Althouse: "She was 17 when I met her, and... we've been married now almost 42 years."

November 23, 2017

"She was 17 when I met her, and... we've been married now almost 42 years."

Let's think about Franni Bryson. Here's Al Franken, last June, talking about the love of his life:

209 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 209 of 209

Inga...Allie Oop said...: “Looks like their families don't much care for them {Toothless and Inga], either.

Non-stop blogging on Thanksgivings. Two lonely, lonely people...”

Excuse me? My last comment was at 11:50 AM. Now I’m off to bed secure in the knowledge that my family likes me far more than yours do you. It was a lovely Thanksgiving!; 11/24/17, 1:39 AM
Bruce Hayden said...: “My basic rule of thumb:
one accuser - 50-50 chance telling the truth
two unrelated accusers - 85 percent chance they are telling the truth
three or more - 95% plus they are telling the truth”

The problem there is determining that the two or more accusers are unrelated. When sexual harassment and even sexual assault allegations come in waves or batches, their independence is suspect. Not rebutted, but suspicious.

Maybe I am a bit sensitive here, but was accused by two women of sexual harassment because I was supposedly looking at their breasts instead of making eye contact. My female boss, at the time, ritualistically intoned that women know these things. Turns out that one of them was a lazy secretary who went around talking to attys in order to avoid work, and the rest of the secretaries had to cover for her, as a result. I wasn’t making eye contact to avoid becoming part of her excuse for laziness because I was protecting my secretary from having to do her work. They were taking the allegations seriously because they had two accusers. Who was the second one? A docketing clerk who worked at the opposite end of the office, whom I saw rarely, and talked to even less frequently. Dumb, fat, and married. At least the first one had been a cheerleader 20 years earlier. I wasn’t making eye contact with the second one because she mostly didn’t register on my radar.

85% likely sexual harassment with two accusers? No, because they weren’t unrelated. No doubt they cooked up this scheme to harm me at lunch one day, because, of course, they ate lunch together every day. The first one was offended by my refusal to treat her almost as a peer (so that she could avoid work, putting it on my secretary), and thought that I was vulnerable. And the second did whatever the first one did or wanted her to do. And, I wasn’t as vulnerable as she thought I was. I Immediately brought the situation to my secretary, who quickly was able to identify the perps and their motives. Turns out that women in an office gossip and tend to know what is going on. I went back to my boss the next day, told her who my two anonymous accusers were, why they were doing it, offered exculpatory witnesses (e.g. my secretary and the other male attys), and that if their complaint were made formal, that I would counterclaim against them for sexual harassment. The two wisely backed down.

Funny part of the whole story was that when my boss first told me that there were two accusers, I figured that she was one of them, and that maybe the second was another of the attys with whom I worked with a lot, who was married to the guy with the office next door. But then realized that it couldn’t be when she said it involved looking at their chests, and she was pretty flat chested. Well dressed, slim, toned, bright, articulate, a very good attorney, the right age, and single (my two accusers were both married). She was out of my league, but I couldn’t help but be attracted to her, which is why I figured initially that she was one of the accusers, that I hadn’t managed to keep that attraction under control.; 11/24/17, 3:19 AM
Bruce Hayden said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 11/24/17, 3:59 AM
Bruce Hayden said...: The corollary of my last post is that women do lie about sexual harassment. We were told, before BJ Clinton was exposed, that women should be believed because they would never lie about something like sexual harassment. Something that important. But, of course, most of even the most avowed feminists knows deep down that women lie, because that is how they grew up, with the drama of girls continuously lying about each other. This is part of how they bully and vie for dominance, esp in middle school. Smart women develop a circle of loyal friends whom they can trust. But that isn't always that easy. I tend to end up with women who were the objects of that bullying in school. My partner was probably the prettiest girl in school, one of the smartest, but was extremely shy and introverted. Which made her a natural target of such bullying. Almost a half century later, she is still highly cynical about female veracity. (Let me add that she had two sisters and raised two daughters). The standard that she applies to these claims of sexual harassment is how similar and how different they are in regards to one given alleged sexual harasser. The claims against Roy Moore are not overly credible to her because of their simularity. Almost cookie cutter. But against Al Frankenstein (sorry, that was Apple spellcheck) and Bill Clinton, they are, because the alleged instances extend over a period of time and are different enough. Of course, with Franken (fixed that one), we have photographic evidence of his doing it to two women - so far. With Clinton, the allegations extend from grad school through his stint in the White House, and from dropping trou through rape rape.; 11/24/17, 4:02 AM
Anonymous said...: "They were in Massachusetts, where the age of consent is and was 16."

