Again the key qualification here is it's not cool amongst 'average' lower or middle class folk. — Erik

Sure - but it is the case for those who set the culture of society. This isn't YET the case with average lower or middle class folk (and depends who you're referring to, let's not forget that approximately 70% of black children are born out of wedlock for example). But culture seeps through from those who set it to everyone else in time. The lower or middle class folk will no longer be as you know them if things continue.

And I would also distinguish between the words and behavior of a teenage boy and an older man, the latter of whom should have moved beyond the objectification of women and caving in to peer pressure by the time he's in his sixties (or fifties, or forties, or even thirties). Not sure about you, but I think about what I did in my late teens and early twenties and cringe. Who the hell was that stupid kid? It was me, sadly. So 'boys will be boys' seems to hold to a certain extent, independent of the social context. But I could be wrong about this and would like to hear your arguments to the contrary. — Erik

This depends on the culture of your society. Neither should teen boys objectify women - this is a failure of current society. Kids don't have role models. They're not educated about sex. They're not provided with the adequate moral examples, and the adequate literature. They don't look for example at the moral example set by John Wooden (the basketball coach) in regards to sexual morality - he, by his own words, only kissed one girl in his life. So it's not always that young men were so keenly interested in sex. It's only a hypersexualised culture, which puts sex on a pedestal, and tells men they have no worth if they don't engage in it that creates such situations.

There is no contradiction my friend. We don't live in an ideal world. We have to play the cards we're given. Yes, ideally the President should set the highest moral standards. Practically, in this specific case, it's less important what Trump's personal behaviour is, and more important what policies and attitudes he sets forth - why? Because neither alternative is any better in terms of personal behaviour.

10 percent of married people — Bitter Crank

Up that to 40-50% by most surveys for today's world.

10 percent of married people — Bitter Crank

Up that to 40-50% by most surveys for today's world. — Agustino

Please site a legitimate research source here. Popular media publish lots of surveys on sexual behavior, but many of them have the very significant bias of voluntary participation, and no check on whether what they say is likely to be inflated. A voluntary, anonymous survey can be an opportunity for folks to flaunt behaviors and attitudes they wish they had, but in fact do not, just as income surveys that are anonymous and voluntary tend to inflate wealth.

This may be true - I don't have one at hand that I refer to, but 40-50% are numbers I have seen regarding the US in a few sources. But what you say may be true. Even if it's true - there is a very very big problem. And the big problem is that they WISH they had it - that's a problem. They desire something immoral - that's a sign of cultural degradation, that we need to do something about. In fact it's more significant that they wish they had it, than if they actually did. If they did, and still profess to desire a good standard, that is better - at least they are aware of what is good, despite their failings.

And the big problem is that they WISH they had it - that's a problem. They desire something immoral - that's a sign of cultural degradation, that we need to do something about. — Agustino

That people wish they could have sex with a desired but unavailable partner is not THE problem. Wishing is just a characteristic of the human being. If wishes were horses the peasants would ride. Unfortunately for the peasants, wishing doesn't yield transportation so they have to walk, and wishing for a role in the hay doesn't doesn't result in sex. Talking about grabbing pussy isn't the same thing as actually grabbing pussy. Speech does not equal action.

This is a watershed issue: Wishes = sin vs. Actions = sin. I hold with actions -- not the model I was taught as a child. I found that model to be, basically, crazy-making. It's more effective, but not necessarily easier, to manage one's behavior.

That people wish they could have sex with a desired but unavailable partner is not THE problem. — Bitter Crank

No the fact that they wish this alone isn't the problem. The fact they would make this public as their wish that they are unashamed by - that is the problem. If they went to the priest and said I have this desire to have sex with another woman apart from my wife - that would be a good way to deal with it. If they actually did it, or worse they did it and/or proclaimed publicly they did/wanted to without being ashamed, but rather proudly proclaiming it - that is bad. Why? Because it means they have lost the moral standard from their vision. They no longer aspire to it, and have instead fallen into spiritual sloth.

