hill, and that they would take care of him,” reports the Globe.
The lobbyist said earlier in the evening Hefner had bragged to him about his clout in state politics and about his influence with Rosenberg.
“Hefner left the man in no doubt that he was asking for sexual favors in return for help on Beacon Hill,” the report states.
According to the Globe, Hefner’s three other accusers also say he grabbed their genitals and one says Hefner kissed him against his will.
The news report states a couple of the alleged victims were worried about reporting the incidents for fear of “hurting Rosenberg, whose progressive priorities they admire.”
“I was shocked to learn of these anonymous and hurtful allegations,” said Hefner in a statement reportedly released by his attorney. “To my knowledge, no one has complained to me or any political or governmental authority about these allegations which are now surfacing years afterward. As one can imagine, it is incredibly difficult to respond to allegations by unnamed and unidentified individuals that involve an extended period of time, particularly in the current environment.”
The Senate president said he had never heard of accusations of sexual misconduct by his husband.
“Even though, based on what little I have been told, these allegations do not involve members or employees of the Senate and did not occur in the State House, I take them seriously,” Rosenberg reportedly said. “To the best of my recollection I was not approached by anyone with complaints during or after the alleged incidents made in this article or I would have tried to intervene.”
According to the Globe, Rosenberg and Hefner have been together since 2008 and “bonded” over the fact that both had spent years in foster care as children. They were legally married in September 2016.
“I would not have come out if he had not come into my life,” Rosenberg said at the time. “It was the greatest gift anyone has given to me.”
In December 2014, however, the Globe had interviewed Rosenberg over reports that Hefner had mocked outgoing state Senate president Therese Murray and had boasted to other senators about his influence with Rosenberg on key decisions.
Rosenberg then told the newspaper he had learned of some of Hefner’s behavior by other senators and had admonished his partner.
“Very clearly, very specifically, he’s not involved in making any of the decisions,” Rosenberg said. “All personnel decisions, all the chairmanships, are going though the normal internal processes.”
-
Syn
- captain of 50
- Posts: 77
Re: Sexual Harassment Scandals
I personally believe the outings happening are orchestrated and planned. It's almost impossible to tell which ones are predatory or consensual. Yet, the media, I believe is following marching orders. Even if it takes a few pawns like Franken and Conyers they are going for broke on house cleaning. The one thing I don't get is how this has not reached Bill Clinton, even after the women came forward. May have to do with him not holding an office, yet still strange. All and all, it has reminded me of the scripture in Luke"Therefore whatsoever you have spoken in darkness shall be heard in the light; and that which you have spoken in the ear in private rooms shall be proclaimed upon the housetops."
-
EmmaLee
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 10890
Re: Sexual Harassment Scandals
VINDICATED: Santa Barbara Police Find 1993 Tape Of Corey Feldman Speaking Of Being Sexually Abused In Hollywood
By Hank Berrien
December 7, 2017
There may have been those who thought former child actor Corey Feldman was making things up when he alleged he had informed detectives in Santa Barbara County in 1993 that he had been sexually abused by Hollywood pedophiles. Those doubts were stoked when the sheriff's office said they didn’t have any record of Feldman naming any suspects.
The doubters can now take a hike: The Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Office has acknowledged they have found an audio recording from 1993 in which Feldman told them about being abused.
Feldman has insisted for years that he told the detectives, but they weren’t interested; they were investigating pop star Michael Jackson for alleged child sexual abuse at Neverland Ranch.
The Sheriff’s office released a statement on Wednesday in which they wrote:
Following the recent inquiries into the Sheriff’s Office interview of Mr. Feldman in 1993, the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office conducted an additional review for any stored items remaining from the Michael Jackson investigation. In a container which included the original reports from the (Jackson) investigation, the Sheriff’s Office located some detective working copies of audio recordings made during the investigation. A copy of Mr. Feldman’s interview was located. The recording is being turned over to the Los Angeles Police Department. … Due to the fact that this case involves the alleged sexual abuse of a child, we are unable to comment further and any documentation or evidence related to this case is exempt from release.
In November, Feldman, 46, told the LAPD, which said it was investigating Feldman's claims and then closed down its investigation, claiming an expiration in the statute of limitations. On Wednesday Feldman tweeted, "Time 2 reopen that case @LAPD I did report it within the statute, so now it should be now it should be admissible right?"
