…and this is a 
When I read this opening to an article about a Republican politician, I knew instantly exactly where it was going.
Meet Tennessee state senator Paul Stanley. He's a solid conservative Republican and married father of two, who according to his website is "a member of Christ United Methodist Church, where he serves as a Sunday school teacher and board member of their day school." (Check out the religious imagery on the site -- the sun poking through clouds, as if manifesting God's presence -- which of course shows Stanley's deeply pious nature.)
Can you? Take a guess, then look below the fold.
In a sworn affidavit, a Tennessee state investigator has said that Stanley admitted to having a "sexual relationship" with a 22-year-old female intern working in his office, and to taking nude pictures of her in "provocative poses" in his apartment.
Hmmm. Maybe they've confused him with Starchild Paul Stanley of Kiss — there's no way a respected, staid conservative politician could ever so abuse his power to take advantage of young women, is there?
Politics
Comments
Posted by: lordshipmayhem | July 25, 2009 9:07 AM
Why do so many religulous of whatever woo seem to think that moral behaviour is only to be imposed on the athiest and agnostic? Should they not try to impose a moral code on themselves first?
Posted by: Andyman | July 25, 2009 9:07 AM
"— there's no way a respected, staid conservative politician could ever so abuse his power to take advantage of young women, is there?"
You're damn right there PZ, you're damn right.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | July 25, 2009 9:08 AM
When I saw that lede on Talking Points Memo, I had a strong hunch where it was going, but I was wrong - Mr. Stanley's partner in dalliance turned out to be of the opposite sex, and over 21 (barely).
Posted by: rhmc | July 25, 2009 9:08 AM
ah, yes. the sanctity of marriage and the moral majority.
Posted by: btj | July 25, 2009 9:09 AM
You need to start prefacing these with "Stop me if you think that you've heard this one before."
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 25, 2009 9:11 AM
But if you keep watching, it changes to a ladybug and then a passion flower. Oh, and a warbler.
Posted by: Gilgamesh | July 25, 2009 9:12 AM
With tiresome regularity, Mr. Stanley is a family values Republican who preaches abstinence. Perhaps he forgot to clarify that sex if OK if at least one of the parties are married.
He is also anti-gay, what else has he been doing?
Posted by: Zeno | July 25, 2009 9:14 AM
I heard that the Devil made him do it.
(Does that mean Limbaugh?)
Posted by: JefFlyingV | July 25, 2009 9:18 AM
Seems the Republican Conservative Christians are attaining new heights for hypocracy, are they part of an unannounced competition for moral turpitude? Another possibility is they are showing that they are not out of touch socially with the people of their community.
Posted by: Rick R | July 25, 2009 9:19 AM
Waiting for Faux news to put a (D) next to his name in 3...2....1....
Posted by: NewEnglandBob
|
July 25, 2009 9:25 AM
Hoisted with his own petard!
Posted by: Acronym Jim | July 25, 2009 9:26 AM
I didn't know state senators could join the C street "Family."
Posted by: PZ Myers | July 25, 2009 9:27 AM
It's not entirely due to being Republican, of course: Clinton and Edwards come to mind. It's just got higher contrast when the god-wallopers do it, and shows how irrelevant faith is to morality.
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
July 25, 2009 9:38 AM
He has no doubt asked God for forgiveness and, hey presto, gotten it!
Posted by: Merle | July 25, 2009 9:47 AM
What I want to know is, how the heck is "the sun poking through clouds" religious imagery?
Posted by: sasqwatch | July 25, 2009 9:49 AM
Considering the party affiliation and gratuitously displayed religiosity of the senator, I'm genuinely surprised his sex partner was 1) of consenting age, 2) female, and 3) alive.
Typekey not working... damn. Typekey seems to be unable to "find" scienceblogs. Grrr.
Posted by: Zeno | July 25, 2009 9:50 AM
Naked Bunny is right: Mr. Stanley needs to get one of those bumperstickers that says "Not perfect. Just forgiven." Very convenient.
And now he can send prayers to God on his iPhone.
Posted by: MadScientist | July 25, 2009 9:51 AM
@lordshipmayhem: Of course not! They're the only ones who will be saved (whatever that means) so they're excempt from decency. The godless and everyone with another god of course need to be saved and are inherently evil so they must be controlled according to calvinist notions.
