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

[The Big Dog]

You revel and bath with obvious glee in the vileness of your misconstrual.

Your accusations against me are grossly laughable at this point. Your general contractor argument is a farce. Lets take out the "assumptions" and see just how vile we are being, shall we?

here let me try a better analogy.

A model like to wear short skirts, worked at hooters, appeared in Playboy and has lots of NSFW photos on the internet.

A very famous comedian, later politician forced his tongue down her throat and was photographed groping her.

Argument: Because the model who likes to wear short skirts, worked at hooters, appeared in Playboy and has lots of NSFW photos on the internet never complained about similar conduct before, the charges are politically motivated.

Everyone reading the argument instantly recognizes the argument as blatant slut shaming, people on the iSkep are beyond outraged that people would dare question this, referring other member's arguments as "vile" and as "lying."

What did I change in the analogy? The comedian was conservative Jeff Foxworthy.

By the way, if one is reduced to declaring arguments adverse to you as "lies and vile," perhaps one might want to reevaluate.

Disagreeing with Oystein's arguments is lying and vile, folks!

 

[The Big Dog]

You continue to attack TBD personally while he is showing the obvious vile behavior of slut shaming. Skeptical Gingers posts are classic slut shaming.

Bro, steady on, because people who agree with me will be accused of "bathing" with "glee" in "vileness."

By sheer coincidence a "Vile Bath of Glee" is the shot of the week at Hooters, $3 bucks with rail, $4 bucks with Cuervo Gold, step one: Hooters being the place where the accuser once worked, step 2: ?, step 3: profit the accusations are politically motivated.

 

[barehl]

Interesting thread.

Kissing with tongue. It's true that in the movies actors don't use their tongues when they have open mouthed kisses. I do recall an interview with Merv Griffin where he talked about his first on camera kiss with Kathryn Grayson in So This Is Love (1953). He was supposed to do a simple, closed mouth kiss. He said that he was so nervous that he forgot what he was supposed to do and instead he kissed Grayson for real, with tongue. Afterwards he apologized.

But then you have an even more famous example: the Times Square kiss at the end of WWII.

As I recall they narrowed the woman in the picture down to three candidates who were nurses in uniform in Times Square that day. The interesting thing is that the two people in the photo are complete strangers. All three of the nurses were kissed by sailors they didn't know that day and none of the three wanted to be kissed. They narrowed the sailor in the picture down to three also. All three had apparently kissed a nurse that day. And none of them felt guilty about grabbing and kissing a woman they didn't know who didn't want to be kissed.

Franken also has a somewhat juvenile or sophomoric sense of humor. If you think that this is a straight-laced, dignified man, well versed in etiquette then you should probably watch this skit from Saturday Night Live. Clearly, Franken is not someone who is easily embarrassed. Others with a similar affliction come to mind like Wilford Brimley, Leslie Nielsen, Howie Mandel, and Andy Kaufman. Franken has also mentioned multiple times in his books and interviews where he made jokes that he thought were hilarious but others didn't find funny.

I also recall where Franken described flying on a plane with Barbara Bush. During the flight, Franken struck up a conversation with Barbara who apparently became annoyed and said that she was done talking to him. However, Franken then struck up a conversation two more times. He said that he couldn't tell if she was serious or joking about not wanting to talk to him. Apparently she had been completely serious.

Grabbing her breasts. Really? If Franken can grab someone's breasts through a flak vest then he possesses supernatural abilities that none of the rest of us have. I'm reminded of that kung fu trope, dim mak, from multiple movies (such as Bloodsport) where it is claimed that a {cough} kung fu master can break a brick through another brick without damaging the covering brick. If Franken possesses this ability then he has certainly missed his calling by just being an ordinary senator.

 

[Oystein]

Well, when you so eagerly accept lies I suppose that would be your takeaway.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to remove breach of rule 0

 

[Oystein]

Lol
Except that he admitted to it.

Citation, please!

 

[Brainster]

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.

Jane Russell decided to hire a chef. She didn't want to risk her career bending over a hot stove.

 

[jond]

Franken also has a somewhat juvenile or sophomoric sense of humor. If you think that this is a straight-laced, dignified man, well versed in etiquette then you should probably watch this skit from Saturday Night Live. Clearly, Franken is not someone who is easily embarrassed. Others with a similar affliction come to mind like Wilford Brimley, Leslie Nielsen, Howie Mandel, and Andy Kaufman. Franken has also mentioned multiple times in his books and interviews where he made jokes that he thought were hilarious but others didn't find funny.

I also recall where Franken described flying on a plane with Barbara Bush. During the flight, Franken struck up a conversation with Barbara who apparently became annoyed and said that she was done talking to him. However, Franken then struck up a conversation two more times. He said that he couldn't tell if she was serious or joking about not wanting to talk to him. Apparently she had been completely serious.