Or we could just pick one set of rules and be consistent.

If the rule is "you're a monster if you date a 17-year-old", then why does it matter what the age of consent is? Dating a 17 year old in an "18-and-up" state is now morally akin to a speeding ticket: yeah, it's illegal, but you don't really believe it's wrong, so don't pretend you do.

If the rule is "you're a monster if you're twenty years older than your date", then say so, and be clear about exactly what age this rule is when it suddenly becomes okay to be twenty years older than your date (at some point, it's the younger person who is the evil one in a December/May romance).

If the rule is "kids can't consent", then don't say they can consent if it's a 19 year old but can't if it's a 30 year old. Be honest.

If the rule is "no dating anyone below the age of consent", we could actually try expecting everyone to live by that - and stop teaching kids it's okay to do otherwise, and start jailing teachers who take underage kids for abortions on the grounds that they're aiding abuse, or contributing to the delinquency of a minor, or whatever.

And by the way, it IS possible to teach kids that they shouldn't be having adult relationships until they're "(18/21/living on your own) or married, whichever comes first". Kids can and do respect this. I obeyed my parents; my child obeyed me; the girls in my dorm room who waited were much happier with their 'first time' than the ones who put out young. It is not unreasonable for a society to actually protect its kids, however unfashionable such a sentiment might be ATM.; 11/24/17, 7:19 AM
Anonymous said...: "They were in Massachusetts, where the age of consent is and was 16."

Or we could just pick one set of rules and be consistent.

If the rule is "you're a monster if you date a 17-year-old", then why does it matter what the age of consent is? Dating a 17 year old in an "18-and-up" state is now morally akin to a speeding ticket: yeah, it's illegal, but you don't really believe it's wrong, so don't pretend you do.

If the rule is "you're a monster if you're twenty years older than your date", then say so, and be clear about exactly what age this rule is when it suddenly becomes okay to be twenty years older than your date (at some point, it's the younger person who is the evil one in a December/May romance).

If the rule is "kids can't consent", then don't say they can consent if it's a 19 year old but can't if it's a 30 year old. Be honest.

If the rule is "no dating anyone below the age of consent", we could actually try expecting everyone to live by that - and stop teaching kids it's okay to do otherwise, and start jailing teachers who take underage kids for abortions on the grounds that they're aiding abuse, or contributing to the delinquency of a minor, or whatever.

And by the way, it IS possible to teach kids that they shouldn't be having adult relationships until they're "(18/21/living on your own) or married, whichever comes first". Kids can and do respect this. I obeyed my parents; my child obeyed me; the girls in my dorm room who waited were much happier with their 'first time' than the ones who put out young. It is not unreasonable for a society to actually protect its kids, however unfashionable such a sentiment might be ATM.; 11/24/17, 7:20 AM
Anonymous said...: "They were in Massachusetts, where the age of consent is and was 16."

Or we could just pick one set of rules and be consistent.

If the rule is "you're a monster if you date a 17-year-old", then why does it matter what the age of consent is? Dating a 17 year old in an "18-and-up" state is now morally akin to a speeding ticket: yeah, it's illegal, but you don't really believe it's wrong, so don't pretend you do.

If the rule is "you're a monster if you're twenty years older than your date", then say so, and be clear about exactly what age this rule is when it suddenly becomes okay to be twenty years older than your date (at some point, it's the younger person who is the evil one in a December/May romance).

If the rule is "kids can't consent", then don't say they can consent if it's a 19 year old but can't if it's a 30 year old. Be honest.

If the rule is "no dating anyone below the age of consent", we could actually try expecting everyone to live by that - and stop teaching kids it's okay to do otherwise, and start jailing teachers who take underage kids for abortions on the grounds that they're aiding abuse, or contributing to the delinquency of a minor, or whatever.

And by the way, it IS possible to teach kids that they shouldn't be having adult relationships until they're "(18/21/living on your own) or married, whichever comes first". Kids can and do respect this. I obeyed my parents; my child obeyed me; the girls in my dorm room who waited were much happier with their 'first time' than the ones who put out young. It is not unreasonable for a society to actually protect its kids, however unfashionable such a sentiment might be ATM.; 11/24/17, 7:21 AM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: I guess you had to be there.

Ok, so to recap - Tim Allen, Dennis Miller (later life)... Pat Sajak?

Any others?

Carlin's supposedly horrible/unfunny/offensive video gets at least 90% likes. Deal with it. I defer to him.; 11/24/17, 11:30 AM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: Excuse me? My last comment was at 11:50 AM.

Telling time might be a new skill for him.; 11/24/17, 11:34 AM