Posted by: Tom | July 25, 2009 9:51 AM
Found this interesting.. a bill he co-sponsored. SB0078
Hope he doesn't mind us entering his bedroom/office since his laws enter ours.
Posted by: Terry
|
July 25, 2009 9:55 AM
That's the beauty of Xianism, one can err, or be human, or diddle your intern and god will forgive, only if one accepts it as one's personal savior. Look at Haggard, he's back in his house in Colorado and the darling of the Religious Right again.
Posted by: mr_subjunctive | July 25, 2009 10:10 AM
@Naked Bunny with a Whip: He has no doubt asked God for forgiveness and, hey presto, gotten it!
God is extremely understanding that way.
Posted by: ckitching | July 25, 2009 10:15 AM
So.... Did Fox news report him as a Democrat when they broke the news, as they've done so many other times in this situation?
Posted by: RamblinDude | July 25, 2009 10:23 AM
Yes, he’s a hypocrite and liar and sleazy and anti-science and bigoted, but he believes in Jesus. You see, that’s what’s important in our elected officials.
Posted by: Sara | July 25, 2009 10:29 AM
I'm shocked! I'm absolutely shocked!
He wasn't caught with a man?
Posted by: DuckPhup | July 25, 2009 10:29 AM
Posted by: Radwaste | July 25, 2009 10:30 AM
If this man was a Democrat, then he'd be excused, right?
Posted by: Jon | July 25, 2009 10:32 AM
Oh come on. Notice he belongs to the C.U.M. Church!!! What did you expect.
Posted by: Jafafa Hots | July 25, 2009 10:37 AM
I guess I can't criticize.
So he advocates abstinence, is anti-gay, and all of that, yet has sex with a young woman...
And I advocate having sex, am pro-gay, yet I'm not sleeping with anybody at all.
See, I'm a hypocrite too.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 25, 2009 10:39 AM
ha hahaha
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 25, 2009 10:46 AM
Zeno, I think that is both the dumbest and most brilliant iPhone app ever.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 25, 2009 10:48 AM
You aren't getting the point. The criteria for this criticism isn't the party label, but rather the hypocrisy of saying one thing, like saying religion causes one to behave in a more moral manner, and then getting caught doing what he said he was above. Democrats are far less likely to be worried about who is doing what to who in the privacy of their bed/hotel rooms, so they aren't caught in the hypocrisy as much as republicans and religious right.Posted by: Krystalline Apostate | July 25, 2009 10:50 AM
Daammnn, I thought it would be another anti-evolution bill. It's 50-50 around here, either a Republican's objecting to being related to primates, or behaving like 1.Posted by: Gonzo | July 25, 2009 10:55 AM
Is someone keeping track of how many pious right wing assholes get busted for philandering (with either sex) or drugs, etc.?
I'd love to see the numbers...
Posted by: Graham | July 25, 2009 11:05 AM
I could only stand to look at it for about 30 seconds or so. The words "Reliable", "Honorable" "Conservative" came up in the top banner. That's when I bailed. How do these people live with themselves?
Posted by: raven | July 25, 2009 11:09 AM
He is also divorced. His first wife filed a restraining order because he kept beating her up.
The new rule. "The straighter the arrow, the more likely the kink. For fundie xian politicians, it is all but inevitable."
This all came out because the boyfriend of the intern tried to blackmail him. Blackmail is illegal. I don't know his religion but if he is from Tennessee, likely to be another fundie xian.
Posted by: amphiox | July 25, 2009 11:10 AM
"If this man was a Democrat, then he'd be excused, right?"
No, but if he had not made an issue of his supposed moral upstandingness as part of the political plank that got him elected, then he would have been excused, regardless of his party. But, since he did in fact make an issue of it, he is now exposed not only as a hypocrite, but also a liar, and has in fact violated the unwritten contract with his electorate upon which he was elected. Thus, he no longer possesses any legitimacy as elected office holder of his position, and thus should resign or be forced to resign.
Clinton, on the other hand, made no such issue of his own moral and private conduct. In fact his philandering was well known and well documented well before he ever ran for president, and he was elected in spite of this (or maybe even because of it?!). Therefore his private moral conduct is irrelevant to his political position, and no issue need or should be made it.
Posted by: Mose | July 25, 2009 11:10 AM
That's not his first. His current wife, his second, was also a staffer with whom he had an affair. Which caused his first divorce...