I hold with actions — Bitter Crank

I hold with both. It's one thing to say "oh I have this desire to have sex with a woman other than my wife, but I wish I didn't have such a desire", and a completely different thing to say "I just wish I could have sex with a woman other than my wife". The former may be natural - the latter is evil.

And really I don't understand why these corrupt folks in the media are so outraged about what Trump said - many in Hollywood and the media are equally promiscuous, and think equally bad about women - in fact they treat women no differently than Trump. So why are they making a big fuss? Only because Trump speaks it, while they only think it and never say it? This is outrageous. — Agustino

Then you do really understand why these folks in the media are so outraged about what Trump said. You just disapprove of the focus being on Trump and not others. But others aren't running for president, and this is news: as in, it has only just been revealed.

I found that model to be, basically, crazy-making. — Bitter Crank

Crazy making only if you beat yourself up for example for wanting to have sex with another woman while married. There's nothing wrong with wanting it in itself - it's about acting that is wrong. If you do things in order to have it - that's wrong. If you tell folk that you wish you had it - that's also wrong (notice how the telling is an ACTION). But merely having that desire - sure - entertain it - why not? We shouldn't repress any desires. This doesn't mean we give into them - but that we entertain them. I don't think anyone reasonable could be against that. It's entirely conceivable that a desire arise in you over which you have no control - you have no control whether the desire to cheat on your wife is present. You just have control over what you do with it ... do you talk about it? Do you go ahead and cheat? etc. One can want many things - it doesn't mean one has to be the slave of that desire and give in to it...

I can largely agree with that. But social conservatives should use this as an opportunity to attack the liberal-progressive media for the hypocrisy they are engaged in. They aren't upset about this happening in our culture - only that someone running for President displays it. This is wrong.

Game, set, and match.

That's just a failure to distinguish between theory (the ideal situation) and practice (the actual situation).

There is no contradiction my friend. We don't live in an ideal world. We have to play the cards we're given. Yes, ideally the President should set the highest moral standards. Practically, in this specific case, it's less important what Trump's personal behaviour is, and more important what policies and attitudes he sets forth - why? Because neither alternative is any better in terms of personal behaviour. — Agustino

In fact BC - that is a frequent problem of religious people, beating yourself up, because of improper understanding of what is and what isn't in one's control. It's entirely natural for all sorts of desires to arise. Most of the time, they arise, and we just ignore them. It's people who have some underlying condition - obsessions, compulsions, anxiety, etc. who dwell on them - then they can become problematic, crippling, or may cause us to do something stupid.

I can largely agree with that. But social conservatives should use this as an opportunity to attack the liberal-progressive media for the hypocrisy they are engaged in. They aren't upset about this happening in our culture - only that someone running for President displays it. This is wrong. — Agustino

But your premise is false. There's no way that the liberal-progressive press haven't reported this kind of thing in a negative light. They would've done so more often than ring-wing news organisations. Just look at the people that try to downplay Trumps remarks, and similar remarks. Nigel Farage, the Fox goons...

Yes that's a big issue too - but then Nigel Farage and his ilk aren't social conservatives. Europe probably has very few social conservatives. Nigel is just some lunatic.

The latest exposé of Trump's vulgarity is a good thing because it will offend even more people even more deeply. Fine by me. The offended should vote for somebody else--like Hilary or Jill.

Sexually crude as Donald Trump might be, sexual crudeness shouldn't automatically or effectively disqualify him from being an effective president. — Bitter Crank

I think the media is desperately trying to diffuse the situation. "It isn't what he said he did, but saying it is bad". That uncovers a few problems. It seems like the media doesn't want Trump to be completely ruined so they can keep the drama going and their viewers watching. It seems to be a "reality TV"/"soap opera" technique, something shocking gets people talking, then diffuse it until the next thing comes along. If anything is so terrible that it can be spun away, they simply refuse to report on it. If the media really wanted to bring down Trump, wouldn't they be pursuing that lawsuit accusing Trump of raping a 13-year-old girl in 1994? Whether the charges are true or not, that kind of scandal he couldn't recover, and when he got impeached ... then nothing.

