Erik K writes:

"Sigh... I am afraid NormaRae, Dagny, Lot's wife and others are correct. There is no reason to not believe these women. Yes, it is just allegations at this point. However, they are too convincing to be anything other than true. I live less than an hour from Alabama. The religious fervor here masks corruption and incompetence. All one has to do is claim to be a man of god and you are in. We had a congressional candidate stop by my house last summer before the primary. His entire campaign was centered around that he was a Christian. The pamphlet he handed me was amazing. It was simply religious propaganda. Being a Christian was his only qualification. I blasted him at the door for failing to comprehend there are people who are non-Christians living in his district. It went completely over his head. I rarely swear, but I started swearing at this idiot. He lost the primary.

Unfortunately folks here will believe someone if they claim to be a godly person. Roy Moore will win."

The social fabric of American society is disintegrating.

The only other time that I can think of with which to compare is the tension that existed before the Civil War.

The issue back then was slavery.

Were blacks mere animals or some degenerate lower order of life or were they human beings who could think and reason? That was the question then.

Nowadays it seems ridiculous that people would even think only white people were human. Back then it wasn't.

Today the concept of reality itself is breaking down. Reality is no longer objective. For some people, "alternative facts" and conspiracy theories have replaced factual evidence and rational thought.

Religion is at the center of this problem.

Not religious faith -- but religion itself as a force in the secular world.

If you are surrounded by people who believe the same things, have the same thoughts, and never challenge what they or others think you won't either.

Instead of objectively and rationally trying to deal with things people just retreat into tribal realities where their thoughts and views are not questioned.

Years ago, books like "If This Goes On" or "The Handmaid's Tale" were just science fiction. If things continue as they are they may become reality.

If America does not find a way out of this problem there may not be an America for much longer.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/10/2017 08:50PM by anybody.

Presumed guilty before proven innocent....

Just like Joseph Smith.

That's the issue.

Judge, you should leave your criminal law presumption in the criminal courts. It doesn't even apply in a civil court, where the rule is "more likely than not," meaning 51% probability. Moore is not facing criminal trial and we are not empaneled jurors, so we can decide these matters on our own grounds.

Is it possible Moore is innocent? Yes. But in political affairs people rightfully decide what is more probable, not what is beyond a reasonable doubt. Is it more likely than not that the four women--who don't know each other--and the 24 other sources of information are telling the truth than that Moore is being honest? I think so.

Similarly, if we polled the male RfM posters over age 60 whether they had in their 30s dated 16-year-old girls, would they reply "If I did, I’m not going to dispute these things, but I don’t remember anything like that?" No, men in their 60s generally know if they were dating minors when in their 30s. That is not the sort of thing people forget.

I repeat: Moore may be innocent but it is highly improbable. Moreover if he is innocent and can't give us a "yes or no" answer about dating minors, he lacks the character to deserve office. Alabama has the right to choose its own legislators, and we have the right to join Neil Young in noting that it is, after all, Alabama.

So in civil court you are going to convict somebody based on probably, highly improbable, applies to politics? based just on what you read in the media?

On standards of proof I am not expressing my opinion. I am stating what the law says. In a civil court the standard is "more likely than not," which is 51% or better. Moreover in many states a jury generally doesn't have to be unanimous in those cases. The point is that the legal standard you cite isn't even a constant legal standard: it only applies when a defendant is facing criminal conviction and loss of life or liberty. Outside of that narrow category of cases, not even the courts do what you say.

How about you? Do you use "beyond a reasonable doubt" in your daily life? You don't fill your gas tank until you know "beyond a reasonable doubt" that your tank is empty? I doubt that. We all function on partial information.

And on politics, yes, I generally use "more likely than not," as I'd venture you do too. In fact, that's the more reasonable standard since most of the facts that matter in an election can't be proved beyond a reasonable doubt--and sometimes the presumption of innocence doesn't work either. People are supposed to vote based on what they think likely and on their personal hunches about a person's character.

