With the absence of clearly defined, pre-determined punishments we are in full agreement on the 2nd paragraph.
As far as the 1st paragraph goes, there are definitely areas where I see your stance. I just don't want to go there for that part.
....so theres some ugly stuff floating around about Mark Perry
- Thread starter The Vak
- Start date
As far as the 1st paragraph goes, there are definitely areas where I see your stance. I just don't want to go there for that part.
Sweet, now I am being told what I have said and what I basically mean. My day is complete. I made someone take too mnay drugs and talk to themselves and now have the obligatory internet post telling me what I have been saying.
Whoa. I'm not wrong. If ANYONE, man or woman - aggressively wants to exchange "favors" (sexual, monetary or otherwise) for favor of any sort - that's a bribe. The person taking a bribe is wrong. Full stop.
If a woman/man/they is pursuing the person in power - the person in power is completely at fault if they succumb. There are policies in place that set "blame" at the appropriate level. A subordinate/athlete is aggressively pursuing the person in power? You report it. Immediately. You make it public and you had better have shown proper due restraint in all other interactions prior.
So nothing about comments from @The Vak suggesting this involves multiple women and minors? Does he know something or is he just repeating what he read from the mouthbreathers on Fester's board?
I believe I fall into the category of saying there is a big difference between being labled a sexual predator and making innapropriate/ill advised decisions. I would take it a step farther and say it has very little to do with him being a man, but someone in a position of power or authority. A woman can fall into that category and it's certainly not unheard of that innapropriate actions are done.
I wasn't debating your "bribe" comment. So Full Stop. I was disagreeing with your comment that if a woman (in this case a subordinate) used her sexuality to try and influence her boss, then the boss is in the wrong. Harassment can go both ways and that is a legal fact.
Every USA wrestling coach from the smallest club to RTC does Safe Sport training. Its spelled out well.
Exactly. If she tries. It's harassment. If the boss, even if the subordinate is the pursuer, gives in - he's in the wrong. Period. Always.
I'm repeating what was said by other parties professing to be in the know. After my last mishap, I try to limit it to people I have multiple interactions with that I know to be normal, level-headed folk.
A whole lot of self-righteousness in this thread
Probably depends on your definition of "wrong." Wrong from a legal standpoint - probably not. Wrong from a workplace ethics standpoint - probably yes. Really depends on a written code of conduct if included in the workplace handbook. If it's not included, then it's all a matter of personal judgement.
I'll let you know I had somebody reach out to me privately just in the last hour and tell me that they have no problem with me telling you guys that none of the allegations involve minors as far as they're aware. I can't say who it is, but I can tell you definitively it is NOT Mike Parrish who told me that.
I am totally convinced that there is no more stubborn poster on this forum than MSU. Well thought out? Yes. Well spoken (typed)? Yes. Stubborn? Absofreakingslutely!
Can we get the thread back on track here and further dissect MSU158s stance on all aspects of the situation?
A
anon_0pi0cv8t1ggvb
Guest
I can think of a guy who cheats and holds the bible upside down, yet somehow dominates the Christian vote. The hypocritical moral outrage these days is quite tired.
A
anon_0pi0cv8t1ggvb
Guest
Well this is simply not true. If the person is over 18 and wasn't coerced, consent can be given. Still could be inappropriate and unacceptable in an organization but it's certainly not criminal. Taking your statement as a fact would mean that every single instance of a sexual relationship between an employee and their boss would equate to rape. That's insane and absurd.
Just grab them by the p***y were his words on the subject.
Last edited:
A
anon_0pi0cv8t1ggvb
Guest
Nah. By your logic, it's rape. It doesn't become rape just because it's a coach and an athlete. That's absolutely insane reasoning.
Although I agree with your complimentary tone(flattery before insult goes a long way with me), I simply cannot be the most stubborn on here. Near the top? For sure. But, Spooner and JS have me beat hands down and it really isn’t debatable!!
Don’t sell yourself short. The past two days you’ve done yoeman’s work to put yourself in the conversation.Although I agree with your complimentary tone(flattery before insult goes a long way with me), I simply cannot be the most stubborn on here. Near the top? For sure. But, Spooner and JS have me beat hands down and it really isn’t debatable!!
This is true unless you work at Don Draper’s add firm. Then you can bang whoever you want.
Sadly, the Earth, nor Rome, were created/built in 2 days. I still have quite a ways to go to catch those 2 Behemoths!
You mean JC?Although I agree with your complimentary tone(flattery before insult goes a long way with me), I simply cannot be the most stubborn on here. Near the top? For sure. But, Spooner and JS have me beat hands down and it really isn’t debatable!!
Nope. I mean js8793. I don’t think I have witnessed him budge the slightest bit on here in any post. Meanwhile, there are actually plenty of times I have backed down on here…
Yeah, Trump is a big mouth turd and I don't believe is a Christian; yet, he gets my vote mostly for pro-life and secondly, for business understanding.
He does understand bankruptcy and the court system. And he’s one of the rare few to actually manage a casino into bankruptcy.
Trump was pro choice until he decided to move into politics. He said, "I'm very pro-choice" in a past Meet the Press interview. But granted, he got the anti-abortion judges appointed.
Business understanding? He's had 6 past bankruptcies. And 6 months ago, a jury found his Trump Organization guilty of 17 counts of criminal tax fraud. Also, he has a well documented history of not paying his hired contractors.
All successful individuals have their peaks and valleys. Yes, he has failed at some and thrived at others. He is a multi billionaire. You don't get that way without a business understanding. He knows how to play the system.
I understand that he probably was pro-choice. He isn't that way anymore and his SCJ appointments testify to that fact.
Not really. The historical fact is men have been in power, and so they have been the ones who could leverage a power imbalance.
I’m a coach and teacher and guess what I’m not trying to sleep with any students or athletes…so I can say that yes I have a feel of self-righteousness to do the absolute bare minimum. Some of these athletes and students are adults as well.
The difference here is the athlete is the subordinate, not the one in a position of power. If it was a female coach and a male athlete, that coach should be fired as well. You don’t have to be a google genius to find numerous instances of female teachers being fired for inappropriate relationships with students. Same thing…
Safesport training pretty much says ANY relationship other than coach to athlete dynamic is a no no to cover everyone's behind legal and criminally. Rumors can ruin reputations and careers, Mark should have known better.
Just remember this quote from a hearing “marriage is between a man and a woman, I can’t believe we are still talking about this.”.Joe Biden. So please don’t play this game of past indiscretions from any ethical high ground. Joe has got plenty himself.
Wondering if these debates could be resolved faster with an administrative law judge or a bridge .....
The laws should be enforced equally, but they’re not Media coverage should be objective, but it’s not. Argue that all you want.
Similar threads
