12/21/24
December 20, 2010
Barkley: 'You Can't Send Small Junk': "My biggest problem with the whole Brett Favre thing is if you're going to send a woman a picture of your junk, it should be huge. You can't send small junk to a woman and expect anything. Seriously you have to be like Ron Jeremy or some of those other porn stars. If you send a woman a picture of your junk, it should be humongous, it shouldn't be small. That's one of the Ten Commandments." -- Charles Barkley
You can't send small junk to a woman and expect anything
so you can expect positive results from this approach if you have large junk?
posted by bdaddy at 05:07 PM on December 20, 2010
What do you think photo shop is for?
posted by Atheist at 05:25 PM on December 20, 2010
The voice of experience?
posted by graymatters at 06:13 PM on December 20, 2010
Hilarious. Farve busted for pictures of munchkin sized family jewels.
posted by irunfromclones at 06:21 PM on December 20, 2010
Barkley is not bashful talking about this because he's got a good place to go for photo ops back in Alabama.
posted by beaverboard at 09:00 PM on December 20, 2010
Eloquant as always.
posted by Bag Man at 02:12 AM on December 21, 2010
Yeah, so it's fine to send pornographic images of male body parts to females, as long as it's impressive in size? While sane individuals realize Barkley likes to be the funny guy, Charles himself needs to realize not everyone who listens to his humor probably thinks it is wrong to act in such a way. I guess we are to assume any of us can send these types of photos to women in Charles' life as long as we "measure up."
posted by dyams at 10:07 AM on December 21, 2010
Charles himself needs to realize not everyone who listens to his humor probably thinks it is wrong to act in such a way
Why is that Charles's fault? It's like posts you don't like: if you don't enjoy the content, skip it.
posted by jmd82 at 11:04 AM on December 21, 2010
I'd hate to live in a world where people stopped joking around to protect the simpletons who might take them seriously. Those folks should go piss up a rope.
posted by rcade at 11:21 AM on December 21, 2010
While sane individuals realize Barkley likes to be the funny guy, Charles himself needs to realize not everyone who listens to his humor probably thinks it is wrong to act in such a way
I take it that you haven't you figured out by now that Sir Charles doesn't really care if people like or don't like what he says, he's going to say it anyways. That's actually what makes him such an intriguing indivual
posted by BornIcon at 11:55 AM on December 21, 2010
If someone on this site made comments such as that when discussing Favre's situation, they'd be blasted by the majority of people who respond. But since it's comic genius Charles Barkley, we're all supposed to roll over laughing? Sex crimes are jokes, I guess, but I wonder if some clown with a huge crank was sending pictures of it to Charles' daughter if he'd change his tune. Any of you with daughters who experience how inappropriate guys can be towards them will change your tune, too.
Whether or not Charles cares about people liking what he says or not, he needs to still be able to stand up sometimes and admit the biggest dick is himself.
posted by dyams at 11:57 AM on December 21, 2010
The world would be a better place if everyone had a sense of humor like Sir Charles.
posted by reenum at 12:10 PM on December 21, 2010
Sex crimes are jokes, I guess..
I'm sure (or hope) that we all understand that sex crimes are to be taken seriously but what happened in Favre's case wasn't even close to being a sex crime.
posted by BornIcon at 12:42 PM on December 21, 2010
But since it's comic genius Charles Barkley, we're all supposed to roll over laughing?
Yes, or at least not hold him to the impossible standard that no one can give comically bad advice about anything serious if a simpleton might take them seriously.
Now you're shifting to the argument that jokes about sexting are never funny because of the mistreatment of women and because people have daughters.
There are plenty of comedians who say funny things about serious subjects. I think there's a place for that, particularly when this isn't an exceptionally serious matter in the first place. Favre sent a picture of his penis to a female sports reporter who never made a public issue of it -- it was revealed without her doing -- and didn't allege any kind of crime at all. Oh the horror! Mockery is over the line!
posted by rcade at 12:51 PM on December 21, 2010
what happened in Favre's case wasn't even close to being a sex crime.
