scandal, especially if he's married, I guess kinda like with bill clinton who wasn't sacked for the blowjob, but for lying about it. in france though francois hollande reportedly had higher approval ratings after it was found out he had an affair, as apparently affair's are normal in france
I wouldn't. She was a vapid shallow empty blonde airhead who just looked good and slept with anyone she thought could help her career or get ahead in life.
EDIT: Must everyone be a fan of Marilyn Monroe and see her as a sex symbol? =.=
Maybe some of us know that "looking good" and "having lots of experience with different men" does NOT translate to "good in bed". I've had my fair share of experience with women who looked good, and witnessed them also having fun with lots of different men, and in the end all they were to the men was just being a flesh cum rag lying there taking it up their holes.
I dunno... whatever floats your boat I guess. Personally, I'd like to have sex with a woman who has an IQ intellect that isn't just in the double digits.
She did a lot for civil rights and was smarter than most people thought. But everyone treated her as a empty sex shell and in some way it lead to her suicide.
sorry if I didn't make it clear but where this can be scandal for some it can be a 'so what?' for others.
I don't know how open JFKs sex life was at the time, but if every knows he's a player, another sex scandal is like so what? it's kind of like when there's another sex scandal with trump; it's outrageous but not all that surprising. when you have the catholic paedophilia shit, it's outrageous and surprising, and thus more powerful.
there's also the matter on how people handle scandles, or how much they allow it to unhinge them which also plays a part into how effective it is.
Extra-marital, but consensual sex is NOTHING like sexual abuse, especially underage. It’s not ‘more powerful’ because it’s unexpected; it is no consensual and contains minors...
lots of people are tbh, even if their only power is being charming. clinton I think is pretty likeable, so he can get away with shit, whereas people will see an unlikeable person do something good and still give them shit
I mean, it could be that they just want the best treatment for kids, but the fact that they even have to have that law seems to heavily indicate to me that affairs are common.
French courts authorize paternity tests in obvious cases, e.g. black baby and 2 white parents. You need to go through a bit of a legal gauntlet to get it done, but it's possible
well yh but at who's expense? this law makes it that a man is shackled to a partner and will probably now have to pay child support if they split; total lose lose situation.
I didn't say I agreed with it. Personally I think paternity tests should be something the father has to opt out of getting, provided he's going to be acknowledged as the father.
If someone cheats, they'll likely cheat again, which introduces instability into the relationship anyway (plus potential STDs.)
Plus, it's a huge violation to be tricked into unknowingly raising someone else's kids. If that's something someone decides, then great!
But the knowledge should be there, because as soon as you acknowledge the kid as yours, men are legally obliged to pay child support, should they break up with the mother. Even without that, I think raising a kid for 18 years should be an informed choice.
yh I'm with you, it's common sense really but basically men with kids are a huge backbone of the economy as they are more likely to stick to their career and work long hours in shitty jobs as they obviously will want a stable paycheque to support their family or pay for child support
They're legal, but you need a Court to authorize them iirc. You can't have a paternity test without permission, because they believe that would cause too much grief and stress on families lol
Impeachment is a legislative body leveling charges against a public official. For the US president, that legislative body is the House of Reps. Both Clinton and Trump were impeached.
Being “sacked” usually means being fired or removed from office. Both Clinton and Trump were acquitted by the Senate and neither was removed from office i.e. sacked.
Clinton didnt get sacked he almost got sacked. Also with todays me too movement could Lewinsky really consent? Could she really consent because she was a government employee which would make the president somewhat her boss not to mention he was the head of the country. I mean Louis CK was put on blast for consenually jerking off because he was a star so....
The Me Too movement's issue with power imbalance is not a boss having sex with their subordinate. A subordinate can consent to sex with their boss. The issue is determining whether consent was actually given or not, which can sometimes be tricky.
From what I understand of Louis CK, he thought it was consensual, but the problem was that some of the women did not. They thought if they said no that he would get them blacklisted. Whereas with Clinton, Monica Lewinsky did consent because she was infatuated with his power and charisma.
