willhud9 wrote:

The_Piper wrote:The power imbalance was that Moore was a district attorney. Purplerat's other example of teacher/student. The teacher is in a position of authority. Doctor/patient is another example. Employee/employer. Because the person in authority can influence someone who doesn't want to sleep with them by threatening an action...firing, failing, etc. They can influence without threatening too. Someone who doesn't dare tell their boss no for fear of reprisal. That sort of thing.
There are 13 years between my own parents, but my mother was in her 20's, so not a problem.

That’s an assumption of guilt though.

Again there is no objective qualifier to determine that there is a power imbalance.

If my teacher wanted to have consentual sex and I agreed to it that is perfectly okay.

If my teacher failed me because I refused to have sex that is not okay.

If my teacher passed me because I had sex that is not okay

If my boss wanted to have sex with me and I consented that is okay.

If my boss fired me because I refused to have sex that is not okay.

If my boss promoted me because I had sex that is not okay.

People can and do have sexual relationships without directly affecting the area in which they are responsible for.

willhud9 wrote:I guess but that power imbalance could be said to apply to anyone “under” the DA. If a DA came to me and wanted to sleep with me and we are only a few years apart why is that not a power imbalance? Should we just tell people not to date/sleep with DA’s just as a general rule because it’s not clear what the power balance is?

The concept that because they are teenagers and he is the DA that there most likely is a power imbalance is a non-sequitor. It may be true, but it doesn’t necessarily follow.

I’m not trying to defend him, just pointing out that the focus on age (when the girls were legal) is a rather washy subject. ETA I know one of the accusations is he tried to sexually assault a minor under the age of consent and that I strongly condemn.

Shrunk wrote:I agree that the issue of power imbalance does not apply here. Becoming a DA does not involve taking an oath of celibacy.

There are more than enough real reasons to convict Moore of 1st Degree Douchebaggery. We don't need to invent fictional ones.

willhud9 wrote:

The_Piper wrote:The power imbalance was that Moore was a district attorney. Purplerat's other example of teacher/student. The teacher is in a position of authority. Doctor/patient is another example. Employee/employer. Because the person in authority can influence someone who doesn't want to sleep with them by threatening an action...firing, failing, etc. They can influence without threatening too. Someone who doesn't dare tell their boss no for fear of reprisal. That sort of thing.
There are 13 years between my own parents, but my mother was in her 20's, so not a problem.

That’s an assumption of guilt though.

Again there is no objective qualifier to determine that there is a power imbalance.

If my teacher wanted to have consentual sex and I agreed to it that is perfectly okay.

If my teacher failed me because I refused to have sex that is not okay.

If my teacher passed me because I had sex that is not okay

If my boss wanted to have sex with me and I consented that is okay.

If my boss fired me because I refused to have sex that is not okay.

If my boss promoted me because I had sex that is not okay.

People can and do have sexual relationships without directly affecting the area in which they are responsible for.

In June the board restricted Gerber’s practice pending Tuesday’s hearing, ruling that he could not practice out of his home or without a chaperone.

The decision resulted from information that Gerber was practicing out of his home and had a sexual relationship with a female patient. As conditions of his probation, Gerber must have an adult chaperone present when he treats or examines a female patient, must notify the board of his practice locations, must undergo a psychological examination, take a board-approved ethics and boundaries class, obtain a practice monitor and pay a $1,500 civil penalty.

K. The other person, not the actor's spouse, is a student enrolled in a private or public elementary, secondary or special education school, facility or institution and the actor is a teacher, employee or other official having instructional, supervisory or disciplinary authority over the student. Violation of this paragraph is a Class D crime; [2015, c. 509, §2 (AMD).]

U. The actor is a psychiatrist, a psychologist or licensed as a social worker or purports to be a psychiatrist, a psychologist or licensed as a social worker to the other person and the other person, not the actor's spouse, is a current patient or client of the actor. Violation of this paragraph is a Class D crime; [2011, c. 691, Pt. A, §14 (RPR).]

purplerat wrote:

Shrunk wrote:I agree that the issue of power imbalance does not apply here. Becoming a DA does not involve taking an oath of celibacy.

There are more than enough real reasons to convict Moore of 1st Degree Douchebaggery. We don't need to invent fictional ones.

I disagree. Obviously, there is no oath of celibacy but I don't think that - as Kellyanne Conway of all people made a good point of - it's not wrong to expect more out of public officials. Like not trolling malls for minors to fuck. So maybe it's not a formal power imbalance but you could say the same of much of the stories coming from Hollywood as of late.

purplerat wrote:

willhud9 wrote:I guess but that power imbalance could be said to apply to anyone “under” the DA. If a DA came to me and wanted to sleep with me and we are only a few years apart why is that not a power imbalance? Should we just tell people not to date/sleep with DA’s just as a general rule because it’s not clear what the power balance is?

The concept that because they are teenagers and he is the DA that there most likely is a power imbalance is a non-sequitor. It may be true, but it doesn’t necessarily follow.

I’m not trying to defend him, just pointing out that the focus on age (when the girls were legal) is a rather washy subject. ETA I know one of the accusations is he tried to sexually assault a minor under the age of consent and that I strongly condemn.

Not to sound too pedantic but it's not about them being teenagers but rather that they are minors. If we were talking about 18 and 19-year-olds then I'd pretty much agree with you. They are full adults under the law so while it might be off-putting it's no different than him seeking women closer to his own age.

