salvador.hardin: ox45tallboy: salvador.hardin: Sorry, I remembered it as "keep your hands off my vagina" or something similar. Of course, unless you would have a problem with that particular phrase and not with the one she said, then the error isn't really relevant. It also doesn't change the fact that it makes a world of difference whether this censure was for the use of the word Vagina (which is the presumption of this response), and whether the censure was for its reference to another legislature and her vagina. One more time, the distinction does not make the censure more defensible (well, maybe just a little bit), but it certainly affects whether this response (which is clearly based on the presumption that the problem is with the use of the word vagina), is proportional.

Lets try thinking of this in another way. Pretend you are in management wherever you work and a female subordinate comes to you and complains that another coworker (a coworker who recently lost a promotion because of her ruthless office politicking) approached her and said "I know you are interested in my penis." Would you laugh her out of your office and tell them her she needs to be thick skinned, or would you call HR.

Did she initiate the conversation by attempting to pass mandatory circumcisions for all men covered by the company health plan?

1. No, she didn't. She did some very unfair things to him that cost him a promotion, he said "I know you are interested in my penis." Do you address the possibility that it is sexual harassment or do you laugh her out of your office and say good for him, you deserved it?

2. Yes she did. She attempted to change the company's health care plan to require mandatory circumcisions, then he said to her "I know you are interested in my penis." Do you address the possibility that it is sexual harassment or do you laugh her out of your office and say good for him, you deserved it?

I just don't think that a politician speaking in open conversation in a recorded conversation about public policy matters is quite the same as sexual harassment on the job site. As far as I can tell, none of the other people in that room were at risk of losing their jobs because of her remark.

Just so you know, sexual harassment cannot be a single remark. It either has to be a repeated pattern of harassing behavior, or a sexual comment in the context of losing one's job. Just saying "I know you're interested in my reproductive organs," is NOT sexual harassment. Neither of your examples are sexual harassment.

FloydA: I still don't understand the censure, can any of our resident Republicans explain that?

there's no rational explanation for it.

She should read the VAGINA Monologues into the House record.

StormnMormon: Oh really? Say. Isn't that the play where the 13 year old gets raped, but because it's a woman who does it "it's good rape?"

And finally, Mrs. Representative, I'm flattered that you're so interested the vagina monologues, but 'no' means 'no.'"


/Sorry, couldn't resist the lowhanging fruit.

Ah, you work for those whores over at the Cardinal Newman Society. I'm guessing you've never seen nor heard the Vagina Monologues, because otherwise you wouldn't take "Little Coochie Snorcher" so out of context.

Gyrfalcon: StormnMormon: Oh really? Say. Isn't that the play where the 13 year old gets raped, but because it's a woman who does it "it's good rape?"

And finally, Mrs. Representative, I'm flattered that you're so interested the vagina monologues, but 'no' means 'no.'"


/Sorry, couldn't resist the lowhanging fruit.

Ah, you work for those whores over at the Cardinal Newman Society. I'm guessing you've never seen nor heard the Vagina Monologues, because otherwise you wouldn't take "Little Coochie Snorcher" so out of context.

Some men are too insecure to see it.

/my mistake was sitting in the front row