Pence and Paul

[bluethread]

The left has mocked Pence for refusing to be alone with any woman other than his wife and Paul has also been mocked for stating, (1 Cor. 7:1b) KJV "it is good for a man not to touch("'aptesthai) a woman". "'aptesthai is to touch provocatively. Given the Ford/Kavanaugh hearing and the frenzy surrounding it, isn't this sage advice?

[rikuoamero]

The left has mocked Pence for refusing to be alone with any woman other than his wife and Paul has also been mocked for stating, (1 Cor. 7:1b) KJV "it is good for a man not to touch("'aptesthai) a woman". "'aptesthai is to touch provocatively. Given the Ford/Kavanaugh hearing and the frenzy surrounding it, isn't this sage advice?

Given the frenzy over Kavanaugh, Pence's modus operandi isn't enough to protect himself from accusations. Remember that Ford accused Kavanaugh of abusing her at a party, with multiple other people supposedly present.
I honestly wouldn't be surprised if (or should I say when) Pence gets accused and part of the accusation is that Mrs. Pence was there and allowed it to happen, that she has internalized misogyny.

[Aetixintro]

The left has mocked Pence for refusing to be alone with any woman other than his wife and Paul has also been mocked for stating, (1 Cor. 7:1b) KJV "it is good for a man not to touch("'aptesthai) a woman". "'aptesthai is to touch provocatively. Given the Ford/Kavanaugh hearing and the frenzy surrounding it, isn't this sage advice?

I find Rand Paul deeply dishonest. Why? "I give people the possibility to die alone if they need it!"

Thus, the population of USA can safely leave the 2nd Amendment. He can jump for all that I care, but I do live in Europe, that's true!

[bluethread]

The left has mocked Pence for refusing to be alone with any woman other than his wife and Paul has also been mocked for stating, (1 Cor. 7:1b) KJV "it is good for a man not to touch("'aptesthai) a woman". "'aptesthai is to touch provocatively. Given the Ford/Kavanaugh hearing and the frenzy surrounding it, isn't this sage advice?

I find Rand Paul deeply dishonest. Why? "I give people the possibility to die alone if they need it!"

Thus, the population of USA can safely leave the 2nd Amendment. He can jump for all that I care, but I do live in Europe, that's true!

I am asking about something said by the Apostle Paul, not Rand Paul.

[DeMotts]

The left has mocked Pence for refusing to be alone with any woman other than his wife and Paul has also been mocked for stating, (1 Cor. 7:1b) KJV "it is good for a man not to touch("'aptesthai) a woman". "'aptesthai is to touch provocatively. Given the Ford/Kavanaugh hearing and the frenzy surrounding it, isn't this sage advice?

Are you equivocating eating a lunch with a woman to touching her provocatively?

I think "the left's" point here is that super conservative evangelical christians have a weird view of the role of women and see them as sources of temptation they have to fight from succumbing to. It's not dissimilar from conservative Islam, which takes things a step further by cloaking women's bodies, hair, and faces.

It's weird because a grown man should be completely capable of being alone with a woman without losing control of himself. It may be professionally necessary to be alone with a woman, and stating that you simply won't allow yourself to be alone with her because she's a woman denigrates her down to an object of potential lust and sexual desire. She may be a doctor, lawyer, secretary of state, a president - and shockingly she may need to speak in private in a professional capacity and isn't looking to ruin your marriage or make you sin and make jesus sad.

[bluethread]

Are you equivocating eating a lunch with a woman to touching her provocatively?

No, but I fear that the left is willing to and more, as long as it suits their purposes.

I think "the left's" point here is that super conservative evangelical christians have a weird view of the role of women and see them as sources of temptation they have to fight from succumbing to. It's not dissimilar from conservative Islam, which takes things a step further by cloaking women's bodies, hair, and faces.

Now, you are equating avoiding being alone with or touching provocatively a woman who is not one's wife with forcing women to wear burkas? Note that one is restricting one's own behavior and the other is restricting another person's behavior.

It's weird because a grown man should be completely capable of being alone with a woman without losing control of himself. It may be professionally necessary to be alone with a woman, and stating that you simply won't allow yourself to be alone with her because she's a woman denigrates her down to an object of potential lust and sexual desire. She may be a doctor, lawyer, secretary of state, a president - and shockingly she may need to speak in private in a professional capacity and isn't looking to ruin your marriage or make you sin and make jesus sad.

It is weird that you are going on about men not being able to control themselves, because the presumption of the left is that it is unreasonable for a man to be a virgin past the age of 20 and if someone drinks beer, they must have blacked out at some time. That risk would not be the concern of a man who does set limits on himself. The concern of that man is his life might be ruined by some woman accusing him of doing something he did not do, even decades later.

[DeMotts]

Are you equivocating eating a lunch with a woman to touching her provocatively?

No, but I fear that the left is willing to and more, as long as it suits their purposes.

I think this is a very silly statement, from the implication of the existence of the monolithic "left" to the idea that someone would lure someone to a lunch so they could accuse them of impropriety to advance an agenda. I mean if you are genuinely afraid of that then ok but I think this is pretty funny.

I think "the left's" point here is that super conservative evangelical christians have a weird view of the role of women and see them as sources of temptation they have to fight from succumbing to. It's not dissimilar from conservative Islam, which takes things a step further by cloaking women's bodies, hair, and faces.

Now, you are equating avoiding being alone with or touching provocatively a woman who is not one's wife with forcing women to wear burkas? Note that one is restricting one's own behavior and the other is restricting another person's behavior.