In this particular case, yes, you bet the media reports are important to me. I generally don't believe one person who claims victimization; and even two or three would cause me hesitation. But when you have four people who don't know each other and tell similar stories that are substantiated in various parts by a couple of dozen others, the story rises above 50% probability for me.

Then you have Moore himself, who was just interviewed by Hannity. (Is it okay if I cite conservative media as well as the left-wing-conspiracy outlets?) Hannity asked the good judge whether he had in his 30s dated underage women. Moore answered, "If I did, I’m not going to dispute these things," which is hardly a denial. Seriously, he said "if I did."

So I guess I need to ask you: is Moore part of the left-wing conspiracy that is trying to destroy. . . Moore?

Who is Roy Moore?

He is the Republican candidate accused of molesting a 14 year old girl.I am inclined to believe the accusers, but, as others have said,false accusations have been made before and there is the presumtion of innocence

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5070247/Moore-ally-cites-bible-contest-pedophile-claims.html

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a13518962/roy-moore-is-who-republicans-are/

The same sort of religious argument is being used justify Trump:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2017/08/23/raised-up-by-god-televangelist-paula-white-compares-trump-to-queen-esther/?utm_term=.2a2830051ca2


How long will it be before someone uses religious justification for absolute rule? It sounds crazy -- now. It may not be tomorrow.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/10/2017 10:42PM by anybody.

The cited article uses Queen Esther, from the Bible, as an example of a person who was technically "not qualified" for the position she was chosen for, and who still made a good job of it.

I liked the story of Queen Esther, when I first heard it, as a kid. She saved her people. Way to go.

But on the wider topic of people who are being appointed to serve in positions they have no qualification for (Betsy DeVos and Ben Carson come to mind here) I am finding it more and more alarming.

Not to mention any names, but there is an orange person in a white house who doesn't seem to have much of a grasp on the job he is supposed to be doing, either, and he scares me.

Regarding the twice asked question, "who is Roy Moore", the notion arises in my mind that the source of an individual's information about a subject is a very important issue.

I have an idea as to how I would have answered the question; it would have been based on an amalgam of the information I'd gleaned from essentially two sources, Drudge & Google News. Those who are fully informed on the issue of Judge Roy Moore, and have looked into the matter deeply, or have experience with the general background, are certainly going to give a much richer, fuller response than I would have.

And then there's the issue of bias. Let's imagine that Dave the Atheist and Yeppers feel themselves to be fully informed on the issue of Roy Moore. But just how contrasting might their answers be? I'm not saying that I know they'd be different, but I'd sure expect so.

Where should one 'shop' for one's input on the condition of the world? Where are the three *best* places to get information? I am certain that there would be a complete lack of unanimity amongst us.

So being informed becomes a two step process: picking sources and then absorbing their offerings. So which is the problem? So how much of a 'problem' now exists because we won't agree on the fidelity of the different sources? And is there a solution? Or is Erik's perceived dilemma coming to fruition?

I have more to say, but the postman just delivered this month's edition of Guns & Ammo...

On the way home after work, I listened to Moore being interviewed by a sympathetic radio talk show host. Paraphrasing, he said it was the "Democrats doing this, their plan all along, they want that homosexual same sex marriage and have no respect for God, no respect for truth, those 'Washington' reporters paid people to lie..."

He rabidly went on and on, and I'm thinking, "How can people listen to or believe these non-responsive arguments," but then, he iced the cake, and I burst out laughing, knowing him to be a fool, liar or both. Again, paraphrased:

"It's just like they invented all that Russia stuff to take Trump down!"


People who believe in imaginary boogy devils (and gods) scare easily. De-programming has been discussed so many times on the board, and the consensus is usually to do that which is kindest, the least frightening to those so programmed.

I don't go to church, and I don't listen to Fox. Clear Channel is the only talk radio option; all conservative, all the time. Or sports. I make myself listen to it so that I have an inkling of the alternative reality being fed to those living in an alternate reality.

The all male radio hosts, who also happen to sound all white, take every opportunity to scoff at and belittle any other group. They actually interviewed a female one morning this week, and it was ....wait for it..... Connie Willis, Bigfoot Expert.

