[I’m bumping this post ahead of the Morning Warm-Up. It is the kind of item that often ends up IN the Warm-Up, something a stumble upon early in the day while surfing the cable channels and the web as my Jack Russell Terrier snores in my lap, and often that means that I don’t give a development the full post it warrants. If I wait until after the Warm-Up posts, it’s often late in the day before I have time to get to the next post, and other matters have intervened.
This is, on the surface, a trivial story. It’s not, though. I don’t want to write that it shows that the hard left is losing its collective mind, because this evokes the vile Michael Savage’s book title, “Liberalism Is A Mental Disease,” which epitomizes the mutual demonization that is destroying civil discourse and a lot more. I’m not sure what to write–let’s see what happens…]
On memeorandum, a relentlessly balanced and up-to-the-minute headline aggregator site that is an invaluable resource, this was deemed one of the stories worthy of listing this morning. From Raw Story, a hard Left political site: WATCH: Hot mic catches GOP senator ogling ‘beautiful’ teenaged girls with fellow lawmaker.
It attracted my curiosity because I didn’t understand how a hot mic could “catch” anyone doing something physical, like ogling (it didn’t) and because I wondered if this was going to be yet another example of the Left prosecuting thought-crimes (which, as it turned out, it is.)
This is what that hot mic caught Mississippi Senator Roger Wicker (R-MI) saying on the floor of the Senate. Are you ready to be shocked? Are you sure?
“I thought you were going to say this was one of the most beautiful girls.”
He was presumably referring to one of the Senate pages. He expressed the opinion that one or several of them were beautiful.
I checked the Raw Story comments. With couple of exceptions, every one of the comments (until I couldn’t take it any more and stopped reading) to this “bombshell” report—a GOP Senator thought that a teenage girl was beautiful and said so to a colleague! OH NO!!!—regarded Wicker’s comment as both newsworthy and damning. Here’s a representative sample, at the beginning of the thread, in sequence:
I am sure that he will invoke the “get out of guilt free” card by confessing all to all and seek’n fergivness from Gawd. That will do it.
I guess they really needed Roy Moore to join their ranks to function as a “moral beacon”.
THE PAGES ARE OFF LIMITS!!!! PERIOD!!!! NO ONE GETS TO CRUISE CHILDREN ON THE FLOOR OF THE SENATE OR HOUSE OR ANYWHERE. I don’t know why a parent would want their daughter or son to serve as a page considering the sort of behavior we’ve seen from Senators & House members concerning children.
Seriously, what can you expect ? The Commander in Chief is basically an undisciplined predator, married 3 times, cheating on all of his wives ? Where would Republicans get the idea that they are doing anything that’s wrong ? No leadership, no morals, no brains.
Let’s be clear… these men are pigs, but this is common on both sides of the aisle.
When a Dem politician is busted for even the most minor infraction, he is immediately booted from the party, no matter how badly it hurts the party. When a Republican glorifies and admits to even the most morally depraved actions, he is supported in his Senate run or even elected to the Oval Office.
Absolutely these guys are pigs. But far, far worse are the vile Republican voterpigs who routinely let them get away with it, knowingly give them their votes, money, and other support despite their filth.
Still waiting for Al Franken’s hearing…
NO…It is much more common with the sexually repressed christian hypocrites. this is much more prevalent with these folks who preach one thing and try have sex with little girls or boys..
A perfect example is the recent story of Wes Goodman, a state Rep in Ohio.. Republican, “natural marriage” advocate, blah, blah, blah. Resigned after being caught, allegedly, with another man having sex in his office. Turns out, according to one source, he was “all over Craig’s List”. Have not the slightest problem with this dude being gay or bi, but can get dowright snarky about the hypocrisy of his public position vs his private actions. And, on another level, can feel sad for someone who engages in such self-hatred as to profess views that are antithetical to his own core instincts. Party? Republican
Let’s be really clear… there is only one major party in America where such perverts are consistently supported, even after being exposed. The ‘both sides’ argument is the last refuge of a GOP supplicant.
And to just think, his viagra is covered under insurance. Another freak pretending to be a law maker.
Greedy Old Perverts
Gross old perverts!
Embarrassing the fuck out of the Senate pages, good job you fucking perverts.
So I assume he will be pressured to resign? Oh right, silly me, that’s only for Democrats.
