Senator Al Franken Kissed and Groped Me Without My Consent, And There’s Nothing Funny

Yes, it is relevant and you don't have to agree, but it's bull **** to claim my point has anything to do with slut shaming.

I never said it did.

Two things, if your whole adult life has included men objectifying you, it's possible you interpret men's actions through that bias about men.

Wut? This is just airy speculation. Unsurprisingly, Al Franken did not use this rationalization in his apology.

And two, listening to this woman's obsession over the last 10 years (her statement is that this has been burning her up for 10 years) with this one USO tour and this one man, one has to ask why is that? Was Franken really that offensive or does Tweeden's hate for him color her perception?

Seriously, is this a joke? If what she says is true about Al Franken tongue-kissing her backstage under the ruse of rehearsing is true, then it would explain her hatred of him, wouldn't it? She claims not to have spoken to him since the incident, and she claims that she didn't speak out about it because she feared for her career. Isn't this the pattern of behaviour that is familiar from women who have been sexually assaulted?

The complaint is that the skit he wrote was offensive. That makes him a jerk for not asking if she was OK with the skit or noticing she wasn't.

No, this is not the complaint. Really, you should at least read what she says if you are front-loading this as her major complaint. She says that while that part was unexpected, she was prepared to do that:

As a TV host and sports broadcaster, as well as a model familiar to the audience from the covers of FHM, Maxim and Playboy, I was only expecting to emcee and introduce the acts, but Franken said he had written a part for me that he thought would be funny, and I agreed to play along.

When I saw the script, Franken had written a moment when his character comes at me for a ‘kiss’. I suspected what he was after, but I figured I could turn my head at the last minute, or put my hand over his mouth, to get more laughs from the crowd.

So, she was a good sport about that bit. However...

And we have her claim he used his tongue (it's my understanding actors don't use their tongues in kissing scenes). If Franken used skits to get tongue kisses I expect we should see other victims coming forward. We still haven't.

This is the complaint, and you are just handwaving it away by saying she can't be the only one. If she is the only one who claims it then what? She is lying? Maybe she is, but then Al Franken doesn't really have that to apologize if that's the case. But instead he "doesn't remember"? That's a bit odd, don't you think? If you are correct that actors do not use tongues in their kissing scenes then why would Franken not remember the rehearsal the same way? The fact he remembers they had one in some way corroborates her story. She obviously did not make the whole thing up.

As for the grope joke, I'm sorry but a grope is not the same as a pretend one.

Again, let's get the claim right, rather than dismiss it as "the grope joke". She says:

I couldn’t believe it. He groped me, without my consent, while I was asleep.

I felt violated all over again. Embarrassed. Belittled. Humiliated.

How dare anyone grab my breasts like this and think it’s funny?

She claims he grabbed her breasts. It doesn't mean he pretended to. So what does Franken say?

For instance, that picture. I don't know what was in my head when I took that picture, and it doesn't matter. There's no excuse. I look at it now and I feel disgusted with myself. It isn't funny. It's completely inappropriate. It's obvious how Leeann would feel violated by that picture. And, what's more, I can see how millions of other women would feel violated by it—women who have had similar experiences in their own lives, women who fear having those experiences, women who look up to me, women who have counted on me.

He says there is no excuse. Not even the ones you are proffering. And noticeably he doesn't deny grabbing her breasts even though a number of people have been squinting at it sideways and opining that he probably isn't touching them. Why is that? Is it because he did touch them, for a laugh. How is that different from a guy who pinches a waitresses bum to roars of laughter from his pals?

You don't have to agree but like I said, it's bull **** to claim this has jack to do with slut shaming. At least get the argument right.

I am not misrepresenting you. You might be misrepresenting me, though. I never said it had anything to do with slut shaming.

But also, get the story right and stop rationalizing like crazy.
 
Well that makes sense.

I sense Tweeden seriously dislikes Franken. I didn't sense this was any kind of Fox News or alt-right manufactured stunt.


From the link in the quote you just posted;

Now look at the timestamps on those tweets. They’re all within nine minutes of each other — from 1:12 to 1:21 a.m. Nov. 16. Several hours before Leeann Tweeden, who is connected with Fox as a six-year employee of Fox Sports, and has appeared on Hannity, broke her Franken accusation.
Sounds like someone else got the word somehow.
 
The dude won by just a few hundred votes back when he didn't have a scandal around his neck making him look (at best) insensitive to the problem of nonconsensual sexual objectification and sexual harassment in the workplace.

Can Franken reasonably expect to win again in these times?


Brags about groping certainly didn't seem to deep-six Trump.

Ask again after the Moore election.
 
Could a mitigating factor be that she had consented to being a sex object on the tour?


Bob Hope introducing (possibly on a USO tour?) Jane Russell as, "the two and only Miss Russell."?

Also joking, "Culture is the ability to describe Jane Russell without using your hands."?

Howard Hughes less lighthearted, "There are two reasons men go to see her. Those are enough."

How times have changed.
 
Last edited:
Bob Hope introducing Jane Russell as, "the two and only Miss Russell."?

Also joking, "Culture is the ability to describe Jane Russell without using your hands."?

Howard Hughes less lighthearted, "There are two reasons men go to see her. Those are enough."

How times have changed.

In college we had a group activity, and a girl with a low-cut top packed up her things and wished us goodbye. My friend said to her, "I'll see you guys later." As far as I could tell, she enjoyed his playful banter, but I would never say such a thing, and if I ever did, I wouldn't tell people about it. I'd sooner attribute the uncouth comments to a "friend."
 
By the way, what about Conan frickin' O'Brien slobbering over his attractive female guests? It was obvious schtick, but I eventually found it annoying. Bill Hader satirized it in a sketch on Amy Schumer's show.