I'm not kidding. It was serious stuff, and they asked her the hard questions, such as, "Where is the best place to spot Bigfoot?" ""What do they eat?" "How do you know if it's a real Bigfoot?"


The Truman Show. That, or we're all being collectively punked. Any minute, I expect someone to jump out of the bushes with a camera, a mic, and a million dollars. I'm questioning my wont to be tolerant and kind.

I am inclined to believe the young women stepping forward; but Moore is innocent until proven guilty—that’s a Bill of Rights issue that has to be honored. Ideally, the accusations will be fully investigated and charges filed, if necessary, in a timely fashion. A change of venue from outside the Bible-Belt would also build credibility with a trial outcome.

Unfortunately, we’ve seen too much sexual harassment and molestation coming from American power centers.

In Moore’s case, he panders to the Right; in Weinstein’s case, the Left. Both sides need to take the accusations seriously and ferret out anyone else who has used a position of power over a vulnerable young woman or man.

Utah, like most states, requires individuals to report ANY SUSPICION of child abuse to civil law enforcement authorities. It’s maddening to know that many Hollywood insiders knew of sexual exploitation in their ranks, involving young men and women and did not report it. Pedaphilia seems rampant in power centers.

I hope Moore is fully and impartiality investigated. If charges are warranted, they should be filed immediately. In a spirit of openness, he ought to step away from taking his elected office and commit to helping the investigation that will either charge him or exhonorate him.

BYU Boner Wrote:

"I hope Moore is fully and impartiality
investigated. If charges are warranted, they
should be filed immediately."

Unfortunately, Boner, the statute of limitations expired decades ago. There will not likely be an investigation and, certainly, no charges filed. Therefore, the case is left to the court of public opinion.

There is a question of whether or not that is true. The statute of limitations is two years for a civil case. That has long since expired. There might not be a statute of limitations for a criminal case. Some are saying there is no statute of limitations on a criminal case.

Slander/libel is his course of action......

I'm not sure that the situation is substantially different than Joseph Smith's day, when magical thinking appealed to a certain segment of the population. That kind of thinking has always been present, but in recent years has been less evident to the rest of us.

"The issue back then was slavery.

Were blacks mere animals or some degenerate lower order of life or were they human beings who could think and reason? That was the question then.

Nowadays it seems ridiculous that people would even think only white people were human. Back then it wasn't.

Today the concept of reality itself is breaking down. Reality is no longer objective. For some people, "alternative facts" and conspiracy theories have replaced factual evidence and rational thought.

Religion is at the center of this problem."


Actually, you don't have to be religious to deny reality.

How about statists. Many believe government actually makes things better, despite endless cases of fraud, waste, abuse and unintended consequences. And millions of deaths at the hands of governments.

While blacks were once considered less human, now whites are considered by many to be inherently evil. Supposedly white supremacists are everywhere.

How about feminists, many of whom claim that most men are useless, or abusive and part of rape culture, etc. While they forget to mention the harm that women can do.

When was the last time you saw this on the news? Talk about avoiding reality.

http://www.saveservices.org/2012/02/cdc-study-more-men-than-women-victims-of-partner-abuse/

SUMMARY: According to a 2010 national survey by the Centers for Disease Control and Department of Justice, in the last 12 months more men than women were victims of intimate partner physical violence and over 40% of severe physical violence was directed at men. Men were also more often the victim of psychological aggression and control over sexual or reproductive health. Despite this, few services are available to male victims of intimate partner violence.

And this has nothing to do with so called statism, feminism, government or "evil" white people.

The issue is the merger of far right politics and religion and how religion is used in that context.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/11/2017 12:00AM by anybody.

Isn't that what Erik K. said?

I'm not sure that is what is happening, Anybody. Moore is sort of a unique character and the people who support him are a unique brand of GOP.