These are men of god they only look at those girls in a biblical way.
Greedy Old Perverts (GOP) doing what they like to do.
I would have said “Groody Old Perverts”, but yeah. That does seem to be a cherished pastime for that party.
Creepy old guy creeping on girls? Must be part of the GOP…
How are they now going to find judges for the Miss Teen USA pageant?
PC might be running amuck this year.
A good ol’ boy southerner has lewd thoughts about teenage girls. In other news, the sky turns dark after the sun sets.
Only after all this appeared the first comment in the thread to point out the obvious, accompanied by one of the many photos of 2010 Presidential hopeful Joe Biden creeping out a helpless young woman during a photo session..
Noting that a teen is beautiful is lewd?
Which immediately got the response,
You can always expect a right wing troll to falsely equivalate something when one of their own is caught being filthy…. which seems to be EVERY GOTDAM DAY.
- If you don’t agree with these stipulations, I recommend that you stop reading and make an appointment with a psychiatrist:
1 This was not newsworthy.
2. There is nothing unethical, immoral, or wrong with an adult of any age thinking or commenting that a teenager is “beautiful.”
3. The contention that such a comment is in anyway related to the party membership, region or politics of the speaker is so ridiculous that it shouldn’t require debate.
- What two men say or think in private should not be matter of public interest or criticism in a free society. This issue keeps raising its ugly head, and for some reason it is always the progressive furies that are seeking vengeance and retribution based on overheard, wiretapped, surreptitiously recorded or otherwise unethically exposed comments of an individual who had a reasonable expectation of privacy.
This is the growing consensus on the Left that politically incorrect thoughts—and this doesn’t even qualify as that—constitute punishable misconduct. This development ought to alarm all civil libertarians regardless of party affiliation. Does it?
- Is this another unanticipated consequence of the Harvey Weinstein Ethics Train Wreck? Will the #MeToo mob start reporting men in power whom they learned once said to a third party they were beautiful? Will the news media set out to assist in the destruction of a public figure because he acknowledged that someone he had no intention of sleeping with was beautiful?
Why would anyone be confident, at this point, that the answer is “no”?
- I’ll admit it: I have seen young teenage girls in many settings, especially as a stage director, who I have concluded were incredibly beautiful, because they were. This does not make me a pervert, or someone who can be fairly compared to Roy Moore. I would say it makes me a typical hterosexual male, except that I have many gay colleagues who are equally astute at spotting extraordinaty female attractiveness.
In many of these cases, I have commented to a third party that the young woman in question was beautiful, perhaps to a friend, family member, or member of my staff. None of them recoiled in horror, made a face, or threw holy water on me, because a) they agreed and b) there is absolutely nothing wrong with observing that a child, a teen, a young adult beneath the age of consent, is beautiful or attractive.
In one such case, a young woman, high school age, in one of my productions was so extraordinary looking (people who are Hollywood-gorgeous with charisma are as rare in real life as white crows) that I told her father, a long-time friend, that based on her looks and presence (including sex appeal) alone she would have chance at a performing career if she was interested. (She was not.) My comment went a long, long way beyond the Senator’s remark. Was it proof of perversion? Are you nuts?
- For a Senator to say to a page that she is beautiful is borderline sexual harassment, just as it would have been sexual harassment for me to tell the young woman with star quality what I told her father. But he didn’t do that. He observed that she was beautiful and said so to someone near him.
This comment above—THE PAGES ARE OFF LIMITS!!!! PERIOD!!!! NO ONE GETS TO CRUISE CHILDREN ON THE FLOOR OF THE SENATE OR HOUSE OR ANYWHERE—is the canary dying in the mine. Off limits to look at? Off limits to notice or admire? Pages are off limits to date, stalk, harass, proposition or leer at, making them feel uncomfortable. What has made do many progressives lose all sense of proportion and material distinctions where sex is concerned? When I was a college student, a parent expressing this kind of hysteria would be regarded as the epitome of an old fogey locked in the Victorian Era, and justly so.
- Inconvenient fact: Congressional staff, interns and pages are substantially selected because they are the most attractive qualified applicants in the pool. In D.C., this has been a running joke for decades. My hyper-gonadal law school room mate at Georgetown Law Center used to walk around the Capitol at lunch time just to girl-watch, and I know what HE was thinking. This traditional flagrant “lookism” on the Hill is an interesting ethics topic all by itself, but it doesn’t make the Senator’s comment “immoral”.Or what my room mate said to me, which I will take to the grave.
