|Quoting Superfly (Reply 39):|
Also, why is the word "scandal" always associated with "sex"?
The guy hired a prostitute. The governor got laid. Big deal!
If, what he did, was done outside Nevada, he should be charged with that crime. Soliciting, I would imagine. It happens. People do it. If he is guilty, pay the fine, do the time and move on.
But I wonder why, lately, Dems that are caught in sex scandals are caught with those of the opposite sex and Republicans (who scream they are moral) are caught with anything other than those of the opposite sex? Just wondering out loud.
|Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 75):|
If the person in the next stall was all for "toe-tapping" and more, it would then fall under "consensual sex between two adults". Unless Elliot is on a first-name basis w/some prostitutes, they'd be no more/less strangers than if he met in them in a restroom.
I am not condoning either action, but it seems a bit more moral to hire a consenting adult than toe tapping in a public restroom. What little I know about the business in Nevada, the women are interviewed and are able to give clients what they want. There is some background before the encouter ever takes place. As for a bathroom encounter, no one ever knows what is in the next stall; anything from a 10 year old to a 85 year old, 350 pound pre-op. Legaly, the governer needs to be punished if he broke the law. Morally, he and his wife need counceling and everyone else needs to stay out of it. It took reading through three different articles before I found out this guy is a Democrat. Does it matter which side of the aisle a person is from in a case of consenting adults? I think not.
Fumanchewd: Clinton and Spitzer are apples and oranges. Clinton did not pay for it. Therefore, it was perfectly legal. Morally, it was wrong, but legally, it was consenting adults doing what consenting adults consented to do.