What? Check out the federal laws concerning sexual harassment in the workplace, for one. As far as sending lewd photos of (a) (possibly his own) penis, etc. that is also against the law.
If you aren't sure and need more information, try this type of thing with a female or two you work with.
posted by dyams at 12:57 PM on December 21, 2010
BornIcon: Indecent exposure isn't a sex crime?
posted by evixir at 12:58 PM on December 21, 2010
"You can't joke about that because it's not funny."
posted by yerfatma at 01:03 PM on December 21, 2010
Whatever. Some of the things just brushed off on this site floor me. As for comedians, if I'm paying to see a actual comedian do a raunchy act, then I understand. Barkley makes comments as a analyst, a former NBA player, and "Charles doesn't care what people think" bullshit (unless it's something he doesn't like, then he goes ballistic). He says the same crap that many others have been fired or banned from the airwaves for, but I guess that's just the day and age we live in.
Since it's not a serious matter, and worth making jokes about, hopefully all your mothers get texts of big dicks from people they don't want them from for Christmas. As long as we don't joke about Michael Vick and dogs, everything else is fine.
posted by dyams at 01:09 PM on December 21, 2010
(a) (possibly his own) penis
I believe that's also one of the sexting ten commandments. Only send pictures of your own penis.
posted by tron7 at 01:17 PM on December 21, 2010
BornIcon: Indecent exposure isn't a sex crime?
Not if it was consensual or reported. She laughed it off and showed it to her friends.
If you aren't sure and need more information, try this type of thing with a female or two you work with.
Actually, I had a female co-worker who sent me a nude pic of herself and we dated for a bit. Worked out just fine for me.
Since it's not a serious matter, and worth making jokes about, hopefully all your mothers get texts of big dicks from people they don't want them from for Christmas.
Is this the part where we're supposed to feel offended because you brought moms into this?
Knowing my mom, she would laugh then show my sister who would laugh even harder.
posted by BornIcon at 01:19 PM on December 21, 2010
Actually, I had a female co-worker who sent me a nude pic of herself and we dated for a bit. Worked out just fine for me.
Knowing my mom, she would laugh then show my sister who would laugh even harder.
Which tends to prove one of my original points that many don't think there's anything wrong with that, which then tends to diminish the seriousness of supporting those who do think it's wrong and unwanted.
Also, her "laughing it off" would in no way keep it from being a crime if she wanted to pursue it as such.
posted by dyams at 01:49 PM on December 21, 2010
Some of the things just brushed off on this site floor me.
Here I thought we were the nice part of town. Where do you hang out that makes this look like a rough neighborhood?
The flasher with a trenchcoat is a pretty standard comedy trope and I'm not sure what makes this much different than that gag. It's funnier, I guess, so that's different. I'm struggling to see the dangers of making light of this. Maybe I'll see the light if I ever have daughters.
posted by tron7 at 02:14 PM on December 21, 2010
What makes me laugh is how people want to make more out of Barkley's comment then there really needs to be. He made a joke that some found to be funny while others did not. It's not the first or last time that we'll hear something out of Barkley's mouth that'll rile people up. Different strokes for different folks.
posted by BornIcon at 02:16 PM on December 21, 2010
Whether or not Charles cares about people liking what he says or not, he needs to still be able to stand up sometimes and admit the biggest dick is himself.
Actually I think Barkley has no problem admitting when he's a dick. Haven't seen to much weaseling from him when he gets called on something stupid.
That said I have no problem with him making fun of this. Satirizing the idiot on the wrong end of a potential sexual harassment case sounds like a fine suggestion, make the whole affair as embarrassing as possible. He isn't making light of the act, he's laughing at the actor.
posted by deflated at 02:21 PM on December 21, 2010
dyams:
If someone on this site made comments such as that when discussing Favre's situation, they'd be blasted by the majority of people who respond.