I think sexual behavior is very important for leaders. As a society, we tend to emulate our leaders. Look at mainstream women's fashions over the past few decades and see how closely they tend to emulate first ladies. The atmosphere of society reflects the attitudes of the leadership. Kennedy's optimism rubbed off on the 1960's. Nixons dark pessimism rubbed off on the 1970's. The arrogance and greed of the 1980's can be traced to Reagan. Even today's progressive liberalism can be traced to the Obamas. Back in 1996, I thought that Clinton was washed up, (his sexual scandal was already coming to light), but he got elected anyway.

That doesn't mean I have traditional values. I would rather have a gay, bisexual or even transgender president than one who cheats on their spouse. What makes it worse is that she was a recent immigrant, almost half his age and very pregnant at the time. Then he thinks it is valid material to brag about -- to the host of a celebrity gossip TV show?

I figured out that Trump is best described as a malignant narcissist. This personality has a close association with bigotry, since the self-aggrandizing statements can be diffused to pride in their group. For a while, I tried to make sense of his statements by adding "... for white people" at the end of his slogans. "Make America Great Again", makes no sense if you believe America is already great. "Make America Great Again for white people", makes more sense, (restoring white privilege and American exceptionalism). But I guess he really means "Make America Great Again for Trump". His campaign promises are only attractive to bigots. I've decided that if anyone still supports Trump, it is because they are a bigots, too, and still cling to the fantasy that he will make all their bigoted dreams come true.

I imagine that if he became President, he would probably publicly break every one of his promises, except a couple of things that would serve his own interests. I'm sure all the Republicans still supporting him will turn on him right after the election and Trump will be constantly whining about how Washington is rigged against him.

But then again, when you factor in that 95% of TV advertisement spending leading up to the election is by Clinton, you've got to suspect 95% bias. — tom

But Trump has gotten an estimated $2 billion in free air time, and is the first candidate to go into a press "spin room" immediately after a debate to sell himself. But really, shouldn't all the people who donated to Trump's campaign be upset that he isn't making more or better ads to make up for all the times he gets his foot stuck in his mouth?

I am genuinely concerned that someone whose Presidential campaign is 20% funded by Saudi Arabia, whose personal charity received huge donations from Saudi, and who claims Islam has nothing to do with terrorism, becomes president. — tom

If that is the criteria that is important to you, what about these facts?

“Wealthy Muslims Helped Donald Trump Build His Empire,” Including Via Deals With Saudis And Qataris. A December 7 Quartz article detailed “some of the more prominent deals and partnerships with Muslim individuals, governments, and companies that have buoyed the Trump brand over the years.” These business ventures involve Qatar Airways, which has had a “‘corporate campus’ in the Trump Tower … since at least 2008;” two Saudi princes who live in Trump Tower; Saudi Prince Alwaleed, who took “majority control of New York’s Plaza hotel, [which gave] Trump ‘more breathing room with bank creditors’” and purchased Trump’s $18 million yacht; the Trump International Golf Club in Dubai; and Trump Home partnerships in “Kuwait, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar.” Quartz later reported that regional retailer Lifestyle stopped selling Trump Home products in its stores in Kuwait, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and other countries following Trump’s anti-Muslim comments. — Quartz

“Donald Trump Sought Investment Partnerships With Muammar al-Qaddafi And The Libyan Regime.” A BuzzFeed investigation posted on June 7 found that “Donald Trump sought investment partnerships with Muammar al-Qaddafi and the Libyan regime,” revealing that Trump “rented his Westchester estate to the dictator, tried to set up a face-to-face meeting, and took the Libyan ambassador golfing.” BuzzFeed reported that Trump “saw possibilities in a partnership with the Libyan Investment Authority, which invests profits from Libya’s lucrative oil industry” and that he ultimately sought “to gain access to Qaddafi, who was in a position to release billions in investment capital.” — BuzzFeed

Also, don't forget that he asked Russians to hack Hillary's emails -- and they apparently complied, (why do the Russians want Trump to win?).