 
I'm questioning why Oystein calls TBD "Vile" and "liar" simply because he disagrees with TBD's posts, yet, Oystein also disagrees with you but does not call you names. Just pointing out the inconsistency.
.

TBD keeps misrepresenting SG's argument even after having it pointed out and explained to him multiple times. This is vile both towards SG and towards Tweeden, whom he consistently slaps the label "slut" to, apparently because he believes that normally, people would consider her sexy images "slutty", a position that is his, not SG's nor mine.

SG's argument on the other hand I simply disagree with, for it assumes facts not in evidence. There is nothing vile about it, as it attacks no one specifically and dishonestly.
 
Actually you’re wrong again. The only reason I’ve been posting about this lie is because of all the uninformed people on here saying he was banned when in fact there is no proof of that. The fact that the people posting the lie are liberals should also help you with your other earlier accusations.
At some point in your life you need to get the meaning and relevance of the words "proof" and evidence, and when and where they are applicable.

Indeed, there is no "proof" either way, but there is plenty of evidence that Moore was banned: a number of witness recollections.

Now you may have doubts about those recollections, and I'll add that I doubt their veracity, too. I have a hunch that Moore was never formally, explicitly bannen from the entire mall by anybody with the legal standing to declare such a ban. But it obviously was common knowledge that people didn't want Moore around, and he likely was an security personel's watch list and perhaps banned from individual stores.

Anyway, the relevant info to take out from the confluence of all extant evidence is that the community remembers Moore as such an incessant, obnoxious kiddie diddler they warned each other to keep him away. If that general picture lead to a false perception that he was formally banned is far less relevant than the conistently asocial, predatory conduct on Moore's part that gave rise to such perceptions.
 
I absolutely have shown that was the intent in bringing up those grossly irrelevant history and photos.

No. Not at all. You keep misrepresenting the argument.

Let me try an analogy.

General contractors are responsible for the safety of workers at construction sites.

Jeff, a construction worker, scratched his skin on a rusty nail 10 years ago, and now today says it has bothered him ever since, he retained an itching scar, and blames the GC, Bill, for hazardous site conditions, and has a photo to prove it. Bill actually agrees.

Now Ginger comes along and demonstrates with a simple Google search for "Jeff [last name]" that Jeff is actually primarily knowm for a career working on highly exposee construction sites such as oil rigs, sky scrapers, or daring sky rides in remote and rugged mointains, and she argues that Jeff certainly must have suffered many more and worde injuries than this scratch. Taking this as an assumption for the next step of her argument, Ginger asks why Jeff accuses only Bill of hazardous site conditions.

This argument does not shame Jeff for being a construction worker, nor does it shame him for having worked on exposed sites before! It merely assumes, and perhaps erroneously, that working on exposed construction sites increases the number and severity of injuries individual workers would be expected to suffer; and even if that assumption is true, it invalidly, and perhaps erroneously, infers that Jeff, specifically, has suffered more and and worse injuries.
This argument further does not deny Bill's responsibility.
 
Lol
Except when a butt ugly Senator shoves his nasty tongue down your throat and grabs your boobs when you’re asleep. I suspect she’s interpreting it correctly. That you think she off in her interpretation is again, wait for it, CLASSIC SLUT SHAMING!!!!


Because the victim should like her attacker? Holy ****
Anyone want to defend this one?


With witnesses, somehow she’s lying? Frankestein couldnt have used his tongue because actors don’t use their tongues. Lol


It’s classic slut shaming and you’re still doing it!
What has his attractiveness or not got to do with the matter?
 
I can agree with this, completely.


And in the meantime, the country is being devastated by rich lobbyists and legislators.

We're not one-trick ponies. We can monitor the pedo for senator campaign in Alabama and the tax bill that will ass rape the bottom 95% of American households.
 
He was not a senator at the time this picture was allegedly taken. While in poor taste and tactless, he is not actually touching her breasts. Franken's call for an ethics investigation into his actions speaks better for him than others that have been accused. Let the actual truth be told.

Yes, that's a much better reaction than others caught up in this storm of accusations. Equating Moore to Franken seems excessive.
 
Bob Hope introducing (possibly on a USO tour?) Jane Russell as, "the two and only Miss Russell."?

Also joking, "Culture is the ability to describe Jane Russell without using your hands."?

Howard Hughes less lighthearted, "There are two reasons men go to see her. Those are enough."

How times have changed.

That second quote is pretty damned funny. First one too, but not as clever.
 
At some point in your life you need to get the meaning and relevance of the words "proof" and evidence, and when and where they are applicable.

Indeed, there is no "proof" either way, but there is plenty of evidence that Moore was banned: a number of witness recollections.

Now you may have doubts about those recollections, and I'll add that I doubt their veracity, too. I have a hunch that Moore was never formally, explicitly bannen from the entire mall by anybody with the legal standing to declare such a ban. But it obviously was common knowledge that people didn't want Moore around, and he likely was an security personel's watch list and perhaps banned from individual stores.

Anyway, the relevant info to take out from the confluence of all extant evidence is that the community remembers Moore as such an incessant, obnoxious kiddie diddler they warned each other to keep him away. If that general picture lead to a false perception that he was formally banned is far less relevant than the conistently asocial, predatory conduct on Moore's part that gave rise to such perceptions.
Well, when you so eagerly accept lies I suppose that would be your takeaway.
 
You revel and bath with obvious glee in the vileness of your misconstrual.
You continue to attack TBD personally while he is showing the obvious vile behavior of slut shaming. Skeptical Gingers posts are classic slut shaming.
 

Back
Top Bottom