That female page may have snagged her job because she was attractive, but it is perverted conduct for a legislator to notice that she’s attractive? What?
- The ugly, blind, unreasoning hate that Raw Story displayed by running this story and its readers display with their reactions to it is horrifying. This is clinical, unhinged, irrational, and it appears to be both widespread among Democrats and spreading. This is “the resistance”; this is “the base.” Do Democrats really think that appealing to a base that has become dominated by unreasoning hate is a legitimate way to return to power? Are there sane and rational progressives out there—never mind moderates— who feel safe and confident handing influence and power to people like those who wrote those comments?
In my analysis, the Democrats are both deluded and irresponsible for pandering to such angry fanatics. They are a cultural contagion, and should be shunned , not encouraged.
40 thoughts on “Observations On Raw Story’s Shocking Exposé: “WATCH: Hot mic catches GOP senator ogling ‘beautiful’ teenaged girls with fellow lawmaker” Scoop”
I believe it is the gospel of The Nativity which mentions that the infant Jesus as a beautiful child. Perverts.
Over the line. Coupled with the Aziz Ansari episode, are we finally seeing the excesses inevitable when furies just want to see it all burn? Are they tipping their hand that this never really was about mere righting a few wrong, but to advocate for an extremist take on inter-gender relations? I’m not sure, but I do know we are seeing the limits being crossed.
”we are seeing the limits being crossed.”
”A Billionaire Keeps Pushing to Impeach Trump. Democrats Are Rattled.”
(bolds mine throughout)
“Democratic leaders have pressed Tom Steyer privately, urging him to tone down his campaign calling for President Trump’s impeachment.
“They have prodded him in public, declaring on television that they consider impeachment an impractical idea.
“And party strategists have pleaded with Democratic candidates for Congress not to join in.
Insane and idiotic.
Why can they just not ignore him.
Republicans in Congress ignored people who called for President Obama’s impeachment.
”Why can they just not ignore him.”
They could, they just don’t.
Why? He has a seemingly unlimited amount of the ultimate political aphrodisiac: the ability to write huge checks.
No one tried to make a comment about Handmaid’s Tale?
The Handmaid’s Tale was a very good book, I first read it in the early 90’s and even today give it the occasional reread.
Is that the kind of comment you wanted?
I don’t *want* any comment. I am surprised that no one made any comment, because I’ve seen enough facile connections made between Handmaid’s Tale and conservative attitudes towards inter-gender relations to know that enough people out there have no idea what they are talking about, and therefore I assumed someone would make a snarky comment on the page Jack sources from.
Almost 250 comment so far, and as yet no “Handmaid” comment at all.
Maybe the trendy comparison of Hamdmaids Tale to all things conservative was short lived faux-intellectualism.
Well, at least one comment, to be sure.
I wonder where that guy was when Democratic Congressman Gerry Studds was having an affair with a page.
This did occur to me.
Well, I guess the soulution is to hire only unattractive young ladies as Senate pages to prevent vile, perverted Republican lawmakers from ogling them in the current administration. After all, they are corporate pigs incapable of restraining their despicable lewd thoughts and comments. 🙄
Of course it was a Democrat, “Good Time” Charlie Wilson, who famously said “ya can teach ’em to type, but ya can’t teach ’em to grow tits.”
“Do Democrats really think that appealing to a base that has become dominated by unreasoning hate is a legitimate way to return to power? ”
Given the events since 11/8/16, I have to say the answer is yes. How many Democrats joined in the attacks on the process itself that followed the election? How many Democrats or allies called for throwing out the whole process in favor of a direct popular vote for President on the spot? How many times did the Democrats in the Senate do their damnedest to slow walk the President’s appointees, controversial or not? How many Democrats have been destroying anything they decide represents authority or wrong thinking? Do you think this latest pointless exercise in governmental spite that ended yesterday was an act of love?