I think that unlikely, if it was clear that those responding were a)joking and b)not trivializing the matter. Also, don't fail to make the distinction between thinking that what Favre allegedly did is a real knee-slapper of a funny joke (i.e., Favre made a joke, ha ha that guy is such a card), and making a joke about Favre in the situation (i.e., Favre as the butt of a joke, wow does he ever look like a dufus).
Finally, I think in some of your comments here you're starting to blur between Favre's actions, Barkley's comments on them, and SpoFites' reactions to Barkley's comments. Obviously they're all very different.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 02:35 PM on December 21, 2010
lbb: I agree with you, my comments between the aspects of this are starting to blur. Mainly, my annoyance is with anyone, whether it Barkley or whoever, giving the impression this issue is funny. And I agree with deflated, in that Barkley isn't really "making light of the act, he's laughing at the actor." That's true. I guess it's Barkley's words stating, "My biggest problem with the whole Brett Favre thing..." That makes it sound as if he almost condones such behavior, whether he actually does or not (and I'm fairly sure he doesn't). But, going back to Barkley's "I don't care what people think of me" persona, he sometimes doesn't choose his words very well. When someone in his position is going to be quoted, and their comments picked up by media everywhere, he should be more responsible.
I doubt that will ever happen, though.
posted by dyams at 02:49 PM on December 21, 2010
I think his point is: If you're going to advertise, have a good product.
posted by LostInDaJungle at 03:42 PM on December 21, 2010
I guess it's Barkley's words stating, "My biggest problem with the whole Brett Favre thing..." That makes it sound as if he almost condones such behavior, whether he actually does or not (and I'm fairly sure he doesn't).
Yup. He gets points off for sloppy use of language (and I agree with you about what he probably meant by it).
I don't really follow Barkley, but I have to admit, the few times I've heard him comment, I've gotten the impression that he's a pretty smart guy (although maybe not one who bothers to refine his intelligence). For example, I remember when "I May Be Wrong" came out, he pointed out in an interview that when a rich CEO runs for a political office whose nominal salary is a tenth of his present one, the first question any intelligent person should think is, "Okay...so how is this guy planning on getting paid?" He's not a dummy, for sure.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 03:50 PM on December 21, 2010
Barkley is awesome. Dyams is a wet blanket. Enough said.
posted by DudeDykstra at 04:16 PM on December 21, 2010
What? Check out the federal laws concerning sexual harassment in the workplace, for one. As far as sending lewd photos of (a) (possibly his own) penis, etc. that is also against the law.
Sexual harassment is a civil matter, not a crime. Showing your privates to somebody you know is often not a crime. Ever mooned somebody? Your certainty that a crime happened here is interesting, given that there's no criminal prosecution and no talk of one.
posted by rcade at 04:43 PM on December 21, 2010
Brett Favre is like the flasher who contemplated retirement, but instead tried to stick it out a little longer.
OK, I'm not Charles Barkley, but you can't blame a guy for trying.
posted by Howard_T at 04:49 PM on December 21, 2010
Don't make me tell my "three old ladies and the flasher" joke.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 05:23 PM on December 21, 2010
The 1st one had a stroke... the 2nd one had a stroke... The 3rd one had arthritis and couldn't reach that far...
Sorry.
Since I was adamant on the initial Favre Texting thread that he most likely hadn't committed a crime, I'll stick with that. Nice to see a few of you come on board.
posted by dviking at 09:36 PM on December 21, 2010
Not if it was consensual or reported. She laughed it off and showed it to her friends.
she'd already confirmed it wasn't "consensual". And regarding the last point, so I can go stand out on the corner with a trenchcoat and flash joggers..as long as they laugh and tell their friends it's ok, I guess, right?