Bannon isn't a religious man, not really, and neither is Trump. Trump really isn't anything; he only became a Republican fairly recently and his chief advisors (Kushner, Ivanka, Cohn, Mnuchin) are Democrats. The movement he represents is more economic nationalist than not Christian. So there are really three factions in the GOP right now: Christian fundamentalists, economic nationalists, and the traditional elite like McCain and the Bushes and Romney.

Those factions combine in different constellations in different contexts, but I think the ethical and policy failures of the Trump administration may be driving the factions apart. At present the Christian fundamentalists are still loyal to Trump, but that could change if they realize that Trump and Bannon don't really share their values. The traditional faction, meanwhile, is fairly close to declaring open war against the Trump camp. In short, the GOP has lost much of its internal coherence and could fracture.

Paradoxically the Dems aren't in good shape either. They can gain from this simply by sitting by and waiting for the GOP to fracture, but it would be better for the country if they developed more competent leadership and a serious policy agenda. If "anything but Trump" prevails, as it might, the country could end up becalmed, which may be better than today's situation but would be far short of what is necessary to recoup the recent economic and geopolitical losses.

Roy Moore's brother says that Moore is being persecuted like Jesus Christ ...

Poor Roy, born 600 years too late. He would have made one helluva great Inquisitor. I bet he could have given Torquemada a few good pointers.

Here is some interesting info.

https://thepolitistick.com/bombshell-roy-moore-accuser-worked-hillary-clinton-joe-biden-campaigns/

Deborah Wesson Gibson, one of Roy Moore’s accusers, is a member of Progressive Politics Alabama and is someone who worked on the political campaigns of both 2016 Democrat presidential nominee Hillary Clinton and former Obama regime Vice President Joe Biden, providing sign language services.

Moreover, as the leading newspaper in Alabama reports, Gibson also provides services to leading Democrats like Sen. Patrick Murphy and Bill Nelson and shared campaign fliers of Roy Moore’s Democrat opponent, Doug Jones, for the Alabama election slated for December 12.

And this means Moore is innocent.

Age of consent/marriage (w/parental permission was 14 ).

Right.

It's soooo "interesting" that she "provides services" to "regimes."

https://www.redstate.com/sarah-rumpf/2017/11/11/tone-deaf-attempt-discrediting-one-roy-moores-accusers/

Really? You think this is "interesting," too shady to either look it up and/or mention what those "services" were. Some might even call it "underhanded" or an "alternative" presentation of facts.

You might find it "interesting" that most objective people will refer to political bodies as having "campaigns" or "administrations."

Although, I must admit, it has not yet occurred to me to consider whatever it is that Trump has to be either an "administration" or a "regime." For whatever reason, the picture that comes to mind is a gumball machine.

And why, whenever accusations against republicans arise, is it Hillary, Hillary Hillary, Obama Obama Obama, as if that is an answer to the charge(s)? Maybe that's why I think of a knee-high shiny red gumball machine, full of the same shape of multi-colored non-nutritious substance which children chew and spit out.

Go ahead. Malign the "chewed gum" for being an interpreter for the deaf, owning her own company, and being a registered FL (not AL) republican.

On the other hand, here's a snapshot of republican who exceeds the parameters of the laws which are to govern his behavior, even as he holds the power to enforce and "administer" those laws:

http://www.al.com/news/birmingham/index.ssf/2017/04/suspended_alabama_supreme_cour.html

He reads like a habitual offender, to me.

Is that what you mean by "regime?"

Oh no! Maybe Moore should have had the foresight to ask the teens he was "dating" what political party they would grow up to join.

If you are going to run for an office that high, every closet is going to get opened. He's just mad that it's happening to him like it does everyone else.

Alabama courts removed Roy Moore from 1996 divorce case after he kept a lesbian mother from her kids ...

I thought I had a grip on the topic but re-reading it I realized I wasn't getting it so forget I said anything LOL.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/11/2017 11:28AM by ptbarnum.

The vetting and looking into every detail of someone's personal history gets more intense when someone is in a national election. He has been a complete kook here in Alabama for a long time, but no one cared. Now that he is wading out toward the Senate, there are bigger magnifying glasses looking at him and more money looking into his history.