Posted by: Hank
|
July 25, 2009 11:10 AM
#11 NewEnglandBob
No, no, NEB, you got it wrong. SHE was hoisted on his petard!!!!!!
Posted by: raven | July 25, 2009 11:13 AM
He is also divorced. His first wife filed a restraining order because he kept beating her up.
The new rule. "The straighter the arrow, the more likely the kink. For fundie xian politicians, it is all but inevitable."
This all came out because the boyfriend of the intern tried to blackmail him. Blackmail is illegal. I don't know his religion but if he is from Tennessee, likely to be another fundie xian.
Posted by: Randyman | July 25, 2009 11:14 AM
I like the fact that the dude's name is Paul Stanley. Sounds like he likes to rock n' roll all night, and party everyday!
Posted by: Rugosa | July 25, 2009 11:15 AM
Merle at #15 - the sun poking through the clouds is a common way of rendering an image of "god." I've seen similar illustrations in religion books, the catechism, "holy pictures," etc. Too many years of catholic school!
Posted by: raven | July 25, 2009 11:18 AM
The most pathetic of these Fake family value hypocrites is Mark Sandford of SC.
After getting caught and admitting numerous affairs, he spent weeks wandering around spouting bible verses like magic incantations. Like spouting bible verses is supposed to excuse or fix anything?
Posted by: drew | July 25, 2009 11:19 AM
wow another Republican affair with a person of the opposite sex. What's going on with those crazy repubs? Just when I get used to them all being closeted homosexuals now we have two back-to-back purely hetero cheating events. Strange things are happening these day.
Posted by: John M | July 25, 2009 11:24 AM
Sven @ #6
I'd be inclined to go with Vireo rather than Warbler - but my I/D of N.Am passerines isn't that hot.
Posted by: sikiş izle | July 25, 2009 11:25 AM
And I advocate having sex, am pro-gay, yet I'm not sleeping with anybody at all.
Posted by: seks | July 25, 2009 11:27 AM
Daammnn, I thought it would be another anti-evolution bill. It's 50-50 around here, either a Republican's objecting to being related to .
Posted by: Ramases | July 25, 2009 11:30 AM
One thing though...
Why is a Tennessee state investigator investigating this matter?
If she is 22 she is an adult, and if they were consenting why is it anyone else's business, whatever their politics?
Posted by: Jafafa Hots | July 25, 2009 11:30 AM
ukkk sikis, that's what *I* said.
Posted by: Andyman | July 25, 2009 11:47 AM
I wonder if Stanley was "made for lovin' her baby" on those "crazy crazy nights." On the other hand I suppose he just wants to "love it loud" and then decides to "lick it up" with his "Hard luck woman"
Posted by: Iris | July 25, 2009 11:55 AM
If she consented, why is it an abuse of power or taking advantage of this young woman? She's a 22-year-old adult. I find this view patronizing and condescending in the extreme, just as I did with Clinton's affair with Lewinsky. In that case, the adult woman was deliberately flashing her thong and, ahem, engaging herself with a cigar, among other voluntary sexual acts, all of which she apparently enjoyed. Details are scant, but it sounds like exactly the same thing here. Unless she was being sexually harassed and the attention was unwelcome, the idea that a consenting 22-year old woman is a victim is offensive. Painting Lewinsky as a victim was (and still is) a conservative talking point.
I agree entirely with the point about hypocrisy; I just see no need to frame the woman as a victim in order to make it. It would make no difference if she were older than him.
Posted by: Rev PJ | July 25, 2009 12:05 PM
Ramases @ 47
The state investigator is probably involved because of the extortion charge against the intern's boyfriend.
Because Stanley insists on promoting laws and behavioral norms that he is unwilling to comply with.
Posted by: JiminKy | July 25, 2009 12:11 PM
I'd say the abuse of power -and therefore the official investigation - comes from the fact that she was an intern in his office. That's like a corporate vice president using his clout to pressure the mailroom clerk into sex: potential coercion and sexual harassment.
Posted by: rev PJ | July 25, 2009 12:15 PM
Iris @ 50
I must have missed it, who claimed the intern was a victim? The TPM article certainly doesn't, and a quick read of the posts don't claim she's a victim either. PZ's comment,
, might give an impression that she's a victim, but I don't see it that way. She's a 22 year old intern, he's a state senator. In terms of professional conduct they're both in the wrong. Since Stanley holds a position of power over the intern he has violated normal ethical guidelines for interpersonal relations, and may well have violated the rules he works under. If I were to have `relations' with one of my students, some of whom are 22, I'd lose my job immediately. Boss-employee sexual relations are generally considered coercive, particularly when the boss is married to someone other than the employee.
