"The Man Who Slapped a Female Reporter’s Butt on TV is a Christian Youth Leader"

[PoetPhilosopher]

What I was taken aback by was you stating this, "Do we really want to see our tax dollars spent sending him to jail / keeping him there? I think he should be embarrassed, but the line needs to be drawn somewhere not to have every immature person in jail."

So, then you believe we should not consider it a violation of the law then, from what I hear here. "Boys will be boys", we don't need to hold them accountable. That is exactly what has been the problem all along. If we are not going to hold them accountable, then let's just make it legal, and men can grab women's butts, crotches, breasts, arms, legs, hands, feet, or whatever makes the man feel powerful and in control as a male.

And yes, he should be held accountable, especially when his only remorse is the he got identified, from what I've seen.

It should be illegal to the extent of people being sued for behavior like that, if it causes the person receiving it distress.

Also, for every tight law you make, there will be abuses of it. I've known of women not all there on medication who would make out with men willingly, then later on when it was over with, the man might do something horrible they don't like like cheat, which is horrible of them I know, but then the woman will make claims that the man assaulted her.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

It's basic human dignity and the expectation that others will respect my right to my own body. It's not there for a stranger's exploitation and jollies, male or female. And if a woman did that to me, she'd be in for one hell of a confrontation in response. Same thing for a man. Period.

Men are already sent to jail pretty much for everything they do. When a woman commits a horrible crime and it's the same crime as a man would, she gets given a lesser sentence over what a man would. If we do make it an arrestable offense, then let's make the male's trial as fair as a woman's. Give him like a couple days in jail for it.

 

[Windwalker]

Well, I think there's a huge difference between someone punching me in the face with the very hostile intent of doing bodily damage, as opposed to someone of the opposite sex demonstrating their lustful attraction. It may be inappropriate or awkward, but "hostile"? I just can't see it.

It is a violation and exploitation of one's own body for the purpose of another's desires. There is nothing appropriate about it. Children are taught this when they are under 5 years of age. Should it be considered hostile? Yes. If it is unwelcome, against your will, then that is hostile. They forced themselves upon you. That is the very definition of hostility. And that can take the form of a punch to the face, pulling off your pants and raping you, or forcibly grabbing your body anywhere, such as grabbing your crotch, butt, or breasts. It's all hostile actions. It's all a violation of your body by them.

I would look at it in terms of actual "damage." I get what you're saying about "violation of my person," but on the other hand, I don't consider myself some sort of monarch or prince who has to go around worried about "being touched" by some commoner.

This has zero to do with someone being prudish. No one is saying merely brushing up against you in a crowd is a problem. If a stranger grabs your body however, takes away your right of choice in the matter, for their own purposes, then that is a hostile action against you.

You will note that other people bumping up against her in the video did not distress her? It was only when Mr. Grabby Hands deliberating put his hand on her butt cheeks, that her face drained. That was a clear violation of her by that guy. Women are not grab toys for weak little boys.

 

[Earthtank]

.


Considering the abundance of sexually abusive religious leaders is anyone surprised? Of course not.

"Over the weekend, during the Savannah Bridge Run 10K in Georgia, a local TV anchor was discussing the race when the live camera caught one of the joggers slapping her [butt] as he ran by. The footage went viral both because of the shocked reaction on her face and the disturbing fact that the culprit, whoever it was, seemed to touch her so casually. Like it was a normal thing to do.

​

It didn’t take long for the internet to figure out who the man was. Through the images available and his racing number, the man’s identity was quickly discovered. And wouldn’t you know it, he’s a Christian youth leader.

Tommy Callaway of Pittman Park United Methodist Church has since been banned from all future Savannah Sports Council races. He fessed up to the actions, though his lawyer’s statement needs a lot of work.

While we regret the situation, Mr. Callaway did not act with any criminal intentions. Tommy is a loving husband and father who is very active in his community. We have been in touch with WSAV and representatives for Ms. Alex Bozarjian, as well as members of Savannah law enforcement. We do not expect any criminal charges to arise from this incident, and we are working with those involved to correct the situation.
​

Sure. Loving husband. Devoted father. Christian leader. And the sort of ******* who slaps random women on the butt because it’s just hilarious."
source​

It's almost as if such deviants are part and parcel of religion. The Christian religion anyway.

.

.​

.