This happens no matter what party. I'm not saying it's good. Politics to me are dirty from the ground up.

I'm guessing people knew he was sort of a creep here (IF it was true- we know the girl told her mother when it happened). Maybe no one really thought it would matter because waving around the Bible here makes all sinners a good person (eye roll).

It's going to be interesting because my take is that Alabamians here are torn between supporting the Bible waver and being miffed that he beat the person Trump supported.

If this Moore guy gets elected, the question is, who will play him on Saturday Night Live? Can you imagine what they could do with skits with Jeff Sessions and Moore? The entertainment possibilities are enticing!

You know this, Dagny, but Moore is running to fill the seat that Sessions left to join the Trump administration. My guess is they knew each other and worked together reasonably well. Sessions's religion is skin deep (lies about the Russians), so I doubt a few dalliances with little girls wouldn't offend him too much.

But yes, SNL would be hilarious if Moore were elected. And from what I read, he probably will be.

Yep. What kills me is how proud Alabamians are defending these clowns. They could not care less that they are the laughing stock of the entire nation.

Yet, they were all in an uproar that the last governor had an affair and had to impeach him.

Go figure.

From the more credible stories, Moore sounds like a real loser. Insecure, possessive, self-righteous...but we already knew that months and years ago, well before the horrible, lurid details of "dating" and "kissing" a few teenage girls.

Short of some kind of sexual penetration, I'm willing to let Moore slide on this. Not because it was good for him to groom those girls, possibly intending to do something he was too cowardly to consummate. Rather, I think the "October Surprise" mentality, as enacted by commercial media, is far too prevalent now, and far more dangerous and destructive to society than adult males cultivating teenage girls. It's making an absolute mockery of any democratic pretensions we have left in America.

If this was really important, the news networks should have found it six months ago. But it's so much more fun to let it slide, and then breathlessly announce it in the last month of a campaign. Then it doesn't matter of it's provable or even credible; the mere accusation is enough to upset normal voting patterns for a few weeks. And that's really all the new, improved Washington Post cares about. It's propaganda, pure and simple, thinly disguised as news reporting.

Moore is a scumbag. The news people screaming about this case are even worse. It's a familiar dilemma, and roughly half the voting population will decide to say no to media manipulation. That's exactly how Trump got elected, and the sanctimonious millionaire news readers and news producers have no one to blame but themselves.

A couple of points.

First, Moore didn't just "date" and "kiss" a few girls. In at least once case he had one child strip to her underwear, touched her through her bra and panties, and put her hand on his erect penis. That is sexual assault of a minor.

Second, such abuse of authority can and does inflict emotional harm on victims. This isn't something that can be swept under the rug as, to quote Dennis Hastert, "youthful indiscretions."

Third, this isn't a politically motivated "October surprise." Trump's election brought the topic of sexual harassment to national attention, and the issue has been simmering for a long time. Weinstein brought it to a boil, and now women (and men) across the country are simultaneously bring up their stories. Unless one believes that politicians deserve a "pass" that no one else gets based on the electoral cycle, the timing of the Moore revelations is NOT suspicious.

Moore is not alone. George H.W. Bush has been hit by this, Congressional aides are going on the record about both Democratic and Republican politicians, and we are now learning that Congress has a secret fund to pay off people who are molested by senators and representatives.

This is not driven by political operators of either party: it is a movement that has swept show business and TV news and politicians of both parties. Every case is unique and there will in some cases be false accusations. But the attention on harassment in general is a good thing regardless of the timing and there is no reason politicians should be spared.

What differentiates Moore is his history of discrimination, his facile commitment to the Bible, and his spectacular inability to defend himself effectively. Not only did he say that these things may have happened, he also said that he obtained permission from the mother of every "girl" he dated. As a general rule, men in their 30s should not be dating "girls" who need their mothers' approval.

Well said.

In France, it would be illegal ("détournement de mineure"), but once they're 18, there's "no problem"...

