NEW/Updated: Statement From Al Franken:

[Ms. Toad]

99. You're not reading the threads very carefully - it is there by many other posters

condemning the kind of connections you have made repeatedly in this thread.

FWIW, I suspect my femisist credentials are every bit as strong as yours.

I am not suggesting she has license to attack men viciously for absolutely anything.

But no feminist I have ever met would ever suggest that half-naked, sexually suggestive photos have ANY relevance as to the credibility of that person's allegation that someone touched her without consent. And that is exactly what you have done, repeatedly.

She may well be lying through her teeth - but the photo you posted, and repeatedly insisted cast doubt on her credibilty has absolutely no relevance to that assessment.

It is not the word that is ugly, it is the concept you are endorsing that I am calling slut-shaming - that behavior on any other occasion or appearance at any time have any relation to consent that is truly ugly. Despite numerous people in this thread calling you on it, you have neither acknowledged it nor offered any alternative explanation for the link you are making. I am not calling her a slut, I am calling out your behavior becuase, while you are not using the word, you have used the concept as a weapon against this accuser.

Not believing her doesn't call your feminist credentials into question. Suggesting her credibility is linked to her appearance or behavior on any other occasion or with any other perons is the antithesis of feminism.

Before you can legitimately claim the feminist label, you need to retire the concept that an accuser's credibility is, in any way, called into question by what she is wearing or how she has behaved at any other time or with any other person.