The video was actually hilarious, not that i condone what he did but, just saying overall it was funny then, adding this Christian youth leader sent it over the top

 

[Shad]

I didn't watch the video, but I think the real issue is... she wants to press charges against him over it. Do we really want to see our tax dollars spent sending him to jail / keeping him there? I think he should be embarrassed, but the line needs to be drawn somewhere not to have every immature person in jail.

This was a minor misdemeanor. At best he will get fined and may have to finish some sensitivity and contact training. He is not going to jail for a slap on the butt of a stranger unless he has a record of doing this.

 

[Shad]

I rather doubt it. But so what? If women take it as an offense then it's an offense regardless of how a man would feel in a similar circumstance.

.

It is criminal offense regardless of how she feels.

 

[Earthtank]

It is criminal offense regardless of how she feels.

I am pretty sure if she's OK with it and does not press charges then, its NOT a criminal offense.

 

[columbus]

It is criminal offense regardless of how she feels.

Because it's a woman complaining.

If Callahan had smacked another dude, under the same circumstances, would there be an internet lynch mob howling? Or a lawsuit pending?

No. Nobody would have even noticed.

To me, this is another episode of the #MeToo feminazis talking out of both sides of their mouths. They want equality when that gets them what they want, and special rights when equality doesn't get them what they want.
Tom

 

[sealchan]

I have no idea what he said. I simply made an observation based upon my experience and observations.

A tempest in a teapot.

Its still a tempest in terms of the scope of this thread.

 

[columbus]

Its still a tempest in terms of the scope of this thread.

Only because the SJWs are in full throat.

Like when a kid wearing a MAGA hat was accused of assaulting a Native American.
Tom

 

[Skwim]

Which claim has proven false, so please retract your accusatory statement. NOT A YOUTH MINISTER, just a butt slapper.

You know I'm not dumb enough to simply take your word for it, so I await your proof. In any case, the window for making changes to a post has elapsed.

And the statement wasn't original with me, but came from my source, which should be apparent because it's in quotation marks. You know, these " " things.

.

 

[shmogie]

Its still a tempest in terms of the scope of this thread.

Not much of one.

 

[Stevicus]

It is a violation and exploitation of one's own body for the purpose of another's desires. There is nothing appropriate about it. Children are taught this when they are under 5 years of age. Should it be considered hostile? Yes. If it is unwelcome, against your will, then that is hostile. They forced themselves upon you. That is the very definition of hostility. And that can take the form of a punch to the face, pulling off your pants and raping you, or forcibly grabbing your body anywhere, such as grabbing your crotch, butt, or breasts. It's all hostile actions. It's all a violation of your body by them.

Well, first off, I clearly stated that it was "inappropriate," so I have no idea why you're implying that I said the opposite.

Horseplay is not the same thing as hostility. Hostility is determined by attitude, tone of voice, facial expressions, and perhaps the overall circumstances of the situation.

As for the definition, Definition of HOSTILITY:


Definition of hostility


1a: deep-seated usually mutual ill will
"glad to have gotten through the divorce proceedings without any visible signs of hostility"

"showed open hostility toward outsiders"

b(1): hostile action
"the Spanish expedition encountered hostility … and was forced to flee— R. W. Murray

(2)hostilities plural : overt acts of warfare : WAR

"Peace talks were stalled after recent hostilities."

2: conflict, opposition, or resistance in thought or principle
"there was tension, there was hostility and envy in the air"— Theodor Reik


Google's definition says "unfriendliness or opposition."

The guy didn't appear unfriendly or angry, so I see no evidence of hostility.

The violation is one thing. He broke the law, and he may be facing charges over this. A person can break the law without necessarily being hostile, so the "violation" is not in question and not what I was addressing. You asked questions not related to the law itself, but to people's reactions. This is what you asked:

Would you like some totally unknown stranger groping you? Would anyone?

To be honest, I don't think that most reasonable people would be quite so uptight about things like this, not like you and this reporter. Most reasonable people know the difference between a friendly slap on the butt and rape. Maybe you don't, but most people do. That's why there are different degrees of guilt, and some violations are treated more seriously than others. Criminal intent is also taken into consideration. Is there any evidence that this guy planned this crime weeks in advance? Was he stalking her? Did he have some personal grudge against her and was waiting for the right moment to do this?

This has zero to do with someone being prudish. No one is saying merely brushing up against you in a crowd is a problem. If a stranger grabs your body however, takes away your right of choice in the matter, for their own purposes, then that is a hostile action against you.