Tom in Paris, that ambiguous place which is also the home of Dominique Strauss-Kahn :-/



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/12/2017 04:24PM by Soft Machine.

Former DA: "Roy was known to (have) preferred teenagers" ...

I don't know exactly what to think of the situation.

I find it reprehensible that a 32 year old man would participate in something like that.

But did he?

The question everyone should be asking is about the timing. This is VERY CURIOUS timing. It is at the perfect time where the Republicans can't replace him on the ballot, even if they wanted to really...but at short enough of a time period where there's not really enough time to prove or disprove allegations so dirt can be tossed whether it is true or not.

Why not when he was really making the news in Alabama as a Judge that was directly affecting the sexuality and lives of those in Alabama and nationwide?

He may have had far more impact on those in Alabama then, and was probably far more in the News than even now during the election...ironically.

So why now?

Strategically, in a political sense, this is the PERFECT time for it. You can't get a better political attack like this at this time. Absolutely PERFECT.

Which is why questions should be coming to mind. WHY NOW?

IT's too perfect of a set up. That's why I have questions.

If it is true, it was absolutely inappropriate of him...

But if the people of Alabama elect him, it is because they doubt the veracity of the story due to just how perfect the timing is as a political attack.

There were so much better times to take him down and out, or to bring it up then this specific time period...so why NOW?

I'm not happy about Roy Moore and think he shouldn't have even been allowed to run. I think he's an awful man already, so this might not even surprise me if he's guilty.

But the timing of this accusation is VERY curious. It stinks of Media Manipulation, and I think many Americans are getting wise to it. Forget the Russia thing, Americans are sick of the Media trying to manipulate them. If Roy Moore wins it's because people are sick of the Media trying to manipulate them.

This thing should have come out months ago, or even better, when it actually would have done more good against Roy Moore. It's not like the accusations didn't have the time to do that (40 years is a LOOOONG time), even recently.

This is the same type of stuff Utah Mormon Republicans sometimes throw at Democrats in the timing of it...only the South isn't full of Mormons and might not be as accepting of such junk as Mormons would be.

I don't think the timing is suspicious. The Weinstein scandal triggered an avalanche, overwhelming several Hollywood stars and a few politicians. This has much farther to run and it will ruin political careers on the right and on the left.

Moore suffers from two misfortunes. He was running for office when Weinstein was uncovered; and he has stuff to hide. The man can't even deny that at 32 he was dating "girls." He says he can't remember; or that if it happened, he won't deny it; or that he got the girls' mothers' permission. His defense to date is that "Satan" is behind the attacks on him.

I would suggest that invoking the devil is less persuasive than denying the accusations would be. That he is going with Satan should tell us something.

I agree, Lot's Wife.

He is running for public office: it's perfectly normal that people running for office should be subject to scrutiny.

Otherwise, what are democracy and freedom of speech for?

https://www.rawstory.com/2017/11/everyone-thought-it-was-weird-deputy-da-who-served-with-moore-confirms-he-dated-high-school-girls/


“It was common knowledge that Roy dated high school girls, everyone we knew thought it was weird,” former Deputy DA Theresa Jones reportedly told CNN. “We wondered why someone his age would hang out at high school football games and the mall.”

Lot's Wife wrote:

>>>"Trump's election brought the topic of sexual harassment to national attention, and the issue has been simmering for a long time."


I think that this atatement directly answers the subject of the thread:

"The Roy Moore Situation Is A Symptom Of A Very Serious Dilemma"

Further, that we are experiencing the fallout of voters having abandoned the requirement of "moral fiber" in a president in favor of economic gain, economic sustenance.

All of the amoral traits which Trump displayed during the campaign, yes, even up to being broadcast (and still widely available) that, from his own lips, he sexually assaulted women, has crossed a line for many people.

Is it imaginable that even twenty years ago, a nation so inured to "grabbing a woman's p***y", that it could elect the perpetrator to be POTUS? Were there voters who believed his voice to be dubbed, fake news," or did it simply not rise to the level of thought that his behavior would become an exemplar for the treatment of wives, sisters, daughters and children?