I gather that you really dislike trump and all, but do you honestly think that "2 billion worth of free air-time" is a fair point to make?

Two billion dollars worth of pontiffs and pundits talking about the size of his hands isn't exactly worth 2 billion to trump now is it?

It's much more accurate to say that he got airtime for two reasons: 1, because he gets good ratings (they made money off of him. Period. It's their own damn greedy fault), and 2, because ridiculing Donald Trump fits well with the established agenda of the dems (the pubs get in on it too though it seems).

One thing that I think a lot of people don't realize is that when some people see the mainstream media doing nothing but ridiculing trump they actually get the idea that trump is "anti-establishment". They think: "Well if the powers that be do not want him to be president, maybe he is a threat to them".

People are getting more and more cynical and fed up when it comes to the election process and norm in America, and it's becoming harder and harder to sell each time. This current election is unprecedented because a part of the American public has become so blasé and lackadaisical toward the election that the only rhetoric and content capable of stirring them must be in some ways "extreme".

Trump "asking" Russia to hack the DNC for instance... Alleging that the two are any way in-cahoots is certifiably insane, and yet as an extreme point of rhetoric I see it falling out of everyone's mouth with extremely persuasive prejudice. Maybe the Kremlin do want trump to win, but why? Could it perhaps be that Russia desires a "regime change" in America so that it could possibly have it's economic sanctions eliminated?

Come on. Of course any sane Russian leader would want Trump over Hillary; Russia knows Hillary'sattitude toward Russia and global politics as a whole and they would rather roll the dice. That said, if and when Russia does release more evidence of some new Hillary scandal, will you literally blame it on trump because he once said "I hope Russia releases what they hacked"? After-all, Hillary is the victim in all this and trump is a misogynist...

Yeah for a very simple reason that he says he will appoint conservative Judges, he will put tougher restrictions on abortion, he will end illegal immigration, etc. ... Social conservatives have a degree of control over Trump that they don't over Clinton. I don't really care if Trump himself will be immoral so long as he will be a useful tool for the social conservative agenda. It's a calculated sacrifice - lose a pawn, in order to win the game. — Agustino

But ...

But ...

Okay, so he has delivered a "short list" of 11 potential Supreme Court nominees. Currently, he can only fill in one position, as long as Obama doesn't beat him to it. What are the chances that list was made up to keep conservatives in the fold? Would he throw away his one chance to get his policies passed? Most of his promises are based on partially repealing the Bill of Rights and other Constitutional Amendments, so his biggest challenge is to get those laws past those judges who still care about constitutional rights.

well, if he can be convicted of sexual assault, that might be one thing (to be honest it might not even actually disqualify someone for the presidency other than in the eye's of voters).

Here is the offending bit:

""Trump: Yeah, that’s her, with the gold. I’ve got to use some Tic Tacs, just in case I start kissing her. You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. I just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.

Unidentified voice: Whatever you want.

Trump: Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything." — Trump

As far as I can tell he is not necessarily describing sexual assault. "They let you do it" seems to be the crucial bit that differentiates his attitude from one of sexual assault to one of consent. I mean, if Trump was going around randomly grabbing vaginas completely unsolicited then I reckon someone would have noticed by now.

He was telling a story about how he "moved on" (tried to seduce) a married woman and failed. Maybe we could just ask her whether or not Trump sexually assaulted her. Should the police investigate this incident?

Hillary is just as big or bigger of a flopper though, and according to the recently leaked "wall street speeches" she has both a real and a private position because "if everybody's watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least. So, you need both a public and a private position.".