Posted by: Noadi | July 25, 2009 12:24 PM
The guys was in a position of power over this girl. That makes it abuse of authority. Wouldn't matter if he was younger than her, he had control over whether she stayed employed or not.
Posted by: Logicel | July 25, 2009 12:27 PM
This behavior of a Christian sinner only proves to his fellow Christians that humans are innate sinners who need to repent, grovel, and rejoice in the light of god's forgiveness so they can rinse and repeat.
Since they get so high playing the very dramatic personal redemption game why would they ever be motivated to end the game? It feels so good to sin because you will feel even better when you are redeemed through god's love and forgiveness. In other words, to eventually feel fulfilled, you must at first sin!
They are not focusing on cultivating self-control, self-responsibility, and self-acceptance of their limits and how to cope with those limitations. They will never learn from their mistakes but remain in a vicious circle of deception and whitewashing their real problem of not accepting that they are responsible for their acts.
Posted by: Iris | July 25, 2009 12:33 PM
(Sorry if this is a double-post - got a weird error I have never seen before, and refreshed twice...)
lordshipmayhem @1
Those questions spring to mind readily enough, but I think the underlying assumptions are wrong. Religious conservatives do think their alleged moral standards are imposed on them - and should be, of course, because god wills it (or, more accurately, their trusted authority figures tell them that god wills it). Therefore, those same standards should be imposed on everyone else, too.
In their view, since all people are wretched sinners, and even we godly men can and do fall from grace and commit heinous sins, just imagine what those godless heathens are doing! Why, they're not even trying to be Christ-like, like I am! Imagine the perversion and wickedness going on in liberal homes!
This is why such galling hypocrisy doesn't even faze them. Despite no evidence, they are certain that everyone else is far more morally depraved, and remorseless to boot.
Posted by: cag | July 25, 2009 12:56 PM
Logicel @ #55: In order to have your sins forgiven there is one thing that you have to do, no exceptions.
You have to sin!
Posted by: Summitwulf | July 25, 2009 1:02 PM
I'll bet he regrets the banner...
'Reliable'
'Honorable'
'Conservative'
Hahahahahaha!!!!!!
How about:
'Unreliable'
'Dishonorable'
'Lying'
'Cheating'
'Scumbag'?
I'd like to see the background images for those...
Posted by: Revyloution | July 25, 2009 1:16 PM
Rameses at #47,
They need a state investigation because the affair was in his office during work hours. They might have also used state resources during the affair.
Posted by: DaveH | July 25, 2009 1:21 PM
Revyloution at #59
What?! Repugs have a bowl of free condoms on their desks???
Posted by: Iris | July 25, 2009 1:27 PM
rev PJ @53:
I do.
So?
I agree that it's unprofessional, and that there are some jobs with rules (like yours) where even consenting sexual relationships can result in sanctions, including immediate termination. If the Senator violated laws or ethics rules, he should of course be held accountable. However, not all boss-employee sexual relationships are automatically considered coercive. For instance, I've worked at Big Law firms where the policy is that if, say, a partner and secretary (or junior lawyer, or paralegal...) began a sexual relationship, one or the other are moved to a different department. The relationship is treated as consensual, not coercive, and the reason for splitting the two up is strictly for morale: it eliminates any perception of the boss showing favoritism toward his lover. (The boss being married to someone else has no bearing on coersion whatsoever. In fact, I would argue that the boss being married actually lessens the power disparity with the employee.)
Generally speaking, there are two types of illegal sexual harassment: a "hostile work environment," e.g. an environment of (unwelcome) sexual banter and jokes, and "quid pro quo," where an employee's opportunities for money or advancement are implicitly or explicitly conditioned on sexual favors. In that case, there is indeed abuse of power, and the boss could certainly be said to be "taking advantage of" the employee, who is the victim of a crime. All I am saying is that there is no evidence that is the case here, and that PZ's statement implied otherwise.