Grabbing her breasts. Really? If Franken can grab someone's breasts through a flak vest then he possesses supernatural abilities that none of the rest of us have. I'm reminded of that kung fu trope, dim mak, from multiple movies (such as Bloodsport) where it is claimed that a {cough} kung fu master can break a brick through another brick without damaging the covering brick. If Franken possesses this ability then he has certainly missed his calling by just being an ordinary senator.

Indeed, in the photo it’s obvious he thinks he’s doing something funny for a laugh. I’m reminded of the Steve Martin movie “Dead Men Don’t Wear Plaid” where Steve responds to being caught in the act, “I was rearranging your breasts. You fainted and they fell all out of whack.”

 

[Oystein]

Your accusations against me are grossly laughable at this point. Your general contractor argument is a farce. Lets take out the "assumptions" and see just how vile we are being, shall we?

here let me try a better analogy.

A model like to wear short skirts, worked at hooters, appeared in Playboy and has lots of NSFW photos on the internet.

A very famous comedian, later politician forced his tongue down her throat and was photographed groping her.

I really should stop at the first lie. But I am feeling nice.

Argument: Because the model who likes to wear short skirts, worked at hooters, appeared in Playboy and has lots of NSFW photos on the internet never complained about similar conduct before, the charges are politically motivated.

This isn't really an argument, it's an assumption. You kind of missed the point where SG introduced an assumption that I consider unproven and probably false. Here let me parse this a little better for you:

ARGUMENT 1
Assumption: Models who have worked for Hooters and/or are known to have had a long career of posing in sexy, revealing outfits, are practically guaranteed to have a considerable history of sexual harrassment and abuse. <-- This assumption is dubious
Premise: Leeann Tweeden is such a model. <-- Is this premise is true? -> Yes it is, because...
Evidence: Here is a simple google image-search for "Leeann Tweeden", and it is full photos of her in revealing, sexy outfits. <-- I see that you do not question the veracity of this claim, because the evidence weighs against you.
Conclusion: Therefore, Leeann Tweeden is practically guaranteed to have had a considerable history of sexual harrassment and abuse. <-- This would indeed follow from assumptions and premises, if both were true. However, the first assumption is dubious. Do you agree?

So we are currently at "Claim not made out" - but apparently, SG believes her assumption is true, which is where I disagree with her.

ARGUMENT 2
Assumption a: Women who have experienced a history of sexual harrassment and abuse by more than 1 man would usually accuse all of them at once, or accuse the perpetrator of the worst such incident first
Assumption b: If such women do not act as Assumption a prescribes, and instead accuse only one man, the most likely explanation for this behaviour is personal or political beef
I disagree with both assumption - the reasons of women to accuse or not accuse are too complex to captured by such simplistic rules
Premise a: Leeann Tweeden selected only one perpetrators to accuse first. <-- As far as I am aware, this is TRUE, as I know of now other man she has yet accused
Premise b: Leeann Tweeden is practically guaranteed to have had a considerable history of sexual harrassment and abuse. <-- This is the Conclusion of the first Argument, which I consider to be MOT MADE OUT, Ginger however believes to be true.
Conclusion: Leeann Tweeden chose to accuse only one of many perpetrators (<-- follows from Assumption b), and this is most likely due to her having personal or political beef with Al Franken (<-- This follows from Assumption b)
This Argument FAILS, in my opinion, because Assumptions a+b as well as Premise b are NOT MADE out.​

At no point is Tweeden "shamed", unless you, TBG, consider the images that a simple Google search brings forward, which are indeed the fruits of her proper professional career, to be "shameful". Unless you, TBG, consider her to be a slut because of it.

Everyone reading the argument instantly recognizes the argument as blatant slut shaming,

This is quite obviously FALSE; and you cannot possibly be unaware of the falseness of this claim, as several posters who DID read the argument said explicitly that the argument is NOT "slut shaming". These posters surely are part of "Everyone reading the argument", are they not?

It turns out that few, if any, posters other you and logger insist it's shaming. Which tells a lot about you, not so much about Ginger, and nothing about Mrs. Tweeden.

I am informing you however that, to some posters, myself included, your incessant repetition of the term "slut shaming" (incorrectly applied at that) leaves the distinct impression that you, TBD, think of her as a shameful slut when you watch the NSFW images. Again, that says something about you.

What did I change in the analogy? The comedian was conservative Jeff Foxworthy.

And?

By the way, if one is reduced to declaring arguments adverse to you as "lies and vile,"

That premise is wrong. I am not reduced to this - I make quite verbous arguments to support my impression.

perhaps one might want to reevaluate.