I thought about it, and it occurs to me that charity begins at home.

There are pole dance threads on this board which show nearly everything but the hair, a site purporting to be a haven for exmos, especially young, nervous ones, including, young women. Politics took a long time to be allowed here, but mostly naked females spreading their legs around a gleaming, steely pole? Why, that's just "sexual freedom," and any virginal 18 year-old molly mo who has a problem with it, well, here we are, the "real" world of exmo men ready to show you how men "really" think women should behave and be regarded. Welcome to RfM.

Ziller is a hero to many, but I wonder if he considers all of the sisters and mothers who change their minds about "encouraging" the male members of their families to serve missions? Those females surrounded by toddlers. Mo mothers have doubts, see the pain of their children, come here to question, see ziller, and start packing those mishie bags. Even mo fathers, who can point to this board and say, "see the exmos, son, daughter; this is not for us."

And when we bring those sons and young boys into it, those pressured by their mothers, sisters, aunts, cousins and friends, those virginal 18 year old boys sent out against their will, is that a pang of doubt, then?

Do you wonder about it, Eric? Knowing your respect for all, I imagine you tolerating it, silently, broodingly. I think I might know why - to help heal sexual repression. It is a rubberband effect. It is going to far. Discussing it and displaying it are different things.

I can also imagine you thinking, "I'm a man, it is my site, and if I want pole dancers, I'll damn well not be told what "should" be allowed."

Who will stand and say it? Enough. The pot and kettle. Nearly naked females publicly mimicking copulation, being "worshipped" and salivated over, on this "recovery" board is Trump behavior. When ziller misses a "Thursday," plaintive threads will be erected, as if exmo men cannot search youtube themselves. It is not the video they seek, but acceptance of the behavior in viewing it with others, publicly, among male exmos. The freedom from criticism among all exmos. (haters stay out), but, who are the haters? Who are the ones lacking empathy?

The argument will be that the dancers are "willing," but the dancers are not my concern. Young men and women, coming here, seeking a glimpse of "outer darkness" are my concern. Children, who have grown with no barriers against authority, even authorities who abused them, they are my concern. I would also have a legal concern that nothing bars any minor of any age from clicking any link on this site, with no warnings at all.

I don't care what Trump, Moore and their ilk find acceptable or excusable. An abandonment of mo doctrine is not an abandonment of morality. No, I don't view the dancers or those who enjoy them to be amoral. I view this board, in this regard, as having abandoned concern for new exmos, and respect for non-dancing females (mo females) in general, to be against its own stated mission, and thus, as having slipped into amorality.

Our hands should be "clean," before we try to preach about "dilemmas" to others. Is this to be a safe place for new (or old) exmo females? I would not recommend it as is.

A response dictating that it "shouldn't" bother exmo females is a statement intended to shame them into accepting that nearly naked women publicly mimicking copulation with a steel pole is "right" and "normal." Not all exmo men will agree, nor would I advocate the behavior to my daughters.

I suggest that exmo pole-dance seekers create a youtube channel, possibly named "RfM Pole Dancing," even creating a link on the main RfM page, if so desired. If it is acceptable, let's not do it while winking at one another. Authentic recovery. If the goal is the polar opposite of Puratinism, so be it. If the goal is to be welcoming to ALL, well, then, so be that.

If all of the foregoing fails, the site has "grocery store" rules. I have yet to see a pastie-clad woman pretending to screw a pole in a grocery store. Plain, everyday reason.

Oh, jeez. Now I have to go take a shower and wash off all the self-righteousness.

"I have yet to see a pastie-clad woman pretending to screw a pole in a grocery store."

I did a little checking. Ziller had two pole dancing videos posted in the last 90 days. In neither one was the dancer wearing pasties. Nor was she pretending to screw a pole. Her routine was little different from what you see at Cirque de Soliel. Her outfit, particularly the bottom, probably wouldn't be street-legal at a public swimming pool, though I'm not even positive of that.

Further, YouTube has its own pg-13 policy, and the videos did not violate its policy.