Posted by: Iris | July 25, 2009 1:37 PM
Jiminky @52:
No, it isn't. The fact that he has some power over an intern does not mean he abused it. You are apparently assuming there was "pressure," "potential coersion" (whatever that is) and "sexual harassment," but there is no evidence of this. (See my post @61, last paragraph re: sexual harassment.)
If I come on to my boss and he responds positively to my advances, is he abusing his power?
Posted by: Liveliest Crib
|
July 25, 2009 1:38 PM
lordshipmayhem @ 1:
According to the author that infiltrated the C-Street House, its residents have actually rationalized themselves into believing that they are god's elite. Morality is for the little people. Their job is to enforce god's word on everyone else, not to abide by it. Their special status puts them above the earthly morality that binds lower beings.
Posted by: earthbound01 | July 25, 2009 1:43 PM
Taking advantage of young women is more of a Gene Simmons thing than a Paul Stanley thing, I think.
Posted by: Sili
|
July 25, 2009 1:59 PM
I'm sure the GOP breathed a collective sigh of relief.Posted by: Timothy | July 25, 2009 2:31 PM
The only questions you can have with an article starting like that is if it's a boy or a girl and if they're underage. This is why everyone needs to vote for Democrats. At least there's some suspense there.
Posted by: Notagod | July 25, 2009 3:18 PM
If the christians had any value at all to society they would be demanding that C-Street be shutdown. Instead it is everything the christians had ever brayed for. Christians would probably worship terrorists as long as they sold christian handbooks during the off-season.
Posted by: KevinC | July 25, 2009 5:08 PM
So "conservative Republican" is the new "outlaw biker," who'd have thunk? Someone needs to make a movie where mom starts bawling as soon as her daughter comes home and says, "And this is Senator Johnson. He's a Republican!"
Posted by: Li'l Innocent | July 25, 2009 5:17 PM
amphiox@36 "Clinton, on the other hand, made no such issue of his own moral and private conduct. In fact his philandering was well known and well documented well before he ever ran for president, and he was elected in spite of this (or maybe even because of it?!)."
I've never forgotten the treatment of this point in "Fools for Scandal", Gene Lyons' great little book about the truly incredible incompetence of the national press when they descended on darkest Arkansas to "research" Whitewater in 92. Profoundly ignorant of Arkansan political culture - or Arkansan anything - they camped out in the main hotels and upscale bars in Little Rock and swallowed every rumor that came along.
Unfortunately for actual journalism or truth or anything, they didn't realize that scurrilous and obscene political lying is a traditional art form in Arkansas, the more outrageous the better. One candidate was not only rumored by his opponent to have fathered a child on an African-American criminal suspect, but to have done the deed in her prison cell.
Lyons writes that Arkansas voters know how to receive such information: if it's your candidate, it's lies, if it's the
other guy, it's probably true ... and anyway, he says he
suspects many Arkansans feel that a candidate who doesn't have a bit of rooster in him can't be much of a man.
Posted by: Aquaria | July 25, 2009 5:37 PM
Iris:
You've heard of gallows humor, right?
Posted by: 12th Monkey | July 25, 2009 5:54 PM
Gonzo #33: Is someone keeping track of how many pious right wing assholes get busted for philandering (with either sex) or drugs, etc.?
I'd love to see the numbers...
You know that's a great idea. You could even have different database queries run so you can break it down: sex, gay sex, drugs, booze, drugs AND gay sex, whatever. Sort of like a baseball hall of fame thing where you can look up stats on different players.
Posted by: Screamin' Demon | July 25, 2009 5:59 PM
Taking advantage of young women is more of a Gene Simmons thing than a Paul Stanley thing, I think.
Yes, it is. I remember reading a story about Gene Simmons in Circus or Creem or some rock mag in the Seventies. The author recounted Simmons showing off photo albums filled with Polaroids of all of his "conquests." Kinda pathetic, actually.
Posted by: 12th Monkey | July 25, 2009 6:04 PM
It feels so good to sin because you will feel even better when you are redeemed through god's love and forgiveness. In other words, to eventually feel fulfilled, you must at first sin!
Rasputin had a theology like that as I recall.
Posted by: pough | July 25, 2009 6:06 PM
It sure is. Doesn't he have enough money to invest in a proper camera?
Posted by: DLC | July 25, 2009 7:51 PM
pough @#74 : He hasn't... perhaps he should sue PZ for a camera, I hear that's very successful.
okay, I'm gonna Kwok away from this topic now.
