The question of #metoo, and where is the line?

[UCFBS]

I've been questioning the #metoo movement as they've gone after music, movies and even books. Anyone associates or otherwise involved with sexual assault, extortion or even harassment is being targeted these days. So, where is the line?

Is it really about 'character'?
And what is 'consensual' and what is still 'abusive of power'?

Now combine this, with what we're seeing in the California race. I mean, it's easy enough to start ignoring things and saying 'not the same.' But then I start reading articles ...

• http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...emocrats-running-for-california-governor.html

And not just by Fox News either ...

• http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-...villaraigosa-gavin-newsom-20180211-story.html
• http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-governors-race-gavin-newsom-affair-20180207-story.html

In Tennessee and other states and municipalities, we've seen the downfall of public servants who had consensual affairs, even unwed folk, because tax dollars were used, expense paid for trips used where they occurred, and and positions were still maintained after. And that's caused lots of strong rebukes from many. And then even people just associated with those people have been as well.

Although in some of those cases, the affairs were by a woman, not a man, elected to office.

I think we all agree sexual assault is the worst.
And sexual extortion, or the possible appearance of such, by a superior, is another thing.
And then just sexual harassment, or causing issues and discomfort for others at work (even if a consensual relationship is at work), is not nearly as bad.

But at what point does 'character' re-enter?
At what point does it apply in all directions?
I mean, I read some comments about being an irresponsible (and 'more easily available, sexually'?) drunk at age 33 and I go, "Well, I'm glad you came to grips with who you were at 33, but that's hardly 'youth' and that's hardly 'character.'"

Where is the line? And which side is someone allegedly on in respect to that line?
Where is the consideration? And how much consideration is not enough? Too much?
Where do we stop judging? And where do we start judging?

And where to men get as much say on the matter?
Or are Progressive women held to the same standard as Conservative women?

 

[bqknight]

Is there tl;dr version?

 

[fried-chicken]

Is there tl;dr version?

Both sides are bad, don't trust the mainstream media.

 

[bqknight]

Both sides are bad, don't trust the mainstream media.

Shoulda known.

 

[rediceknight]

#MeToo #TimesUp Movement Ignores "Migrant" Gang Rapists Who Walk Free

 

[fried-chicken]

#MeToo #TimesUp Movement Ignores "Migrant" Gang Rapists Who Walk Free

Republicans, come get your mans.

 

[The Branch]

I've been questioning the #metoo movement as they've gone after music, movies and even books. Anyone associates or otherwise involved with sexual assault, extortion or even harassment is being targeted these days. So, where is the line?

Is it really about 'character'?
And what is 'consensual' and what is still 'abusive of power'?

Now combine this, with what we're seeing in the California race. I mean, it's easy enough to start ignoring things and saying 'not the same.' But then I start reading articles ...

• http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...emocrats-running-for-california-governor.html

And not just by Fox News either ...

• http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-...villaraigosa-gavin-newsom-20180211-story.html
• http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-governors-race-gavin-newsom-affair-20180207-story.html

In Tennessee and other states and municipalities, we've seen the downfall of public servants who had consensual affairs, even unwed folk, because tax dollars were used, expense paid for trips used where they occurred, and and positions were still maintained after. And that's caused lots of strong rebukes from many. And then even people just associated with those people have been as well.

Although in some of those cases, the affairs were by a woman, not a man, elected to office.

I think we all agree sexual assault is the worst.
And sexual extortion, or the possible appearance of such, by a superior, is another thing.
And then just sexual harassment, or causing issues and discomfort for others at work (even if a consensual relationship is at work), is not nearly as bad.

But at what point does 'character' re-enter?
At what point does it apply in all directions?
I mean, I read some comments about being an irresponsible (and 'more easily available, sexually'?) drunk at age 33 and I go, "Well, I'm glad you came to grips with who you were at 33, but that's hardly 'youth' and that's hardly 'character.'"

Where is the line? And which side is someone allegedly on in respect to that line?
Where is the consideration? And how much consideration is not enough? Too much?
Where do we stop judging? And where do we start judging?

And where to men get as much say on the matter?
Or are Progressive women held to the same standard as Conservative women?

#MeToo is a phase ... just like #BLM ...just like occupy wall street ....just like protesting the national anthem ... give it another 6-12 months and it will be gone.

protestors gonna protest ... They run out of energy sooner or later.

 

[sk8knight]

So I have to ask: Am i the only one who reads that hashtag a “Pound me too?”

 

[fried-chicken]

So I have to ask: Am i the only one who reads that hashtag a “Pound me too?”

You think a hashtag is called a pound? Freaking baby boomers.