Ranting aside, since I think these rhetorical questions have made their point, I have to say that there is a very disturbing trend on the left, who frequently cast themselves as the smart, Spock-like intellectuals who don’t let beliefs or passions get in the way of doing the logical right thing. It may be born of impatience, or anger at the fact that they were one election away from sealing permanent control over everything. That trend is to think that the thinking process is over and the conclusions are set in stone, so now it’s time to implement them by all means, fair or foul, and they won’t brook any further disagreement or resistance from those who disagree with them, because they are just wrong. That includes sowing division, demonization, or outright violence.
Once you’ve demonized the other side, which they have – we conservatives are all greedy, ugly racist white men with ill-gotten wealth over the age of 45 who claim to believe in Christ and all He stands for but can’t keep our eyes or hands to ourselves where good looking women are concerned, and the younger the woman and the bigger the age gap between us and them the better – you give yourself license to hate them. Once you have license to hate them, you have every right to spew hate against them, like that crazy rant I referenced last year about giving conservatives a kick in their yellow teeth and a punch in the throat, hang on their every word and jump all over even the most innocent thing they say like it came from the mouth of Satan, and even carry through with the hate to its logical conclusion, like that jerk who’s sitting in jail in NYC now for assaulting a man leaving a political gathering he didn’t like and trying to choke him to death, or that insane freak who tried to mow down Republican Congressmen last June.
In the short term maybe you have some gains and you create a climate of fear. However, in the long run, the other side is likely to start hating and demonizing you too, and your own tactics may come back on your head. Do you really want a nation where liberals don’t dare set foot outside the major cities for fear of being beaten up or killed?
HeyZeus Alou! You want sick, perverted, staggeringly breathtaking dumbfuckery…with a heapin’ helpin’ of ageism (500 years old) racism (Latina), and (coup de grâce) necrophilia?
Certainly this is and will be used as ammo in the battle between democrats and republicans, as well as the on between conservatives and progressives. But i think its indicative of more than that, of a swelling movement to demonize any and all expressions – as well as the non-expressed existence – of male sexuality.
Campaigns go upencoraging women to be beautiful, but for themselves, not any men. Men are demonized for even noticing beauty. Men are jailed and expelled from college for completely unproven accusations, while women prey on their underage students and walk away with fines and slaps on the wrist. How often have you heard the trope that “men are encouraged to sleep around and make conquests, while women are expected to remain pure”? Whenever i hear that, I look around and wonder if the speaker has looked at the state of the dating scene or been on a college campus within the last 40 years.
Every man notices the women around him, and even if he’s learned to keep well within the bounds of decent behavior, odds are that learning came at the point of a fumbled pass or two some time in his past. If a man’s natural inclinations can be villified and weaponized to fill him with shame, then one has a handle on him. Power over him. So there is incentive to blacken such thoughts, and then even when you have the rare case of a man who has always had complete mastery of his own thoufhts and urges comes along, it wont matter, because he can still be guilty by association. It’s a weapon only women can fully utilize, and it can be wielded against any man, no matter how powerful. And that shame, that stigma, is everywhere. News, entertainment, advertising, social media…
I shudder to think of a whole gereation of men growing up, brainwashed as browbeaten into being ashamed to the core simply because of what gender they were born as.
Not my boys
“such angry fanatics. They are a cultural contagion, and should be shunned , not encouraged.”
And who are these people, you ask? They are, drum roll please, full Sam Kinison yell… COLLEGE GRADUATES! And college faculty and administrators. Fully indoctrinated lemmings and their fearless leaders. Tragic.
PS, I couldn’t hear a thing on the CSPAN tape other than someone taking a roll call vote?
Gee, maybe we shouldn’t have girl pages. Oh, wait, never mind.
Well nuts. It occurs to me that I have called my 6-month old boy “beautiful” many times. This shocking expose of those GOP pervs has woken me to wokeness.
I am now fully woked, and realized that it must be my repressed repuglican Grand ‘Ol Pervert hypocritical Christian patriarchal puritan oppressiveness that is causing me to be a closeted gay pedophile. There can be no other explanation as to why I would call a child beautiful.
There is only one political party that ever does anything sexually inappropriate of any kind, so clearly that is my problem. I am going to register as a Democrat instead so that I can breathe the sweet air of dignity and goodness.
With all respect, I actually am a little confused, again, which seems to be my default state here. Unlike most of my questions, this will not be pithy. I apologize up front, but I feel that context may make my question easier to understand.