Your certainty that a crime happened here is interesting, given that there's no criminal prosecution and no talk of one.
only because she hasn't pressed charges. If she did it would be treated just like the pervert on the corner with the trenchcoat. I'm with dyams, I'm not seeing how you guys don't see the difference between what Favre did to her and the trenchcoat guys. I think what Barkley said was funny, and I wouldn't criticize him for saying something that I would say myself, but I'm a little surprised on the arguments that what Farve did wasn't a sex crime.
posted by bdaddy at 10:24 PM on December 21, 2010
only because she hasn't pressed charges.
If I take your car, I could be stealing it (a crime) or borrowing it (not a crime). It depends on the circumstances and our relationship. Sterger didn't file a criminal complaint, so this situation is not a crime. It could be sexual harassment, and that's reportedly how she felt about it in a meeting with the commissioner. But that's still not a crime. It's a civil matter.
Comparing unwelcome sexting between people who knew each other to a perv flashing strangers is off the mark.
posted by rcade at 11:21 PM on December 21, 2010
Given that this case has been prodded and probed by more lawyers than Howard Hughes' will, and no charges (criminal or civil) have been filed, it tells me that the case doesn't rise to that level. The league doesn't even want to issue any sort of suspension, which says a lot due to Sterger's ultimatium that she issued a couple of weeks ago. Too much is known for the league to be covering it up, why would they do that for Brett Favre, when a measly couple of game suspension would have made it all go away?
posted by dviking at 11:48 PM on December 21, 2010
Sterger finds herself in the position practically every other female finds themselves in when it involves a famous, well-know celebrity or athlete. Even if she does wish to pursue this, she pretty-much can write off her future in any capacity, because she'll be viewed as trouble and a liability. A person like Favre is someone with major power, and acting in this way is abusive of that power in a organization.
As for sexual harassment, or harassment of any kind, it can rise to the level of a crime if the person involved makes it clear that it's unwanted and it continues. I'm not sure this is the case in this situation, but the idea of it being OK if it's someone you know is far too simplistic. I know a lot of people, but running around showing my privates would get me locked away.
Much of this type of behavior (sending of lewd photographs) is still relatively new, and I envision harsher penalties for it in the relatively near future. It's a stupid move by anyone, and Favre is stupid.
posted by dyams at 08:35 AM on December 22, 2010
Even if she does wish to pursue this, she pretty-much can write off her future in any capacity, because she'll be viewed as trouble and a liability.
Anita Hill's post-accusation success would suggest things aren't as gloom and doom as you're making them out to be.
posted by rcade at 10:14 AM on December 22, 2010
And regarding the last point, so I can go stand out on the corner with a trenchcoat and flash joggers..as long as they laugh and tell their friends it's ok, I guess, right?
In what way is this equivalent to sending one person a picture of your penis?
posted by lil_brown_bat at 11:11 AM on December 22, 2010
Anita Hill's post-accusation success would suggest things aren't as gloom and doom as you're making them out to be.
Being called on to testify before the Senate, due to FBI leaks beyond her control doesn't appear to me to point to her having a whole lot of choice in the matter. She works at a college, and I'm not sure that's exactly where she hoped her law degree, etc. would have taken her. On the positive side, her issue brought about a great deal of change with regards to the problems of sexual harassment in the workplace, and that fact has led to other opportunities. I seriously doubt Sterger would "benefit" from the response Hill received after her much-publicized testimony at the Clarence Thomas hearings.
Barkley's joking aside, it still seems to me that many who post on this thread are of the mindset this type of behavior is funny and, in some ways, acceptable because, if for no other reason, certain actions aren't attached to actual criminal laws. That surprises me, to say the least. Again, if you are ever involved in a situation where someone you know has to go through this type of behavior, in a unwanted, unsolicited fashion, you'll probably see how upsetting it can be.
posted by dyams at 12:12 PM on December 22, 2010
She works at a college, and I'm not sure that's exactly where she hoped her law degree, etc. would have taken her.