If someone steals from me, that's a far worse violation than a friendly butt grab. If someone yells at me on the street and calls me a name, that's a far worse violation (and more hostile) than a friendly butt grab. If a person cuts me off in traffic, that's a far worse violation than a friendly butt grab. In each instance, they're still taking away my choice, but they're not touching my body. If it's only a matter of "touching my body," with no damage whatsoever (and the person quickly leaves afterward), it really shouldn't be that big a deal.

Heck, the other day, I went to Walmart to buy a microwave oven. After I paid, I was stopped at the exit by one of the "greeters" who asked to see my receipt. THAT was a far more hostile act, since he inconvenienced me, he wasted my time, and he practically accused me of stealing. That is a far greater violation, and far more hostile than a friendly butt grab - even though it was perfectly legal and did not involve touching my body. But it was still hostile. Do you understand the difference?

You will note that other people bumping up against her in the video did not distress her? It was only when Mr. Grabby Hands deliberating put his hand on her butt cheeks, that her face drained. That was a clear violation of her by that guy. Women are not grab toys for weak little boys.

Yes, she looked like a princess who was shocked that a peasant dared to touch her. ("I'm a TV reporter. I'm special.") Or maybe she was worried about "cooties." Children eventually grow out of that stage, but it appears this reporter never did.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yup, but they're standards each has set for themselves. No one is imposing it on them.

.

I must be missing something here. I'll have to re-read this and get back to you.

 

[Salvador]

This sexual herasser should be put under house arrest where he'd be forced to keep his hands to himself, but he should still be allowed supervised visitations to Church or be temporarily relieved from house confinement in order to work. Also if need be, the sexual herasser should be legally obligated to pay for his sexual victim's post traumatic stress therapy.

 

[Sand Dancer]

.


Considering the abundance of sexually abusive religious leaders is anyone surprised? Of course not.

"Over the weekend, during the Savannah Bridge Run 10K in Georgia, a local TV anchor was discussing the race when the live camera caught one of the joggers slapping her [butt] as he ran by. The footage went viral both because of the shocked reaction on her face and the disturbing fact that the culprit, whoever it was, seemed to touch her so casually. Like it was a normal thing to do.

​

It didn’t take long for the internet to figure out who the man was. Through the images available and his racing number, the man’s identity was quickly discovered. And wouldn’t you know it, he’s a Christian youth leader.

Tommy Callaway of Pittman Park United Methodist Church has since been banned from all future Savannah Sports Council races. He fessed up to the actions, though his lawyer’s statement needs a lot of work.

While we regret the situation, Mr. Callaway did not act with any criminal intentions. Tommy is a loving husband and father who is very active in his community. We have been in touch with WSAV and representatives for Ms. Alex Bozarjian, as well as members of Savannah law enforcement. We do not expect any criminal charges to arise from this incident, and we are working with those involved to correct the situation.
​

Sure. Loving husband. Devoted father. Christian leader. And the sort of ******* who slaps random women on the butt because it’s just hilarious."
source​

It's almost as if such deviants are part and parcel of religion. The Christian religion anyway.

.

.​

.

Women are not viewed as equal to men in conservative religions. Ugh.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Women are not viewed as equal to men in conservative religions. Ugh.

There is a large divide.

In conservative beliefs, the women tend to not always be able to work for religious organizations / churches. The man is expected to be the head of the household. Nobody says anything about the universal fact that women get paid less at jobs.

In liberalism that is further left, the women assert themselves as the superior species, using the legal system to enforce this belief if necessary, and even if said women are straight, they'll constantly remind men that they can always swing for the other side, that they don't need men.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Because it's a woman complaining.



To me, this is another episode of the #MeToo feminazis talking out of both sides of their mouths. They want equality when that gets them what they want, and special rights when equality doesn't get them what they want.
Tom

Isn't that Limpbag term a little outdated?

 

[Sand Dancer]

There is a large divide.

In conservative beliefs, the women tend to not always be able to work for religious organizations / churches. The man is expected to be the head of the household. Nobody says anything about the universal fact that women get paid less at jobs.

In liberalism that is further left, the women assert themselves as the superior species, using the legal system to enforce this belief if necessary, and even if said women are straight, they'll constantly remind men that they can always swing for the other side, that they don't need men.

That view is not that of the majority of liberals. Those are leftists, not liberals generally.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

That view is not that of the majority of liberals. Those are leftists, not liberals generally.

You're right. Replace "liberalism that is further left" with "leftists".