Posted by: Heidi | July 25, 2009 9:40 PM
But Paul Stanley from KISS is cool. So no room for mistaking the guy on that front.
Posted by: cpsmith | July 25, 2009 9:50 PM
I was close. I guessed that he was caught having sex with another man.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 25, 2009 9:56 PM
No one from KISS is cool. That band ranks up with the most overrated rock bands in history. Only reason they are as popular as they are is that Gene Simmons is a fairly good marketer.
Posted by: cpsmith | July 25, 2009 10:11 PM
@Iris #61
I'm pretty sure sex with people who report to you at work is more or less universally frowned upon. Even at the summer camp where I work it was the rule until quite recently that the director, who is no older than anyone else and does not even have hiring/firing power, could not have sexual relationships with other members of the staff. S/he had to sign a contract to that effect. If the woman who actually does have the power to hire/fire here were to have sex with a staff member it would probably result in her getting fired. Seriously, you should not ever be having sex with people when you are in a position of significant power over them.
Posted by: Dahan | July 25, 2009 11:22 PM
"you should not ever be having sex with people when you are in a position of significant power over them."
What, so my wife can't fuck me anymore?
Posted by: Krystalline Apostate | July 26, 2009 12:18 AM
Yeah, they released a 'Best of KISS' CD recently. Blank disk. If I wanted to listen to noise, it'd be cheaper for me to put quarters in a clothes dryer & listen to that.Posted by: Krystalline Apostate | July 26, 2009 1:19 AM
BTW, seks @ 46 - your comment is very nearly a repeat of my prior comment @ 32. What gives?
Posted by: pough | July 26, 2009 2:11 AM
@82 - looks to be your usual SPAMmer. I see it all over this site. They cut and paste from another comment and their name is a link. It looks genuine unless you notice it's a duplicate.
Posted by: Midnight Rambler | July 26, 2009 7:12 AM
I never bothered to look this up for a long time, and figured from being able to be "hoisted" by it that a petard was some kind of medieval jockstrap. So I thought the phrase meant something like getting the worst wedgie ever, on account of your own actions. After that it was kind of disappointing to find out what a petard really was.Posted by: Midnight Rambler | July 26, 2009 7:14 AM
Sadly, I am in the same boat. Does all this mean that if I become a conservative Christian politician I'll get more ass?Posted by: Simon Scott | July 26, 2009 7:51 AM
Yup, I guessed right PZ. Do I win a creationist Ipod?
And to everyone dissing KISS - I'm sure theyre really upset, and will cry a river while counting their millions and having sex with their gorgeous women.
KISS is the world's most *misunderstood* band, Ill grant you that.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 26, 2009 8:30 AM
a "sexual relationship" with a 22-year-old female intern
I'm sure the GOP breathed a collective sigh of relief.
And the gay folks, too. You think we want these pieces of shit on our team?
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
July 26, 2009 8:43 AM
We'll take Stanley but you guys have to take Ted Haggerty and Senator Wide-Stance.
Hey, you're not a downtrodden, despised minority for nothing.
Posted by: Cathal | July 26, 2009 8:56 AM
"there's no way a respected, staid conservative politician could ever so abuse his power to take advantage of young women, is there?"
Perhaps that's not giving due credit to the young lady in question: maybe she made an informed decision to sleep with Senator Stanley, rather than being "taken advantage" of. She is an adult, after all.
Posted by: catsnjags | July 26, 2009 9:56 AM
BEST RESPONSE SO FAR....
********************************************
Dahan @ 80
"you should not ever be having sex with people when you are in a position of significant power over them."
What, so my wife can't fuck me anymore?
********************************************
That's a keeper!
Posted by: Joey Maloney | July 26, 2009 11:00 AM
I don't see the hypocrisy here. Stanley believes that only people who are married should have sex. He's married. So's his mistress. Show me where he says that sex is reserved for people who are married to each other.
Huh? Huh?
Posted by: blf | July 26, 2009 11:27 AM
I also never bothered to look it up until your post made me wonder just what a petard is. I had always assumed it as a nautical term for a flagpole or winch or pulley or something along those lines, where an accident could easy have the victim hoisted up into the air by his own pulling on the rope. That imagined definition is perhaps more amusing than the real one?