First, I admit to having trouble with the idea that words can be sexual harassment. I will make some obvious exceptions here for things like, “perform fellatio” or “do this or else,” but most statements, if taken at face value, have an innocent interpretation and shouldn’t be considered harassment, in my mind. What happened to “sticks and stone will break my bones but words will never hurt me” and the mental fortitude to actually go through with it? I don’t know if my definition is simply wrong, or if I am speaking sense, though obviously I think I’m talking sense.
Second, I don’t understand how a physical trait, either a beautiful face, full figure, handsome face, or six pack is any different than the other, but if a wrestler has a six pack, it is considered acceptable, even laudatory to compliment it. If a teenager has an above average physical ability or trait (height, build, etc) that manifests in fill-in-sports-skill-here (I neither watch nor play any sports and haven’t the appropriate vocabulary), we are again encouraged to compliment it.
Third, I acknowledge that any number of things can be said in an inappropriate sense, which could make them harassment. Time, place, population, and amount of repetition are also factors. I knew a guy who could make a compliment about a girl’s voice into a sexual innuendo, but that doesn’t mean that complimenting a voice is either sexual, or harassment, unless it is done in such a way. Certainly when discussing sexual allure, we should be careful what we say, and usually should say it in the presence of others, rather than in private, to ensure it can’t be taken too poorly. We also shouldn’t repeat it ad nauseum or stalk the recipient to ensure they hear it properly. However, if a girl looks like Jessica Rabbit, sexual allure is one of the things that she has going for her. I don’t see the harm in acknowledging it. Obviously if you said that the girl is built like a brick shit-house, that would be inappropriate. However, rewording it to say that her full curves and bedroom eyes combine to give her an allure that enhances her beauty is simply a compliment, isn’t it? Especially so if it is part of an objective analysis when discussing talents for certain fields where allure and beauty is a boon or even necessity. I struggle with calling that harassment.
Thus, I do not understand how, even if the senator had complimented the girl to her face, it could be harassment. He didn’t say anything lech-like. He was in public, not a private meeting. This was presumably the first time he spoke to her rather than stalking or even repeating the same tired compliment. Sure, she’s a kid, but kids, just like adults, deserve honest compliments, if done in an appropriate manner. Is this a difference between law and ethics? A legal requirement to cover yourself from any potential harm, especially in post #MeToo? Is this another difference between men and women? Can I compliment whatever trait I like without worry of harassment since I am not of the “wrong” gender? Can I only compliment those of the same gender? If so (and if this is a legal thing), what about the whole trans movement? Or is it always harassment for an older man/woman to compliment girls/boys traits or at least a subset of them?
Sorry for the length of what probably should have been a simple question.
Oops, after an hour of rewriting to try and fail to condense, I managed to delete in my first paragraph, The item I am confused about is you saying, “For a Senator to say to a page that she is beautiful is borderline sexual harassment.”
I assumed that’s what you were referring to.
Words can be sexual harassment, and in fact, sexual harassment is often just words. The question is whether words or conduct by a superior or a colleague in the workplace constitutes unwelcome conduct that creates a hostile work environment.
The EEOC has defined sexual harassment in its guidelines as:
Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical
conduct of a sexual nature when:
Submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual’s employment, or
Submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as a basis for employment decisions affecting such individual, or
Such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual’s work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or
offensive working environment.
Actual or attempted rape or sexual assault.
Unwanted pressure for sexual favors.
Unwanted deliberate touching, leaning over, cornering, or pinching.
Unwanted sexual looks or gestures.
Unwanted letters, telephone calls, or materials of a sexual nature.
Unwanted pressure for dates.
Unwanted sexual teasing, jokes remarks, or questions.
Referring to an adult as a girl, hunk, doll, babe, or honey.
Whistling at someone.
Turning work discussions to sexual topics.
Sexual innuendos or stories.
Asking about sexual fantasies, preferences, or history.
Personal questions about social or sexual life.
Sexual comments about a person’s clothing, anatomy, or looks.
Kissing sounds, howling, and smacking lips.
Telling lies or spreading rumors about a person’s personal sex life.
Touching an employee’s clothing, hair, or body.
Giving personal gifts.
Hanging around a person.
Hugging, kissing, patting, or stroking.
Touching or rubbing oneself sexually around another person.