You make it sound like she's answering phones. She was an accomplished law professor at University of Oklahoma College of Law for 10 years and is now a professor of Social Policy, Law, and Women's Studies at Brandeis University. I think most people would regard her as a success.
posted by rcade at 01:06 PM on December 22, 2010
Graduates of Yale Law School probably don't pursue that education to teach at Oklahoma or Brandeis. It sounds as if her career went that direction after this unfortunate situation. Nobody said she's "answering phones" for a living. But not knowing her, I can't so for certain if her current employment is the culmination of her life's dreams since she was young.
Again, if you're a supporter of sexual harassment and the "benefits" it carries, that's your choice. Or maybe you just want to argue with any comment I make. I'm sure it's probably the latter.
posted by dyams at 02:05 PM on December 22, 2010
I don't know, Brandeis is a pretty prestigious institution. I wouldn't bet against the scholastic standing of the Law School with the entire place being named for a highly distinguished Supreme Court Justice.
Plus, when you're at a school in the greater Boston area, there's a lot of networking and cooperation going on between the many colleges. So she's tapped into a heavy-hitting intellectual community at large, no doubt. Not a backwater, I would say.
Now, from the Can't Resist Department:
Clarence Thomas, on the other hand...whoops, no I'll stop. Can't go there. We're already too far away from sports as it is.
posted by beaverboard at 02:29 PM on December 22, 2010
Sterger finds herself in the position practically every other female finds themselves in...
Careful how you phrase things.
posted by BornIcon at 03:08 PM on December 22, 2010
dyams, I said it once and I'll say it for the last time, you're lumping things together that don't belong together. In so doing, you're making some very insulting statements that are tantamount to calling people who post to this forum supporters and/or condoners of sexual harassment. You don't know who you're talking to. I suggest you choose your remarks more judiciously or just let it drop.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 03:12 PM on December 22, 2010
I've chosen my words for a reason. Rcade wants to argue any comment I make, including making the statements regarding how Anita Hill isn't doing to badly for herself? Forgive me if he's a close, personal friend of hers and knows what she had to endure throughout her ordeal. He, for one, seems to insinuate as long as someone has a decent job, their emotional strife was somehow worth it. People minimize this this subject, and I'm not having it, and I have my reasons for what I say. As for your statement about not knowing who (I'm) talking to, that goes both ways.
Rcade is the almighty with regards to this site. Ban me for all I care.
posted by dyams at 03:38 PM on December 22, 2010
Comparing unwelcome sexting between people who knew each other to a perv flashing strangers is off the mark.
I'm not sure this is "between people" as much as it is just Favre sending her a photo of his small junk (and crocs). "Between people" implies a correspondence of sorts and I'm not sure that this is the case.
Clearly they knew each other, but I'd call this cyber flashing rather than "unwelcome sexting." Is flashing OK because you know the person? I don't think so.
And though no laws may cover cyber flashing yet, I think that cyber flashing, like other virtual forms of harassment, such as Cyber bullying, could be as bad as committing the act in person.
posted by cjets at 03:38 PM on December 22, 2010
I'm not sure this is "between people" as much as it is just Favre sending her a photo of his small junk (and crocs). "Between people" implies a correspondence of sorts and I'm not sure that this is the case.
He was actively pursuing her before he sexted. She was a in-house sideline reporter for the Jets at the time.
"Sterger said that Favre first began to call her early in the season and leave strange, friendly messages on her voicemail. She played me one of these voicemails over the phone. It was Brett turning on the Mississippi simpleton charm on his way to practice giving Jenn a friendly good ol' boy hello to a pretty lady. It was odd, but nothing incriminating. Then the phone calls from Brett started to turn weird."
posted by rcade at 03:45 PM on December 22, 2010
Rcade wants to argue any comment I make, including making the statements regarding how Anita Hill isn't doing to badly for herself? Forgive me if he's a close, personal friend of hers and knows what she had to endure throughout her ordeal.