Funny story. The first love of my life was a modern dance major at BYU. She needed money to stay in school, and applied for a job at Ririe-Woodbury in SLC. Did not make the cut. So she applied at what was then the brand new concept of a topless club (semi-nude dancing). Her take on the endeavor (paraphrasing): modern dance is sweaty people in leotards writhing on the floor. It's not hugely different from a club routine. The stage is bigger in the BYU dance studio in the RPE building, and I wear about 4 more ounces of spandex. Naked in public is not that big a deal. Being emotionally naked is where you can really get hurt, and that can happen anywhere.

Good point. She got the job but quit after about ten days not so much because of the work, but because she was afraid of getting expelled from BYU.

BTW, Utah Opera is performing Carmine Burana right now. Dancing and singing of ribald themes. Oh, the horror. Ririe-Woodbury just had their season opener this weekend too. It's still sweaty people in leotards, often flesh-colored, writhing on the floor. Children (gasp) attend.

Correction: Ballet West is performing Carmine Burana

Clarification: I searched for ziller and pole. Got two hits. He's posted other YouTube videos that I'm not going to check. I have a life. Sometimes.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/12/2017 04:49PM by Brother Of Jerry.

You make a good point. I was a bit surprised with Ziller's pole dance threads. Not surprised about the post, but suprised that I didn't notice any responses saying the post was out of place here. I did see Hugh Hefner drawn and quartered here and he had a private business. But the pole dance threads go unquestioned.

I'm not necessarily taking the position that the threads should be prohibited, but I'd expect to see more objections.

So, I appreciate your point - and that's coming from a guy who is well acquainted with pole dancers.

It was 'common knowledge' that Roy Moore 'dated high school girls', says former colleague ...

This is an op-ed expanding Moore's preference for teenagers into a larger segment of evangelicals, and why many don't see what he did as that bad.

Written by someone who grew up in evangelical circles.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-brightbill-roy-moore-evangelical-culture-20171110-story.html

I suspect many do not want a woman who might have opinions or competition.

They are not looking for an intellectual peer in a spouse. I mean, what are they going to talk to the girl about? Taylor Swift?

At first, maybe the girl is enamored that this man is paying attention to her. She soon realizes the only tool she has to communicate with him (her body).

They are looking for a nice looking vessel to boink and breed who will be submissive like one of the children that follow.


When I see a religious fanatic "who protests too much" I often suspect they have an emotional demon they are fighting and use religion for control.

Evangelicals holding law-making positions could go a long way to explaining why child brides are still legal in the US. Pedophile lawmakers don't want their very *real* religious *freedom* to be impinged.

I swear, when I hear "evangelical," my brain is going to think of child brides. Especially if Moore is elected.

This (and other) creep has the nerve to speak about "morality." and "leading the country" in the "right direction." I suggest they did in fact learn their morality from the bible.

Sans jailed criminals, I can't think of a worse place to learn morality than the bible. "Thou shalt not lie," from a book full of lies. Double bind, no?

"When Hannity asked Moore again if he could unequivocally say he never dated anybody in their late teens when he was 32, Moore said, “That’s out of my customary behavior.”

“I don’t think this kind of story will change support for him among Christians since he has categorically denied it. Most will see it as dirty politics.” – Jerry Falwell, Jr. on Roy Moore.

* It’s no big deal because Moore never had full on penis in vagina sex with any of the accusers.

* Mary was only 13 when she married a much older man, Joseph, and gave birth to Jesus.

* Fake news

* Obama/Clinton/Democratic Party cooked up this lie.

* It took place 40 years ago.

* There are many stories in the Bible with a teenage girl and an older man.

* There is nothing wrong with a 30 year old man asking a 16 year old girl for a date.

* He married a young woman when he was older so he never had bad intent towards those teens, only the possibility of matrimony.

* The accusers should be prosecuted for coming out now with their stories.

* The accusers are lying.

* They wanted it.

* The story is not important.

Add my favorite, said by Moore's brother:

Roy is being persecuted like Jesus