I know what she was trying to get at here: the eye of the public wields a peculiar form of scrutiny, and fear of this scrutiny can get in the way of honestly dissecting complex issues and replace it with bias and pandering to popular opinion. The supreme court refuses to allow it's proceedings to be filmed or broadcast live because they know that the public is not equipped to handle the scope and complexity of the issues they navigate, and that their emotional or otherwise irrational reactions to those goings on could and would find a way to have a causal effect upon those very or future proceedings; it creates room for bias.

I'm pretty sure she meant something along those lines, but if she was addressing a bunch of private bankers and asset managers I'm not so sure I see the merit.

I gather that you really dislike trump and all, — VagabondSpectre

I don't think I feel anything toward Trump. He should probably be pitied for his psychological disorder. I feel a bit more for his supporters, who I think are mostly being misled by a lot of social pressures. I don't even care if he wins -- I will just think, "he may not be the powerless fascist dictator America needs, but he is the one they deserve". I just hope the blow isn't that bad on all the people who thought he was going to benefit them.

It's much more accurate to say that he got airtime for two reasons: 1, because he gets good ratings (they made money off of him. Period. It's their own damn greedy fault), and 2, because ridiculing Donald Trump fits well with the established agenda of the dems (the pubs get in on it too though it seems). — VagabondSpectre

He gets good ratings for the same reason that "reality TV" shows get good ratings. The people are willing to act like idiots to get on TV, and the show does everything to emphasize the drama without losing suspense over what happens next. A lot of what happens is faked or encouraged. It is kind of a co-dependent relationship. But I hope people consider what we get at the end of the reality show. The drama never pays off.

This current election is unprecedented because a part of the American pubic :D has become so blasé and lackadaisical toward the election that the only rhetoric and content capable of stirring them must be in some ways "extreme". — VagabondSpectre

Americans have usually been relatively disinterested in voting. I used to be an election officer, and outside presidential races, you could work on your tan while waiting for people to show up for mid-term elections. Maybe it is a sign of my age, but it seems the quality of candidates is dropping. It is as if nobody wants to run anymore. Trump is the best that Republicans could come up with. It makes me wonder if they know something that we don't know, (that we are so screwed, only crazy people and criminals will even bother running).

Trump "asking" Russia to hack the DNC for instance... Alleging that the two are any way in-cahoots is certifiably insane, and yet as an extreme point of rhetoric I see it falling out of everyone's mouth with extremely persuasive prejudice. Maybe the Kremlin do want trump to win, but why? Could it perhaps be that Russia desires a "regime change" in America so that it could possibly have it's economic sanctions eliminated? — VagabondSpectre

Yes, it has been suggested that Russia are attracted to Trump's comment that he would recognize Russia's annexation of Crimea, but probably less for economic sanctions reasons, than the wedge it would drive between the EU and USA. Don't forget the comments Trump made about dismantlement NATO, (or making it a kind of "protection racket"). They probably don't mind the cold war negative association still in the government with anyone doing business with Russia. There is probably some other advantages, the US stock market would probably take a dive and China would dump all the US bonds they hold when their avowed enemy becomes president. Trump is probably seen by them as merely an unwitting ally.

That said, if and when Russia does release more evidence of some new Hillary scandal, will you literally blame it on trump because he once said "I hope Russia releases what they hacked"? After-all, Hillary is the victim in all this and trump is a misogynist... — VagabondSpectre

I don't blame Trump at all. They were probably going to hack anyway. It is just an embarrassing coincidence that he said it just before it was revealed that they were doing it anyway. For all I know, he probably found out it was happening and made the statement so he could later be associated with it, (he got debriefed on state secrets before that -- so I wonder if his real, unreported, crime is announcing it and forcing the federal government to admit it was taking place -- which only brings about a possibility of treason).

Look at mainstream women's fashions over the past few decades and see how closely they tend to emulate first ladies. The atmosphere of society reflects the attitudes of the leadership. Kennedy's optimism rubbed off on the 1960's. Nixons dark pessimism rubbed off on the 1970's. The arrogance and greed of the 1980's can be traced to Reagan. Even today's progressive liberalism can be traced to the Obamas. — swstephe

This is another watershed issue: To the right are the Great Man of History lobbyists who can see in their rear view mirrors that John F. Kennedy was the font of 1960s optimism, and that Jackie Kennedy single-handedly invented the pill box hat and A line dress. To the left are the Zeitgeist lobbyists who see in their rear view mirrors all sorts of factors bubbling up and interacting.