Those using false premises ought to. You your accusation against SG, and SG her argument against Mrs. Tweeden.

Disagreeing with Oystein's arguments is lying and vile, folks!

And that, folks, is yet another lie - slightly vile, as lies comes: Many here disagree with me, only you I call thus, because you insist on sticking to your lies.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

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.

No, no, no. This analogy is all wrong. Jeff scratching his skin on a rusty nail is an accident. What you are comparing it to was on purpose.

How about Jeff was working one day when Natasha Popov, the local inspector squeezed his buttocks and now today says it has bothered him ever since and he retained an permanent fear of Russian women inspectors.
Now Ginger comes along and demonstrates with a simple Google search for "Jeff XXXX" that Jeff is actually primarily known for dancing with the Chippendales and spending exorbitant amounts of time working out. She argues that Jeff certainly must have deserved the feel-up, because of prior butt-flaunting and purposely keeping it in such good shape.

 

[The Big Dog]

I really should stop at the first lie. But I am feeling nice.

SNIP

I'm not (feeling nice), so I did (stop when you falsely accused me of lying, again).

I am feeling a little nicer, so I will spell out just why this is a lie

Leeann Tweeden specifically said that the photograph shows him groping her. She lied, according to Oystein.

Al Franken said "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." Perhaps he was lying, huh?

And of course, I am lying too.

Lots of people who disagree with Oystein are lying lately, huh?

Maybe he'll type something about how vile I am or something.

 

[quadraginta]

Jane Russell decided to hire a chef. She didn't want to risk her career bending over a hot stove.

She was relatively reserved about her ... ahem ... attributes, even for the era.

For a contemporaneous comparison, see Jayne Mansfield.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

How about Jeff was working one day when Natasha Popov, the local inspector squeezed his buttocks and now today says it has bothered him ever since and he retained an permanent fear of Russian women inspectors.
Now Ginger comes along and demonstrates with a simple Google search for "Jeff XXXX" that Jeff is actually primarily known for dancing with the Chippendales and spending exorbitant amounts of time working out. She argues that Jeff certainly must have deserved the feel-up, because of prior butt-flaunting and purposely keeping it in such good shape.

This analogy fails abysmally, because SG never implied anything about anyone deserving such treatment, only that their past history indicated it likely to have happened elsewhere.

Maybe that wasn't the word you meant to use, otherwise it would seem that you are misrepresenting things.

 

[The Big Dog]

“It must have happened before” is not just the worst possible argument, the fact that it so terrible, such a transparent attempt to derail the focus from the accused to the victim and her background that it is without question a transparent pretense for the sole purpose of focusing on her history and her so called NSFW pictures for the sole purpose of discrediting her.

Disgraceful

 

[logger]

This analogy fails abysmally, because SG never implied anything about anyone deserving such treatment, only that their past history indicated it likely to have happened elsewhere.

Maybe that wasn't the word you meant to use, otherwise it would seem that you are misrepresenting things.

Yeah she said Leeann should have expected it, or shouldn’t have been surprised by it. Do think this of all the girls wearing tight fittin jeans?

 

[phiwum]

Yeah she said Leeann should have expected it, or shouldn’t have been surprised by it. Do think this of all the girls wearing tight fittin jeans?

I think that most of us here believe Franken did something wrong and admitted to it.

I also tend to think that Moore did something wrong, though he hasn't admitted to it. And, if I'm right, then his wrong is actually worse.

 

[Oystein]

No, no, no. This analogy is all wrong. Jeff scratching his skin on a rusty nail is an accident. What you are comparing it to was on purpose.

Workplace accidents have a strong non-random component, into which several human-controlled factors play. The point of my analogy was that "hazardous site conditions" that the General Contractor was responsible for was the important factor.

How about Jeff was working one day when Natasha Popov, the local inspector squeezed his buttocks and now today says it has bothered him ever since and he retained an permanent fear of Russian women inspectors.

That isn't analogy, that is just exchanging names. Problem is: By keeping the emotional nature of such incidents in the play, you are stuck with the pop-psychologizing and speculation why sexual harrassment happens, or why it is reported.



To explain my analogy further: Because the site that Jeff worked were exposed, this kind of work tends to be done by specialists, including specialists in construction site safety; and the workers there would tend to have increased aware of the hazards and know better than less exposed workers how to deal with them. As a result, exposed sites may turn out to be actually safer than ordinary sites. But we don't know. My point is, the assumption that Jeff was injured more open because of exposed sites is not made out.