You're losing it, dude. You want to view Anita Hill as a victim so badly that you speculated, "I'm not sure that's exactly where she hoped her law degree etc. would have taken her." All I did was offer some actual facts about her professional career.
He, for one, seems to insinuate as long as someone has a decent job, their emotional strife was somehow worth it. ... People minimize this this subject, and I'm not having it, and I have my reasons for what I say.
Then you should provide those reasons, not make stupid insinuations about the rest of us based on Charles Barkley's harmless mockery of Brett Favre.
Again, if you're a supporter of sexual harassment and the "benefits" it carries, that's your choice.
Sheesh. That hole you're digging deep enough yet?
posted by rcade at 03:54 PM on December 22, 2010
Just because he was actively pursuing her doesn't mean she responded.
And, to backtrack for a moment, even if she did respond, does that make the cyber flashing OK? How is that different from someone flirting with a girl in person and then just dropping their pants?
Sexting implies some sort of intimate relationship with the person receiving the text. Otherwise, it's not sexting. It's harassment
And this is worse. It's flashing. Whether it's in-person, online, or texting, it's still flashing.
posted by cjets at 04:04 PM on December 22, 2010
Didn't everyone have that one friend who always got naked? I have a friend who would just flat out get naked at parties. Just for a few minutes a good third of the way through the evening. He doesn't do it anymore by any means, but he used to. Had no idea he was something of a pioneer.
Of course, I wouldn't suggest he was sexually assaulting everyone in the room. Context is everything.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 05:56 PM on December 22, 2010
dyams:
Forgive me if he's a close, personal friend of hers and knows what she had to endure throughout her ordeal.
And forgive me if you spent the first twenty years of your professional career harassing female subordinates with impunity, making their lives miserable and leading to no fewer than three broken marriages, before you saw the light of the Flying Spaghetti Monster on the road to Damascus, and your intolerable guilt changed your life and made you into a relentless anti-sexual-harassment crusader of the first water.
You see how pointless and idiotic it is to spew baseless speculations and insinuations about people? They don't support your point. So I strongly suggest that you back way off your statements. One more time, in small words: you don't know who you're talking to. You don't know what any of us may have witnessed or done re: sexual harassment. You need to stop acting like you're the only person who gets it.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 08:47 AM on December 23, 2010
Weedy, were you that 'friend'? Com'on, you can tell us we won't judge.
posted by BornIcon at 10:23 AM on December 23, 2010
Way to take the high road, llb. It's not enough for you to lecture me, but when that's not enough, you take it up a notch and attack me in the same manner you preach against. I guess since you jump to rcades defense (who doesn't need you to defend him), you think that grants you the right to say anything you want towards me? Good to know.
And to rcade, I obviously know you would not "support" sexual harassment. My point was that bringing up how Anita Hill supposedly has a decent job now seems to trivialize what she may have had to endure emotionally throughout her much-publicized situation. When it comes to this topic, it seems to often be blown off and treated as unimportant.
posted by dyams at 12:41 PM on December 23, 2010
It's not enough for you to lecture me, but when that's not enough, you take it up a notch and attack me in the same manner you preach against.
That was her point. If you don't like being the recipient of that kind of speculation, don't engage in it yourself.
Sexual harassment is serious. No one is disputing that. But some of us believe that there's still room for a known jokester like Barkley to use humor to ridicule Favre. If every harasser was subjected to public ridicule, they might be less likely to engage in the behavior. Ten years from now, Favre will still be remembered for sexting his junk. If a school ever wants to give him an honorary degree, it's likely there will be a backlash and he'll be called a sexual harasser.
posted by rcade at 01:02 PM on December 23, 2010
So, just to make sure I'm straight on this, dyams is implacably opposed to sexual harrasment, except when it's women whose relatives disagree with him/her.
posted by rodgerd at 02:45 AM on December 27, 2010
Gotta love Sir Charles.