I'm saying that restricting someone else's behaviour seems to be the next logical step down this path. We already know that conservative lawmakers generally put a woman's body as secondary when an embryo is involved. Isn't that restricting someone's behaviour?

It's weird because a grown man should be completely capable of being alone with a woman without losing control of himself. It may be professionally necessary to be alone with a woman, and stating that you simply won't allow yourself to be alone with her because she's a woman denigrates her down to an object of potential lust and sexual desire. She may be a doctor, lawyer, secretary of state, a president - and shockingly she may need to speak in private in a professional capacity and isn't looking to ruin your marriage or make you sin and make jesus sad.

It is weird that you are going on about men not being able to control themselves, because the presumption of the left is that it is unreasonable for a man to be a virgin past the age of 20 and if someone drinks beer, they must have blacked out at some time. That risk would not be the concern of a man who does set limits on himself. The concern of that man is his life might be ruined by some woman accusing him of doing something he did not do, even decades later.

The presumption of the left is that it's "unreasonable" to be a virgin past 20? Where do you get this from seriously... If there's anything along these lines this "left" you speak of stands for it would be sexual liberty, including the liberty to not have sex at all. Nobody cares if you don't get laid. Seriously nobody cares.

I'll admit that Mike Pence's policies definitely insulate him from accusations of wrongdoing, sure. But they are ridiculous because of the way they categorize women entirely as objects of sexual desire and not thinking, rational, reasonable, responsible human adults. And to say that he must have these policies or else "the left" will get him is silly and paranoid. Shockingly, you can be alone with a woman and act normal and then nothing bad happens. I know it's a crazy idea. In fact if you're powerful enough you can be alone with a woman and do terrible things to her and still nothing happens. You can grab them by whatever part you want and you can still be president!

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 7 by DeMotts]

So, I live in social housing, amongst mostly (muslim) Somali refugees. And the womenfolk cover themselves in public as muslim womenfolk are socially conditioned to do. But I find it hard not to feel insulted, that they feel the need to wear the hijab, bourkha, etc, to prevent me a) from being sexually aroused, and b) from acting on that sexual arousal. But, I guess different cultures have developed different means of dealing with humanity's unruly sexuality, so I just let it pass.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[2ndRateMind]

The left has mocked Pence for refusing to be alone with any woman ...

You should be aware that as far as I can make out, you do not have a mainstream 'left' in the USA. From my (European) perspective, both republicans and democrats are broadly right wing. It's just that the republicans are more extremely right wing.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[bluethread]

Are you equivocating eating a lunch with a woman to touching her provocatively?

No, but I fear that the left is willing to and more, as long as it suits their purposes.

I think this is a very silly statement, from the implication of the existence of the monolithic "left" to the idea that someone would lure someone to a lunch so they could accuse them of impropriety to advance an agenda. I mean if you are genuinely afraid of that then ok but I think this is pretty funny.

I said nothing about a monolithic left. I was speaking in a colloquial fashion. Of course there are gradations among those on the left. Nor did I say anything about someone being lured, even though that is a possibility. My concern would be of someone with an agenda years later using the fact that I had lunch with a woman would imply that I touched her provocatively and that indicated that we were having an affair. I don't think that sounds any more far fetched than a daisy chain connection of beer drinking to blacking out to molesting a woman while blacked out.

Now, you are equating avoiding being alone with or touching provocatively a woman who is not one's wife with forcing women to wear burkas? Note that one is restricting one's own behavior and the other is restricting another person's behavior.

I'm saying that restricting someone else's behaviour seems to be the next logical step down this path. We already know that conservative lawmakers generally put a woman's body as secondary when an embryo is involved. Isn't that restricting someone's behaviour?

So, you are saying I am silly for suggesting that one would make exaggerated claims regarding an innocent dinner, while you argue that the next step for "monolithic" conservative lawmakers is to have women wear burkas?

The presumption of the left is that it's "unreasonable" to be a virgin past 20? Where do you get this from seriously... If there's anything along these lines this "left" you speak of stands for it would be sexual liberty, including the liberty to not have sex at all. Nobody cares if you don't get laid. Seriously nobody cares.

Commentators and hosts on the MSNBC, CNN, etc. Those usual stands for sexual liberty seem to apply to everyone, except a conservative heterosexual male, especially when he is being accused of sexual immorality by some on the left.

I'll admit that Mike Pence's policies definitely insulate him from accusations of wrongdoing, sure. But they are ridiculous because of the way they categorize women entirely as objects of sexual desire and not thinking, rational, reasonable, responsible human adults. And to say that he must have these policies or else "the left" will get him is silly and paranoid. Shockingly, you can be alone with a woman and act normal and then nothing bad happens. I know it's a crazy idea. In fact if you're powerful enough you can be alone with a woman and do terrible things to her and still nothing happens. You can grab them by whatever part you want and you can still be president!

It is his hope that it would, but it only exposes him to accusations of categorizing " women entirely as objects of sexual desire and not thinking, rational, reasonable, responsible human adults", as you just have. It is true that one can be alone with a woman and act normal and then nothing bad happens. However, one can also be subject to accusations of molestation, even if there is no proof that he ever was alone with her in the first place, as just happened with Kavanaugh. Regarding your example, don't you mean you can just SAY exactly what you just said and have people argue that you should never be President, because your saying that proves that you did it? That said, you do have a point, it appears that a President can avoid being removed from office after engaging in sexual relations with an intern in the oval office and lying about it under oath, if one is a member of the proper political party.