I anticipate that you'll want to respond that age-of-majority is just an arbitrary line. But it is a legally defined parameter and thus valid when judging ethical behavior, especially of a member of law enforcement. Because when it comes to situations like this it's not just whether he actually abused his power. Simply putting himself in a situation where it was such a potential problem is of itself a problem. It's really just a basic issue of ethics. He shouldn't be putting himself or those minors in such a position even if he really believes it's not a problem. Just don't do it. That he couldn't help himself screams of bigger problems even if the kids were of legal age of consent and he really didn't abuse his power.

purplerat wrote:

Shrunk wrote:I agree that the issue of power imbalance does not apply here. Becoming a DA does not involve taking an oath of celibacy.

There are more than enough real reasons to convict Moore of 1st Degree Douchebaggery. We don't need to invent fictional ones.

I disagree. Obviously, there is no oath of celibacy but I don't think that - as Kellyanne Conway of all people made a good point of - it's not wrong to expect more out of public officials. Like not trolling malls for minors to fuck. So maybe it's not a formal power imbalance but you could say the same of much of the stories coming from Hollywood as of late.

willhud9 wrote:How is that man an attorney?

Project Veritas, an organization run by conservative activist James O’Keefe, appears to have been get caught trying to pass false sexual misconduct allegations against Senate candidate Roy Moore to The Washington Post, extending its history of deploying deceptive tactics to try to ensnare news organizations in controversy.

The newspaper reported Monday that a woman who falsely told its reporters she had been impregnated by the embattled GOP candidate as a teenager was seen entering the offices of the organization in New York, seemingly tipping the group’s hand in its efforts to bait The Post into publishing uncorroborated accusations against Moore.

After a series of interviews with the woman, The Post report said, the newspaper opted not to publish the explosive yet unverified claims. It noted that during the meetings, the purported accuser repeatedly solicited the reporters for opinions on whether her claims would damage Moore in Alabama’s special election on Dec. 12.

Moore, a former chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, is locked in a struggle for political survival after a spate of recent allegations of sexual misconduct with minors when he was in his 30s.

Project Veritas released a series of videos Monday depicting interactions between Post reporters and O’Keefe at the group’s headquarters. In several clips, Post reporters can be seen approaching members of Project Veritas. The members ignore the reporters’ questions, instead hinting at a string of damaging videos the organization promises to reveal.

Project Veritas later on Monday began posting unverified interactions between the organization and members of The Post. The videos refer to the newspaper as the “American Pravda,” a reference to the news arm of the former Soviet Union.

Led by O’Keefe, the organization is known for carrying out hidden-camera interviews in which it looks to lure members of established news outlets into making supposedly compromising ethical statements. It has been criticized for deceptively editing footage to misrepresent the subjects’ comments.

Calilasseia wrote:All of which, of course, makes it even more difficult to investigate any genuine claims against Moore. Because Moore can now turn round and claim that people are out to get him via dirty tricks, whilst hoping no one will notice that the dirty tricks in question were aimed not at him, but at journalists tracking Moore's conduct.

Shrunk wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:All of which, of course, makes it even more difficult to investigate any genuine claims against Moore. Because Moore can now turn round and claim that people are out to get him via dirty tricks, whilst hoping no one will notice that the dirty tricks in question were aimed not at him, but at journalists tracking Moore's conduct.

I don't see how that follows. If anything, this shows how the Post's vetting process was thorough enough to screen out false allegations.

Not that such logic will work on Moore's supporters, of course.

willhud9 wrote:What makes 8 or 10 or 15 years any different? What level does it become “not creepy” or “not a power imbalance?”

Teague wrote:

willhud9 wrote:What makes 8 or 10 or 15 years any different? What level does it become “not creepy” or “not a power imbalance?”

When the person you're dating is old enough to be an adult and you're both on a level playing field. What's the difference between a 30 year old women dating a 70 year old man or a 16 year old girl dating a 70 year old man. Both have a massive age gap but I don't need to tell you that the 30 year old most people wouldn't really give a shit about as she can make up her own mind.

Rumraket wrote:

Teague wrote:

willhud9 wrote:What makes 8 or 10 or 15 years any different? What level does it become “not creepy” or “not a power imbalance?”

When the person you're dating is old enough to be an adult and you're both on a level playing field. What's the difference between a 30 year old women dating a 70 year old man or a 16 year old girl dating a 70 year old man. Both have a massive age gap but I don't need to tell you that the 30 year old most people wouldn't really give a shit about as she can make up her own mind.

It seems to me you can make up your own mind regardless of age.

The issue is more that it is easier to manipulate very young people because they lack experience and often times can't reason all that well. But you can certainly still make decisions that really are yours.

But in truth that also makes it a vague judgement call, because some people mature and learn from their experience very very slowly, and even at 25 or 30 are still quite naive, while others are rather intelligent and catch on quickly, and by 18 are pretty much adults. Some people have a great social intelligence and understand relationships and emotional and social consequences well, and others are quasi-autistic meat-robots and just can't compute how the hell humans and their social interactions work.

While both of those are extremes and outliers, and we like to err on the side of caution here for very good reasons, the fact that these people exist also means we can't just dismiss in knee-jerk fashion, any and all relationships between people with large age-gaps as being inherently ones of imbalance, or based on malice and manipulation.

All that said. Roy Moore is a creep and it is disgusting to see the extreme hyprocricy and excuses that many evangelicals and other socially conservative "family values" people make for him. Some people just are absolutely immune to any introspection, irony, and hypocricy. They're words and concepts without referents in their world.

the fact that these people exist also means we can't just dismiss in knee-jerk fashion, any and all relationships between people with large age-gaps as being inherently ones of imbalance, or based on malice and manipulation.