In October 2016, Feldman told People Magazine that the reason he had not named his accusers publicly was out of respect for Corey Haim’s mother, Judy; Haim died in 2010 at the age of 38. He said, “It has been very difficult for me to stay quiet, but as much as I would love for all of those sickos to be brought to justice, I’ve tried to be respectful of Judy’s wishes. I pray everyday before I go to bed and I ask God to give me the strength to deal with all of this. Those names will come out eventually.”
Speaking to Matt Lauer on the “Today” show in late October, Feldman said he already had given names to police when they interrogated him about Michael Jackson, who was a friend of his. He stated, “When you’re an 18-, 19-, 20-year-old kid, you try telling the police, which is a very big thing to do, and especially when it wasn’t even my situation. I was just answering for a friend, so the fact that I found the courage to even throw it in there and hopefully get some support, and then they were like, sorry, and they just shut it down.”
http://www.dailywire.com/news/24440/vin ... benshapiro
By Hank Berrien
December 7, 2017
There may have been those who thought former child actor Corey Feldman was making things up when he alleged he had informed detectives in Santa Barbara County in 1993 that he had been sexually abused by Hollywood pedophiles. Those doubts were stoked when the sheriff's office said they didn’t have any record of Feldman naming any suspects.
The doubters can now take a hike: The Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Office has acknowledged they have found an audio recording from 1993 in which Feldman told them about being abused.
Feldman has insisted for years that he told the detectives, but they weren’t interested; they were investigating pop star Michael Jackson for alleged child sexual abuse at Neverland Ranch.
The Sheriff’s office released a statement on Wednesday in which they wrote:
Following the recent inquiries into the Sheriff’s Office interview of Mr. Feldman in 1993, the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office conducted an additional review for any stored items remaining from the Michael Jackson investigation. In a container which included the original reports from the (Jackson) investigation, the Sheriff’s Office located some detective working copies of audio recordings made during the investigation. A copy of Mr. Feldman’s interview was located. The recording is being turned over to the Los Angeles Police Department. … Due to the fact that this case involves the alleged sexual abuse of a child, we are unable to comment further and any documentation or evidence related to this case is exempt from release.
In November, Feldman, 46, told the LAPD, which said it was investigating Feldman's claims and then closed down its investigation, claiming an expiration in the statute of limitations. On Wednesday Feldman tweeted, "Time 2 reopen that case @LAPD I did report it within the statute, so now it should be now it should be admissible right?"
In October 2016, Feldman told People Magazine that the reason he had not named his accusers publicly was out of respect for Corey Haim’s mother, Judy; Haim died in 2010 at the age of 38. He said, “It has been very difficult for me to stay quiet, but as much as I would love for all of those sickos to be brought to justice, I’ve tried to be respectful of Judy’s wishes. I pray everyday before I go to bed and I ask God to give me the strength to deal with all of this. Those names will come out eventually.”
Speaking to Matt Lauer on the “Today” show in late October, Feldman said he already had given names to police when they interrogated him about Michael Jackson, who was a friend of his. He stated, “When you’re an 18-, 19-, 20-year-old kid, you try telling the police, which is a very big thing to do, and especially when it wasn’t even my situation. I was just answering for a friend, so the fact that I found the courage to even throw it in there and hopefully get some support, and then they were like, sorry, and they just shut it down.”
http://www.dailywire.com/news/24440/vin ... benshapiro
-
EmmaLee
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 10890
Re: Sexual Harassment Scandals
Double standard? What double standard??
Jennifer Lawrence Defends Harvey Weinstein But Says She'd Give Donald Trump 'A Martini To The Face'
The actress talked with the Hollywood Reporter about her relationship with the "paternal" mega-producer.
By Emily Zanotti
December 7, 2017
Actress Jennifer Lawrence sat down for an interview with Oprah in this month's Hollywood Reporter magazine, and she had some interesting things to say about the now-universally reviled Harvey Weinstein.
According to Lawrence, the dozens of sexual harassment, sexual abuse, and rape allegations levied against the former Hollywood mega-producer were shocking, and it took her several days to come to terms with the idea that her "paternal" friend Harvey could have targeted, exploited, and abused so many women in her industry.
"Just speaking for myself, I had known him since I was 20, and he had only ever been nice to me — except for the moments that he wasn't, and then I called him an (expletive), and we moved on," she said. "He was paternal to me."
That's right, he was such a nice guy. At least Lawrence doesn't excuse Weinstein's behavior — though she comes close, saying he could be a "dog," and a tough negotiator — she says it took her weeks to "come to terms" with what was, essentially, an open secret among everyone else in Hollywood.