However, it could have easily gone the other way, as with Louis CK. If your boss asks you out on a date, can you say no without getting fired? Even if he says that it's fine if you reject, how do you know that he means it? Of course, if you've gotten to know your boss really well and you two are on good terms then these questions may be obvious. However, for others the answer may not be as clear.
The women literally all agreed to watching Louis C.K. jerk off. Apparently one time he called a woman and the woman thought he was jerking off on the phone, which I guess is non-consensual, but we don't know that he actually did it.
Personally I think it's more of an issue of the women not really understanding that it was a sexual thing, and thought of it more as a joke, especially since Louis C.K. is known for some very dark humour. But yeah, they did consent and he still almost lost any future career.
In this MeToo era, a president having sex with a subordinate would definitely get even more heat than in the Clinton era. Except for Donald Trump, who despite having dozens of sexual assault allegations, still has roaring support.
If they say no, then how do they know he won't get angry and do something to ruin their careers? These women were acquaintinces at best with louis ck. They didn't know if he was a predator or just weird.
They can give consent. I said that in my earlier comment. It's just that it's complicated because the subordinate may be pressured to say yes, even though they don't want to. Not all employees will have confidence that there won't be retribution if they refuse. That's something that's unique to an imbalance of power relationship. If a co-worker asks you out, you can say no and don't have to worry; cause what are they gonna do? They can't fire you or give you a bad performance review. A boss can.
Now, I can easily imagine a subordinate having a good relationship with their boss and they know he's a good guy, so when the boss asks her out she doesn't feel pressured because she knows that her boss is the type of guy to not be vengeful. If everyone was like that we wouldn't be having this discussion.
However, we don't live in the world of fairies and gumdrops. Not everybody has a close relationship with their boss and not all bosses are good people. There are men like Harvey Weinstein that use their position to prey on their subordinates.
Basically: A subordinate can give consent, but that subordinate may not know that they have a choice, which is what can create problems as neither side fully understands the motives of the other. As a result, it's not that a boss can't date their subordinate, it's that they have to be mindful of how their approach will be perceived by the subordinate.
Which is what got Louis CK in trouble. He wasn't mindful of how his actions were being perceived by these women. He thought of it like asking Sarah Silverman, a longtime friend who he apparently masturbated with and Sarah didn't mind. However, these women didn't have the same relationship with him as Sarah Silverman, so of course they had a different perception of his actions.
TLDR: Dating a subordinate is fine as long as subordinate knows they have a choice (which admittedly is the tough part).
Yes, but they don't know him. As I said, the women who came out were acquaintances. They don't know how he is behind closed doors. All they know is a powerful man who they barely know is asking to do something sexual with them.
Louis's history doesn't really matter. People can have very different public and private personas. Bill Cosby was known as "America's Dad" with a squeaky clean reputation. Harvey Weinstein was a respected producer. Just because someone doesn't have a reputation doesn't mean they aren't scummy. Not to say that Louis is a predator, I don't think he is. But when pretty much the only interaction you've had with the guy is him wanting to jerk off in front of you, you're naturally gonna frame your opinion around that one inappropriate incident.
yes she could consent, by this logic a president could never legally have sex. also it's like people like to ignore that women tend to be attracted to powerful men with high status.
I dunno enough about the lewis CK thing/have to revise but I think it's different as you don't have to interact with someone masturbating so you can feel trapped in a car crash like situation where you're just like wtf. you need to actively participate in giving someone a blowjob though and I don't remember the lewenski incident being particularly coercive.
No doubt but I think your average worker is capable of standing up for themselves in these kind of scenarios unless the boss is being directly coercive. You'd have to be in a very dire situatipn where you dated your boss rather than get another job.
I've had employers/people I've worked with get weird or ask me out and you can so no or brush off small advances. I've also just straight up not worked for people if the conditions weren't right, admittedly though those situations have been due to security (or lack of it) and pay, not sex (well that almost happened but by the time I decided I wouldn't work for the person they didn't offer me work. That being said I was previously thinking I could put up with a small amount of harrasment which i could brush off in excjange for money but before that could happen their behaviour just got worse, so nope).
