[HankMoody]

"While separated from my second wife, prior to the divorce, I had sexual relationships with other mature adult women," he said. "Each was consensual. Those relationships have ended. I am sorry I did not use better judgment during those days. I am sorry that I let my constituents down."

I'm not a politician, but dude should have gone full Trump. "I said some stuff that some fat feminists might find offensive, but now I'm married to a hot EE woman. I'll cry about your comments in my big mansion, and wipe my tears with my millions of dollars. Truly, how will I ever get over this?"

https://www.texastribune.org/2017/11/22/...rculates-/

If it's consensual, there is no such thing as "sexual misbehavior." Two (or more) consenting (key word: consenting) adults are free to "misbehave."

What Al Franken did was sexual misbehavior. What this guy did is just dating. The only difference is Frankin is a Democrat, and Barton is a Republican. Whose defense are the leftists coming to, though? Hmmm...

In my opinion, Barton should have just owned it. "I sent some dick pics, she liked them, deal with it. By the way, the economy is booming and you're wasting my time asking about this stupid shit. Elect some cucks who will spend the next 8 years failing if this upsets you. Go tell that loser Al Franken to date girls that actually like him, instead of groping them while they're asleep. Isn't he married?"

[HankMoody]

Now, if the dick pics were unsolicited, he's a fucking moron and deserves whatever comes.

But from the way this reads, he was dating (read: banging) the chicks they were sent to.

That aside, I'm sure like 80% of this forum receives unsolicited nudies on a weekly basis. Sometimes they're from fatties, but we deal.

[Vaun]

Hank, he's claiming this is revenge porn. I hope he sues and wins if true, could be a landmark case. Care to share any thoughts on that?

[Sonoma]

This story is a really good example of how hard the media skews against Republicans. He literally did nothing wrong and yet articles I've read try to insinuate that him reminding women of the laws regarding revenge porn somehow constitutes blackmail

[Jetset]

This is a good subject for a spinoff thread, if anything just because of the spectacle of watching the media grudgingly realize that he may be the victim by the rules they themselves have laid down.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-...and-power/

Instead, it's a story about how he used to his "power" to "intimidate" an innocent girl who was utterly helpless to resist the allure of getting banged out by an influential politician. The poor thing, bless her heart. Nevermind that the "threat" he was "leveraging" was to call the police over what the feminist left has relentlessly agitated to see treated as a crime, and what is presently treated as a crime in both Texas and D.C. (Rightly, in my opinion. Even a broken clock...)

This is a power that all citizens have, but one that was only meant to serve women. Men - particularly powerful, white, Republican men - are apparently supposed to graciously pull this particular punch when bullied by a scorned thot because it's "impossible to separate their power from the sex they have".

In a bizarre effort to avoid the awkward reality that there is no comparison to accusations made about Conyers and Franken, his sex life is lumped in with theirs as "unconventional". Yet in 2017, exchanging dirty pictures with a woman you met on Facebook is hardly unconventional. Notwithstanding the many ways it can go wrong, it's as conventional as it gets, and the woman's purported actions, digging through his personal life to find his other partners and harass him indirectly by stirring up drama with them, would be portrayed as evidence of stalking if the roles were reversed. He told her to back off, and she deserved to be told.

Barton isn't being shamed for having an unconventional sex life, he's being shamed for having one at all. As I said in the general accusations thread, he should have never apologized. Conceding the idea that he did anything wrong was a huge mistake.

[HankMoody]

(11-25-2017 09:16 AM)Vaun Wrote:  

Hank, he's claiming this is revenge porn. I hope he sues and wins if true, could be a landmark case. Care to share any thoughts on that?

In my personal opinion, revenge porn / cyberbulling laws are unconstitutional, as they violate the First Amendment. The government should not be allowed to criminalize any speech short that which calls for specific, credible, violent action (like the left does to Roosh and the police never enforce), pedeophelia, etc. While revenge porn is distasteful, I do not believe the government has a right to criminalize it.

That aside, under the way that the statutes are written, this situation would meet the definition of "revenge porn." Chances are he pumped and dumped a few golddiggers who then turned around and released his dick pics.

It's exactly the same scenario when a smut cheats on a "nice guy" who then turns around and puts her nudies on the internet.

Even if the criminal statutes were meant to protect poor defenseless women from big bad men putting their nudies on the internet, it goes both ways. If we're going to make revenge porn illegal, or create a civil remedy, it applies to all citizens regardless of their gender.

If we want people to follow the law, we also have to treat people equally under it.

[Gmac]

Cuck.

[Vaun]

(11-25-2017 12:31 PM)HankMoody Wrote:  

(11-25-2017 09:16 AM)Vaun Wrote:  

Hank, he's claiming this is revenge porn. I hope he sues and wins if true, could be a landmark case. Care to share any thoughts on that?

In my personal opinion, revenge porn / cyberbulling laws are unconstitutional, as they violate the First Amendment. The government should not be allowed to criminalize any speech short that which calls for specific, credible, violent action (like the left does to Roosh and the police never enforce), pedeophelia, etc. While revenge porn is distasteful, I do not believe the government has a right to criminalize it.

That aside, under the way that the statutes are written, this situation would meet the definition of "revenge porn." Chances are he pumped and dumped a few golddiggers who then turned around and released his dick pics.

It's exactly the same scenario when a smut cheats on a "nice guy" who then turns around and puts her nudies on the internet.

Even if the criminal statutes were meant to protect poor defenseless women from big bad men putting their nudies on the internet, it goes both ways. If we're going to make revenge porn illegal, or create a civil remedy, it applies to all citizens regardless of their gender.

If we want people to follow the law, we also have to treat people equally under it.

Further making the case never to send one yourself, there is no guarantee it wont go public, and if it does, it always looks bad.

[puckerman]

Revenge porn should be a civil case, not a criminal case. You can already get sued if you use someone's photographic likeness without their permission. We don't need laws criminalizing revenge porn. It also makes the burden of proof tougher.

This is the typical gutless response of most cuckservatives though. They always surrender or run away. Rarely if ever do they fight. If these guys were football coaches and had a first down on the one-yard line, they would kick the field goal immediately.