(Posted without Preview since SciBorgs is totally fecked…)
Posted by: Iris | July 26, 2009 11:30 AM
cpsmith @79:
I agree that it's a very bad idea, and that in many work places people can be sanctioned severely, including termination. However, in my experience it is not universally treated as coercive or as de facto sexual harassment. It's just inevitable that people will meet each other in the workplace, fall in love (or lust) and begin sexual relationships; some companies like the law firms I mentioned do not treat the relationship as coercive, they view it as consenting and then mitigate the potential for abuse and liability by transferring one of the parties to another department so that there is no direct report. All parties, including the company, are treated with respect, not condescension.
Again, I'm not saying it's a good idea - it's not - only that it is not necessarily coercion, abuse of power, or exploitation. And it's a bad idea precisely because it has the potential to be all those things. It's just a fact that some romantic/sexual relationships start between people who met at work, and those people can either choose to act responsibly and honorably within the framework of their professional situation which likely means one of them will change positions (no pun intended), or they can be reckless and irresponsible and suffer the consequences.
But how well it's handled personally and professionally after the fact is a digression. My point is that when such relationships start they are not necessarily an abuse of power; the subordinate just might be a consenting, autonomous adult.
Cathal @89 made the same point much more clearly and succinctly than I did.
Posted by: Paul Murray | July 26, 2009 12:20 PM
".. Stanley admitted to ... taking nude pictures of her in "provocative poses" in his apartment."
Eewww! The very thought of some republican senator in provocative poses! And taking nude pictures, no less! Somone pass me the lye - I have to scrub my eyeballs.
Posted by: JT | July 26, 2009 1:30 PM
Again with the pro-family republicans getting caught in an affair.
I mean liberals never seem to have these secret vices that demonstrate total hypocracy:
I mean its not like Richard Dawkins is secretly a Christian flagellant. Howard Zinn doesnt secrety do War of 1812 reenactments. Noam Chomsky dooesn't watch America's Next Top Model.
Yet, it seems to be par for the course for the Repubilican party.
Posted by: Petzl
|
July 26, 2009 3:44 PM
Damn, I got it wrong.
Are there any lovely parting gifts?
Like, Creation: The Home Game, or some such?
Posted by: Captain Obvious | July 27, 2009 5:20 AM
How does one go about becoming a conservative politician?
I feel I am highly qualified for the position - I am capable of spewing hypocritical drivel on a near constant basis and have strong urges to, erm, "help" as many attractive 20-something year old women with their "careers" as possible. Yes.
Posted by: Aquaria | July 27, 2009 5:37 AM
No one from KISS is cool. That band ranks up with the most overrated rock bands in history. Only reason they are as popular as they are is that Gene Simmons is a fairly good marketer.
Seconded.
Nobody cool liked Kiss in the 70s. For crying out loud, they often showed up in 16 and Tiger Beat magazines alongside Shaun Cassidy. 14 year old girls used to argue about which Kiss member was the cutest (and of course their choice covered their walls).
Made me fucking gag when my friends would do that.
Anyway, anybody who was in 16 was not cool.
Posted by: Zarathustra | July 27, 2009 9:39 AM
Hmph... I was under the impression that conservative christian men in positions of power were more into boys.
Posted by: rob | July 27, 2009 11:05 AM
the christ united methodist church? let's see, what would be the acronym for this church?
hmmm...
C.U.M. church.
i guess that that explains it all...
Posted by: Twilight | July 27, 2009 12:34 PM
Darn! I thought it was going to be a meth-dealing gay hooker.
I always get my preachers and Rethuglicans mixed up.
It's so hard to figure out what the difference is.
Posted by: malkie | July 27, 2009 12:34 PM
drew @43 says:
"Just when I get used to them all being closeted homosexuals now we have two back-to-back purely hetero cheating events."
They'd need to be contortionists too - I mean, if you're back to back, how do you manage to do anything interesting?
Posted by: Tremulous | July 27, 2009 11:23 PM
Hey, I'm just really impressed that PZ's heard of Paul Stanley. Maybe we could introduce him to Billy Gibbons sometime soon. Haaaaaa!
Posted by: firemancarl | July 29, 2009 4:14 PM
I wish i would have read this entire post earlier. The 22 year old is from right here in Daytona Beach. Well, actuall Port Orange..where I live!
http://www.news-journalonline.com/NewsJournalOnline/News/Local/newEAST03072909.htm