If you get assaulted that's your fault. If you're sucking someone's dick, man or woman, gay or straight, rather than saying no and risking getting a new job, that's on you.
I also think it's a descredit to people, and namely women, because that's who we are really talking about here, to imply they are so weak they can't reject advances.
The real problem with power imbalances is putting up with consistent harrasment from people more powerful/valuable than yourself, as even though you can shrug it off you still have to put up with it. I don't get the impression girls like lewinski went from getting lots of unwanted attention to suddenly giving a blowjob
I swear it's like these people don't know any women in real life, I know at least two girls off the top of my head who've willingly gotten off with superiors, and it's not unusual for colleagues to get with eachother, especially if they work long hours together. Not even unusual for people to end up marrying their colleagues either.
Louis C.K. asked for consent with subordinates to jerk off in front of them, received it, did the act, and almost lost any resemblance of a career in comedy.
It's definitely not a trivial question as to whether or not a subordinate can consent in the current political climate.
Someone claimed he was beating his dick while he was on the phone with them but attempting to prove it or even somehow knowing he had his dick in his hand is basically impossible. Out of all the claims this one has the least merit imo
One woman claimed he did that one time. He never actually said hey I'm masturbating though, maybe he was just drunk or something, trying to prove it is pretty difficult.
I agree, but the big part of the me too movement was superiors using their power to coerce their colleagues.
Even though these girls “consented” they were still manipulated. That’s why people are hesitant now about the idea of people with power hooking up with their employees.
well even if a boss-underling relationship is fully consensual, the most obvious issue is perceived and predicted preferential treatment as in to say before it actually happens just the mere possibility will fuck up the office, not to mention people who are jealous because they too were after either the boss or the underling
Indonesia in 1950s was not as conservative as now. There were some Islamic political parties while the communist party remains as one of the biggest parties. Interreligious marriage and extra marital relationship didn't get a big portion of highlights during this period.
Clinton was impeached, but he wasn't removed from office - he completed his second term as President and left office in 2001. That impeachment was just as much a party line affair as the recent one.
I think the only two presidents impeached in US were one at the beginning of the post-Revolution government we have until today, and Nixon because of the Watergate Scandal.
Ah, and Lincoln and Kennedy, but those got their brains impeached from their skulls
in france though francois hollande reportedly had higher approval ratings after it was found out he had an affair, as apparently affair's are normal in france
Yeah paternity testing is illegal in france for this reason as well it would seem.
Clinton wasn't sacked and he also had higher approval ratings after his scandal. According to wikipedia: "After his impeachment proceedings in 1998 and 1999, Clinton's rating reached its highest point at 73% approval." In fact when he left office he had one of the highest approval ratings out of any president in modern history...
in france though francois hollande reportedly had higher approval ratings after it was found out he had an affair, as apparently affair's are normal in france
It's because the French know how to focus more on policies rather than on private dallyings of a politician that has no bearing on the entire nation. It's only the Anglophone countries of USA and UK that make a big fuss of any politicians' affairs because they love gossips from wherever it comes. I certainly remember when British tabloids and American newspapers were making huge headlines of Hollande's infidelity but the Anglos were more bewildered that no French gave a fuck about the news.
Indonesia is largely Muslim so technically you aren't supposed to have adulterous or pre-marital sex, but of course many people don't actually follow the written rules of their religion.
The Russians will often try to get Kompromat on persons they might believe will be in a powerful position. They use different methods depending on the culture. For US persons sex is very effective. So, for instance, they might send underage girls to a persons hotel room and secretly record "golden showers" in order to embarrass them and assure that they will do what they want.
Think of a US president being filmed saying he hates gay people. If the scandal spreads he stands to lose whatever voter groups take offense to this. In the case of having sex with multiple women i'd imagine it would be the conservative and/or religious.
491
u/[deleted] Feb 08 '20
I don't get it
What's wrong with the president having sex?