I liked Jack Kennedy, Jacqueline, Robert, Ted, et al. They all did some good (and not so good) things. The wave of optimism began under Eisenhower, and Ike wasn't responsible for it. Millions of people coming out of the war years had gotten married, had gone to college, and had started buying homes in the suburbs. Compared to the depression of the 1930s, the 1950s were grand.

By 1960 some of the old rigidities had already started to crack and crumble. Kennedy was able to express that optimism because he was young, handsome, and upbeat. Getting assassinated burnished his image but it ended his ability to change the culture. The fairly old, earthy, and practical Lyndon Baines Johnson was the one who carried through from 1963 to 1968 with the Great Society reforms like Medicare and Medicaid (and the war in Vietnam). Of course the post WWiI baby boom was optimistic. Young people usually are.

This ignores that Trump isn't alone in this race. He needs an entire support network to do anything as President - a support network he must satisfy. That support network includes a lot of social conservatives, including the VP Mike Pence. He cannot betray the social conservative agenda without screwing himself up. Trump may be a narcissist liar, but he's not stupid.

Hillary is just as big or bigger of a flopper though, and according to the recently leaked "wall street speeches" she has both a real and a private position because "if everybody's watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least. So, you need both a public and a private position.". — VagabondSpectre

It seems whenever someone criticizes Trump, they are automatically assumed to be voting for Hillary. No, I'm not "with her", and won't vote for her either. I live on the west coast in a deeply blue state. The odds of my state going to Hillary is over 90%. In fact, like many other elections, CNN and Fox News will be calling the results before I even get to a voting booth. That means I get to vote my conscience. I won't vote for Clinton because she is openly hawkish and will probably draw the country deeper into war. It will be pretty much business as usual, with all the corruption, broken promises -- but at least the economy and infrastructure will probably survive another 4 years. Trump is the worst of the two evils only because if he actually manages to carry through with his promises, we would effectively be without a Constitution. Actually, Clinton has said a few really racist and offensive things, too, but it usually gets ignored because she is about as interesting to watch as plywood. If we are lucky, we might get a 12th Amendment election, (that's where neither candidate gets 270 electoral votes, so the house decides and every state gets one vote among the top 3 candidates).

I don't want to change anyone's opinion. If you know all the facts and still think Trump is better, go ahead and vote for him. You will have to suffer the same consequences as everyone else. If you aren't concerned about the potential fallout on you, consider the future of your party or political alignment. If you want to vote for Hillary, even if you think you must because you live in a swing state, go ahead.

As far as I can tell he is not necessarily describing sexual assault. "They let you do it" seems to be the crucial bit that differentiates his attitude from one of sexual assault to one of consent. — VagabondSpectre

I suggest that in such actions which happen fast without advance warning, "they let you do it" does not imply consent prior to the act, it implies that they do not file a complaint afterwards.

Do you disagree with the psychological fact that people emulate those who are perceived as leaders? Really this is a silly game - what do you expect me to do? Quote to you research studies about this finding? If you just open your eyes and look around you, you will see that people do seek to emulate those who are perceived to be leaders - there would be no need for a study — Agustino

Emulate? I certainly question that assertion. Leaders have followers. But what is following? Well, there is no following in the abstract -- one has to attend to a particular situation. In a church? Sure, I'd grant some emulation (though I'd stress *some*, and also the need to attend to particulars -- but it's at least plausible). But in a representative democracy? Hardly. The idea that President Clinton's behavior somehow made "the masses" more accepting than they previously were of adultery is laughable. Especially considering the reaction -- which ranged from scandal to shrugging.