Similarly, work places like Hooters or Playboy may very well be much more aware of the pitfalls of sexual misunderstandings and deal with them more professionally, and take active measures to protect their subject. Similarly, the women having a career at Hooters and as sexy models (and coming out on top like Tweeden) may tend to be rather self-assured of their sexuality, active, powerful, and may thus turn out to be less likely to become victims of sexual harrassment than women in less "risquey" occupations. Again, we don't know. My point is, that Ginger's assumptions that Tweeden was harrassed more often because of her exposure is not made out.

 

[Oystein]

I'm not (feeling nice), so I did (stop when you falsely accused me of lying, again).

I am feeling a little nicer, so I will spell out just why this is a lie

Leeann Tweeden specifically said that the photograph shows him groping her. She lied, according to Oystein. ...

She errs. It would become a lie if I explained it to her and she stuck with the error stubbornly.
Because a. We have the photo, and it doesn't show Franken actually groping her because he doesn't touch, and it is even questionable if it would be groping he did touch her breast armour full-on; and b. She was asleep during the incident; when you sleep, you don't have apprehension of what's happening.

 

[Oystein]

Yeah she said Leeann should have expected it, or shouldn’t have been surprised by it. Do think this of all the girls wearing tight fittin jeans?

Cool story, except it is FALSE.
Here, how this quagmire began:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leeann_Tweeden

She has also appeared on the political discussion series Hannity, as a member of the "Great American Panel" and occasionally appeared on the panel of Red Eye w/ Greg Gutfeld.[4]

In 1996, Tweeden appeared non-nude in a fitness model pictorial for Playboy magazine. Fifteen years later, at 38 years old, she appeared again in the December, 2011 issue of Playboy, this time posing in a nude pictorial. IIn 2002, she was a guest character in the motocross video game Freekstyle as a motocross rider. The March 2007 Issue of FHM (which was the final printed US issue) featured Tweeden as the cover girl.[5] As part of Hooters' 25th anniversary in 2008, she was named among "The Top Hooters Girls of all time".[6]

More context.

Relevant, I hate to go for the history thing, it's not always fair. But this does seem at least a little relevant.

CNN is sucking it up.

If it wasn't political (which it might not be) I have to wonder if she wasn't sexually harassed way worse than this in her career. And is this a 15 minutes of fame or not?
...

You do have to wonder how this stands out in her mind as the quintessential sexual harassment when clearly it must have been common in her life. You would think she had a gazillion worse complaints to be made.

Link is NSFW.

QUESTION: Has Al Franken been photographed groping a sleeping woman's breast other than "the woman's"?

Fact: it only counts if it is pattern.

Fact: Appearing in Playboy or eating at Hooters is basically a one grope free card.

Holy smokes, this thread, yo.....

Not what I said at all but your post is not surprising. This was my point: "You would think she had a gazillion worse complaints to be made."

I most certainly don't believe if you are a model or waitress at Hooters it is expected of you to be groped.

So here is what SG actually said:

"I have to wonder if she wasn't sexually harassed way worse than this in her career."
"clearly ... [sexual harrassment] must have been common in her life. You would think she had a gazillion worse complaints to be made."
"I most certainly don't believe if you are a model or waitress at Hooters it is expected of you to be groped."​

Can you please point out in these quotes - or even elsewhere - that "she [SG] said Leeann should have expected it"?
Like in "should" or "expect"? Especially now that you see she very specifically rejects that interpretation?

Thank you for your anticipated vapid reply.

 

[The Big Dog]

She errs. It would become a lie if I explained it to her and she stuck with the error stubbornly.
Because a. We have the photo, and it doesn't show Franken actually groping her because he doesn't touch, and it is even questionable if it would be groping he did touch her breast armour full-on; and b. She was asleep during the incident; when you sleep, you don't have apprehension of what's happening.

Oystein is going to explain to the woman in the picture, who has seen the picture, knows what she was wearing, knows she was sleeping, knows what happens when she sleeps that “she errs.”

Indeed the fact that the woman in the picture, who has seen the picture, knows what she was wearing, knows she was sleeping, knows what happens when she sleeps and errs, has persisted in asserting that she was groped despite that fact she “errs” is, to quote the words of a member here, “vile” lies.

You see, folks, nevertheless she persisted despite the fact “she errs.”

She persists.

 

[Oystein]

Oystein is going to explain to the woman in the picture, who has seen the picture, knows what she was wearing, knows she was sleeping, knows what happens when she sleeps that “she errs.”

Indeed the fact that the woman in the picture, who has seen the picture, knows what she was wearing, knows she was sleeping, knows what happens when she sleeps and errs, has persisted in asserting that she was groped despite that fact she “errs” is, to quote the words of a member here, “vile” lies.

You see, folks, nevertheless she persisted despite the fact “she errs.”

She persists.

Citation?