When asked what she thought should be done in light of the wave of sexual harassment allegations currently rocking Hollywood, she merely suggested that women should fight for "wage equality," and that "men need more social awareness."
The problem with Harvey Weinstein wasn't that he had no situational awareness.
But while she throttles back on her outrage when it comes to an alleged serial abuser who may have raped a number of her female colleagues, she has, at least, strong, "courageous" words for a man she really doesn't like: Donald Trump.
The actress claims she's prepared a speech, just in case she one day meets the president, and a plan of action. “I’ve got a pretty good speech,”she tells Oprah. “And it ends with a martini to the face. I have something to say for all of them. I watch different characters on the news, and I’m like, ‘You just wait.’”
The Secret Service probably won't feel as giddy about Lawrence's planned attack, but that's her problem.
http://www.dailywire.com/news/24455/jen ... benshapiro
Jennifer Lawrence Defends Harvey Weinstein But Says She'd Give Donald Trump 'A Martini To The Face'
The actress talked with the Hollywood Reporter about her relationship with the "paternal" mega-producer.
By Emily Zanotti
December 7, 2017
Actress Jennifer Lawrence sat down for an interview with Oprah in this month's Hollywood Reporter magazine, and she had some interesting things to say about the now-universally reviled Harvey Weinstein.
According to Lawrence, the dozens of sexual harassment, sexual abuse, and rape allegations levied against the former Hollywood mega-producer were shocking, and it took her several days to come to terms with the idea that her "paternal" friend Harvey could have targeted, exploited, and abused so many women in her industry.
"Just speaking for myself, I had known him since I was 20, and he had only ever been nice to me — except for the moments that he wasn't, and then I called him an (expletive), and we moved on," she said. "He was paternal to me."
That's right, he was such a nice guy. At least Lawrence doesn't excuse Weinstein's behavior — though she comes close, saying he could be a "dog," and a tough negotiator — she says it took her weeks to "come to terms" with what was, essentially, an open secret among everyone else in Hollywood.
When asked what she thought should be done in light of the wave of sexual harassment allegations currently rocking Hollywood, she merely suggested that women should fight for "wage equality," and that "men need more social awareness."
The problem with Harvey Weinstein wasn't that he had no situational awareness.
But while she throttles back on her outrage when it comes to an alleged serial abuser who may have raped a number of her female colleagues, she has, at least, strong, "courageous" words for a man she really doesn't like: Donald Trump.
The actress claims she's prepared a speech, just in case she one day meets the president, and a plan of action. “I’ve got a pretty good speech,”she tells Oprah. “And it ends with a martini to the face. I have something to say for all of them. I watch different characters on the news, and I’m like, ‘You just wait.’”
The Secret Service probably won't feel as giddy about Lawrence's planned attack, but that's her problem.
http://www.dailywire.com/news/24455/jen ... benshapiro
-
Gage
- captain of 100
- Posts: 702
Re: Sexual Harassment Scandals
I wonder if she could give us an example of the wage inequality among women that she speaks of?
-
buffalo_girl
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 7098
Re: Sexual Harassment Scandals
One of our sons worked in a popular 'deli' in Seattle's Pike Place Market. The manager of the store was so 'full of himself' he thought it was his privilege to pinch and grab the women working for him.
The first time a new employee was pinched on the derriere, she turned around in anger.
"Oh, sorry," he said smirkingly, "rogue hand!"
She doubled up her fist, and gave him a staggering blow in the face right in front of the customers.
"So sorry," she answered "rogue fist."
His sick conduct of humiliating women employees behind the counter was brought to light - in front of the counter - for all to witness. She didn't lose her job, either.
The first time a new employee was pinched on the derriere, she turned around in anger.
"Oh, sorry," he said smirkingly, "rogue hand!"
She doubled up her fist, and gave him a staggering blow in the face right in front of the customers.
"So sorry," she answered "rogue fist."
His sick conduct of humiliating women employees behind the counter was brought to light - in front of the counter - for all to witness. She didn't lose her job, either.
-
lemuel
- Operating Thetan
- Posts: 993
Re: Sexual Harassment Scandals
http://www.crazydaysandnights.net/
Here you go. I can't say everything on this site is true, but they've known about Weinstein, Spacey, Lauer, and Singer for years.
The cracks in the great and abominable church are starting to get bigger.
Here you go. I can't say everything on this site is true, but they've known about Weinstein, Spacey, Lauer, and Singer for years.
The cracks in the great and abominable church are starting to get bigger.