And, yes, research is a good start. It's certainly better than what has thus far been more or less a reference to "common sense" and the perception of what you take to be obvious.

You happen to have a copy of the paper? It's going to cost me $40.

Now let's see if this changes anything - of course it doesn't - because what's happening with you is that you don't want to believe it in the first place, as it is ruinous to your political beliefs. — Agustino

Caught red-handed, Agustino. You clearly have pilloried everything I hold dear and I am just desperately scraping to save my threadbare faith in the Marquis de Sade.

:D

This ignores that Trump isn't alone in this race. He needs an entire support network to do anything as President - a support network he must satisfy. That support network includes a lot of social conservatives, including the VP Mike Pence. He cannot betray the social conservative agenda without screwing himself up. Trump may be a narcissist liar, but he's not stupid. — Agustino

Unfortunately, I know from experience, that this is not the way narcissistic personalities work. The idea that he needs anyone probably never existed in his head. He probably doesn't even recognize that other people have needs or feelings. Everything is centered around his ego. You are either with him or against him. He would have the power of executive order and vetoes with him, and probably has no scruples about using it vindictively. It isn't stupidity, it is just the way he filters the world around him to protect his ego.

In fact, I noticed whenever he mentions the support of evangelicals, it always seemed to be with a mix of contempt, (because he doesn't like their values), and happy incredulity, (that they follow him at all is just evidence of his "greatness").

I really don't want to defend trump here, the point I was making was that what trump was describing is not necessarily a description of sexual assault. Consent can be a tricky issue both legally and morally. One camp will say that you must have enthusiastic affirmative verbal consent at every stage of escalation in any sexual encounter or a rape has been committed. Another side will say that anything short of full blown violent resistance is implicit consent.

Obviously the pragmatic truth lies somewhere in-between these points. Body language counts for something. Some would argue that not objecting in any way can be considered tacit consent (cases in which such arguments apply may vary) especially when a prior relationship has already established. Alcohol is a mostly unrelated but great example of how people can differ drastically about how we should perceive of and define sexual assault and consent: some say if you're drunk and you have sex with a sober person that you've been raped (this might only apply to male on female rape).

I agree with you that grabbing random women's vaginas IS sexual assault but this is not exactly what donny was describing. He was envisioning himself kissing a woman and this leading to the fateful pussy grab manuvre: "You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. I just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.". Random kissing can certainly also be described as sexual assault, but kissing someone without explicit verbal consent is an entirely different story. IMO body language is how you get consent to kiss someone. Kissing often is escalated to more... explicit... sexual acts and these escalations seldom always involve affirmative verbal consent in the course of an entire sexual encounter.

Before I forget my current rationalization for actually defending trump in this, allow me to play Trump's advocate: What Mr. Trump was describing in his 2005 banter is something that many celebrities are aware of, and that is the fact that with celebrity comes a sort of status that many people simply find attractive, some on a sexual level. Mr Trump may have very crudely articulated this, but many celebrities have had spontaneous sexual encounters with their followers, and just because a celebrity might not have asked for explicit consent in a given sexual encounter, this does not mean that consent may have in fact been there from the beginning and at every stage of escalation through body language and other such contextual indicators.

I feel dirty somehow for that :) , but I feel less dirty than I would for attacking trump on the basis of his seduction strategy of sudden snatch snatching rather than something politically substantive.

That debate though... It really blurs the lines between comedy and tragedy...

I cited a book and a study, I may as well go forth and cite Things Hidden Since the Foundation of the World which explains the theory behind mimesis.

The idea that President Clinton's behavior somehow made "the masses" more accepting than they previously were of adultery is laughable. — Moliere

And the idea that it had no effect on what people thought of adultery is equally laughable. It certainly influenced what some folks thought about it, and it would be quite extreme to deny that. Do you not see so many 10-12 year olds do exactly what they see Kim Kardashian and other celebrities do? The same pattern of miming behaviour that is perceived as cool, either because it comes from a well-known leader, or otherwise, exists in adults.