Standing close or brushing up against a person.
Looking a person up and down (elevator eyes).
Staring at someone.
Sexually suggestive signals.
Facial expressions, winking, throwing kisses, or licking lips.
Making sexual gestures with hands or through body movements.
Ok, so I still think I’m a dunce here. There are only two things that I can find on this list you have thoughtfully given me that even come close, unless I’m really missing something. The only ones that seem to apply are:
Referring to an adult as a girl, hunk, doll, babe, or honey
Sexual comments about a person’s clothing, anatomy, or looks
The Senator said, “I thought you were going to say this was one of the most beautiful girls.”
However, the Senator said this about a teenaged girl, who is not an adult. Therefore it seems that can’t be harassment. Second, he called her one of the most beautiful girls. Is that, even said face to face, necessarily sexual? Is physical fact (or honest opinion) all it takes to become sexual now?
As a side note, this list makes me think that I’ve never worked in a workplace without sexual harassment, especially with the clause “Such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual’s work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or
offensive working environment” since my idea of intimidating, hostile or mainly offensive can change from day to day or at least time of the month and so many discussions can be stretched to fit in this list. Not to mention that in my experience practically every man under fifty gives a woman who hasn’t yet had a mastectomy some version of elevator eyes, even if he tries to be polite and nearly every man over sixty calls women under thirty-five some form of honey, sweetie, toots, girl, or similar. Hai yai yai! A little forgiveness from us women would go a LONG way and only drag the serious breaches to public eye or court.
Sexual harassment requires the workplace. This is the workplace for the pages. If a young woman–age doesn’t matter—was told be a much-older Congressman or any male she had to work with regularly, “You are so beautiful!” in a tone or with a facial expression that she interpreted as sexually provocative, as in “creepy” and was made uncomfortable—let’s say he said it on two days running…that could be harassment if she was made uncomfortable.
I have a skit in my harassment seminars using actors—The Ethical Arts Players—where the exact same thing is said to a woman by two different actors in multiple ways. Same words, different facial expressions, volume, inflection. “You are so beautiful” is one I use.
Sarah B, you say :”I’ve never worked in a workplace without sexual harassment, especially with the clause “Such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual’s work performance or creating an intimidating …..working environment”. Me too! Except being male, it was wasn’t generally sexual – just crude physical intimidation and sometimes threats to my finances. I think ‘complaining’ would have been massively unwise. And as for ‘elevator eyes’, surely some judicial activist can find the right for ‘free looks’ in the Constitution?
Me too will find it’s balance. There will no doubt be people that try to abuse it to remove those in power they do not like, but thankfully we have seen even on the left a rebuke of this (after Franken it seems the whole “right to be believed “ has taken a bit of a back seat)
They know it could be turned against them now, they are onboard with setting up a standard of evidence. That topic is where the debate needs to cilontinue.
I got a pain in my head when I read-
“When a Dem politician is busted for even the most minor infraction, he is immediately booted from the party”.
Such high standards. Poor Bill Clinton has been banned from the Democratic Party since the eighties. And we all know that Ted Kennedy would have been a great Democratic politician if only they weren’t so principled that they never would take him.
In the picture you posted, there are five women…I assume all 5 are teens. The CSPAN “Hot mic” was virtually unintelligible to this near deaf person, nor did it show anyone ‘ogling’ anybody. To which one was he referring? Hard to make a case when you don’t have an identified victim.
Those were just random pages. We have no idea who he was “ogling. We have no evidence that he was “ogling.”
My point exactly. Is it a crime to use the word ‘beautiful’? I have 4 grand daughters ranging in age from 24 to 11. I think they are all beautiful. Guess that makes me a Republican. Or maybe a pervert? Or maybe just a proud grandfather.
I think it also could be a generational thing. I wouldn’t call a preteen girl “beautiful” unless it was my own child. Not because there is anything wrong with it, but solely out of fear of being perceived as a pervert; a fear that only exists because of the cynical and over-sexualized culture in which I have lived my entire life.
Anyone who assumes that this is “ogling” is likely just not capable of seeing beauty in a non-sexual way themselves. They just can’t conceive of it. (Or they’re just trying to crucify some innocent grandpas for being Republican. I’m being charitable.)
I too will avoid recognizing beauty in this world, lest someone think I’m a Republican.