Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has spoken out after video emerged appearing to show House Republican Lauren Boebert engaging in what the New York congresswoman described as “sexually lewd acts” in a Colorado theater on September 10.

Boebert and a male companion were thrown out of the Buell Theatre in Denver after repeatedly vaping, using a cell phone and “causing a disturbance” during a performance of musical Beetlejuice.

Surveillance footage from inside the theater appeared to show Boebert’s male accomplice groping her breasts, and then being groped in turn by the Republican firebrand. In a statement, Boebert apologized for her behavior, which she claimed “fell short of my values,” but made no reference to the alleged sexual acts.

Ocasio-Cortez responded to the controversy in a one-minute video posted to her 323,000 TikTok followers on Thursday, in response to a viewer’s question.

She commented: "All I gotta say is I can’t go out to lunch in Florida in my free time, not doing anything, just eating outside and it’s wall-to-wall Fox News coverage and then you have a member of Congress engaging is sexually lewd acts in a public theater and they got nothing to say.”

“I danced to Phoenix once in college and it was like all over the place. But putting on a whole show of their own at Beetlejuice and there’s nothing? I’m just saying be consistent. That’s all I’m asking for. Equal treatment. I don’t expect it, but come on.”

  • TinyPizza@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    198
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Living has gotta be tough when you know Ben Shapiro is updating your Wikifeet entry daily. Keep up the good work AOC. One day Ben will be gone and you’ll be able to wear strappy shoes and sandals in peace once again.

    • SinningStromgald@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      59
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      Wikifeet is…real? Yup, we don’t deserve the internet. Or earth.

      Also, why are the feet fetishists some of the creepiest? I don’t like kink shaming but why are they so weird?

      • jasondj@ttrpg.network
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        68
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Dude, how long have you been online if wikifeet is what you think puts us over the edge of deserving internet?

        You could honesty find at least 300 less-popular fetishes in under an hour without even getting into the dark web.

      • eestileib@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        My theory is that some of the men who really enjoy sucking girls’ big toe are sublimating their desire to show oral affection to an entirely kind of blunt roughly thumb-thickness object.

        I am talking, of course, about cigars.

      • MorrisonMotel6@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        If it is as real as you suggest, they really missed an opportunity to call it “Wikifeetia”

        • JokeDeity@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          My mind automatically makes “tia” into a “sha” sound, so I read that as Wikifeesha first time.

      • Moc@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Selection bias. Foot fetish is the most common fetish, and therefore has the most creep.

          • Moc@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

            Which part? That foot fetish is the most common one? Or that the most common fetish would have the most creeps, by nature of of population size?

            • WHYAREWEALLCAPS@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              9
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I think that foot fetish being the largest is iffy. I think it’s the most well known and has gotten more acceptable as models on OF and such are down with indulging a fetish as non-invasive as feet. I mean, I doubt they’re complaining about having to get another pedicure at a high end day spa that is being paid for by some rich guy in exchange for exclusive pictures. It’s also easy to promote on social media as none of them are banning pictures of feet compared to getting a community guidelines strike for just showing a bit of cleavage.

            • JokeDeity@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              I honestly believe a large portion of the feet fetish guys are into it because it’s weird and makes them an outsider, and less because they actually find feet appealing. I also kind of feel like it’s a 4chan thing where enough people pretending to be into something eventually convinces others into just actually being into the thing. Anyhow, feet are fucking gross, thanks for coming to my talk!

            • HopeOfTheGunblade@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              You think feet clock in higher than bondage, leather, lingerie… I’d be super into seeing some figures, because that doesn’t mesh with my intuitions at all.

              I’d also like to offer a counterpoint to the hypothesis that the commonality is the creep factor, and suggest that it is, rather, the social disapproval that leads to that. Why? For one thing, that disapproval makes it harder to satisfy. Sex is a need for humans in a similar way if not as intense as food, and people will display behavior amoral at best and immoral at worst in service to that need. Obligate foot fetishists, who can’t get off without it, have therefore a more limited window for satisfaction of that need, whereas people who have options can get off other ways and don’t have the heavy breathing and sweating aesthetic about them in the same way.

  • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    119
    ·
    1 year ago

    I remember how much pearl-clutching there was over AOC. Dancing. In college. Oh, the horror! Imagine it! Dancing! All of a sudden every con became a town elder with a stick wedged in their posterior in the movie Footloose.

    (By the way - I love to use those gifs of her dancing when replying to cons when the discussion is AOC.)

    And now that Qbert is caught in a grope session, with children present, the cons seem to be mum. Weird.

  • Boddhisatva@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    94
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Do they really have to say alleged sex acts? I mean, there’s video. Are they suggesting that maybe the groping and fondling wasn’t sexual in nature?

    • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      35
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      You’re right, the uh “activity” was definitely getting her boobs groped and flashed about- and giving a handy in return (both of which looked incredibly uncomfortable, just saying.)

      That said, what the video shows is a crime, and there’s fairly strict ways they can write about potential criminals which more or less mandate tacking on qualifiers- like “allegedly”, at least until they can tack on the “convicted” qualifier.

        • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Unlike the court of public opinion, you are innocent until proven guilty.

          actually, it’s a mere presumption. as a matter of due process, you’re guilty whether or not your found so in a court. the decisions by a jury are irrelevant to the fact of any acts you may or may not have committed- or the reasons behind them. Which is why we have innocent people that have been locked away on charges they didn’t commit, and people who get off on charges we all know they did. Jury trials are a shitty way to find justice- the other ways are universally worse, mind, but that doesn’t mean its great.

          Back to the matter at hand, we’ve all seen the video. We all know what was happening. I was able to find this document providing a brief overview of CO’s sex offenses. the two that apply are on page 19.

          Public Indecency:

          • Performing in a public place or where the conduct may reasonably be expected to be viewed by members of the public, an act of sexual intercourse; a lewd exposure of an intimate part of the body, not including the genitals, with intent to arouse or satisfy the sexual desire of any person; a lewd fondling or caress of the body of another person; or a knowing exposure of the person’s genitals to the view of a person under circumstances in which such conduct is likely to cause affront or alarm to the other person (Section 18-7-301, C.R.S.)

          • A subsequent conviction of a knowing exposure of the person’s genitals to the view of a person under circumstances in which such conduct is likely to cause affront or alarm to the other person (Section 18-7-301 (2)(b), C.R.S.)

          and:

          Indecent Exposure

          • Knowingly exposing one’s genitals to the view of any person under circumstances in which such conduct is likely to cause affront or alarm to the other person; knowingly performing an act of masturbation in a manner which exposes the act to the view of any person under circumstances in which such conduct is likely to cause affront or alarm to the other person (Section 18-7-302 (1), C.R.S.)

          • Third or subsequent incident of knowingly exposing one’s genitals to the view of any person under circumstances in which such conduct is likely to cause affront or alarm to the other person (Section 18-7-302 (4), C.R.S.)
            (emphasis mine)

          The first is a shoe in. we all know that she was wanking him off. proving it might be a different matter, but we all know it. Ergo, it’s completely legitimate to say she’s a sexual offender. Worse, not that I know if it matters legally, kids were exposed to this. All that to say: yes she should get due process in court. No. that presumption doesn’t change the fact that she’s a sex offender.

            • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              9
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              even if it was a felony, yeah. Don’t you know who she is!?!

              I’m far more interested in seeing her registered on the sex offender’s registry than jail time or fines. “Party of Family Values” being championed by a registered sex offender appeals to my incredibly petty side.

              • Restaldt@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                You think the list of GOP champion sex offenders is small enough that adding boeberts name will make any difference?

                • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Probably not, which is why it’s the petty side and not the more reasonable side that this tickles, lol.

    • GBU_28@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      A journalistic org will always say alleged until someone is convicted, even if the crime is “obvious”

    • Fedizen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Thats a good point. She already apologized for getting caught as well. I think at this point its “verified exhibitionist sex acts”

    • 18-24-61-B-17-17-4@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      Maybe she lost a popcorn down in her titties and he was helping get it out. And to thank him she… gave him an OTPHJ? I got nothin’.

    • JokeDeity@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      In America yes. Unless someone has literally been convicted of something in court, you’re better off just saying allegedly and not leaving yourself open to lawsuits.

      • stringere@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I’m America, yes.

        So America is a false god? Or a farcical one at best?

        That checks out.

    • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Nope, they REALLY don’t have to. In fact, it’s tantamount to gaslighting to claim that there’s anything “alleged” about something that has been publicly shown to definitely be the case.

      If they didn’t have much bigger fish to fry, media ethics watchdogs should really clamp down on this kind of bullshit.

      • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s not necessary. As they say, the truth is an absolute defense in libel and slander cases. You can’t convict someone of malicously lying when there’s no lie.

        • Emma_Gold_Man@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          You can bankrupt them proving that though. The idea isn’t just to avoid the final judgement, but to avoid being taken to court in the first place.

          • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Pretty sure Newsweek can afford a trial, especially one where they get a lot of free publicity and readers for standing up against a hypocrite sex offender who was already despised by most of the population trying to stifle the freedom of the press to publish the obvious truth 🤷

  • prole@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    90
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    Obviously she’s completely correct. But she should realize at this point that it’s a waste of time to ever expect conservatives to be consistent. It’s not in their nature.

    • JohnnyEnzyme@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      93
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Right, but that’s also where it’s up to us to help call it out.

      AOC’s fighting exactly our fight, and the minute we get complacent, I say that’s where we suck.

      • Caradoc879@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        29
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Right. Use these kind of hypocritical acts as ammunition with conservative supporters. They’ll fight you. They’ll get angry and defensive. They’ll say it’s not the same.

        Don’t let them get away with it. It is the same. Just keep saying that. Call them delusional. Call them out of touch.

        Embarras the fuck out of them. They might not change their minds, but they will shut the fuck up and maybe even have second thoughts when voting.

        • borf@lemmynsfw.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          That isn’t how anything works though. The Backfire Effect and Confirmation Bias are the reason they dig their heels in harder the more you go to facts and figures. They don’t care about reality. Even worse, when you engage them, it gives them an audience for the slapfight so they can show off to others how good they are at “debating,” which in this context means “saying Ben Shapiro lines then looking smug”

          • Catpain Typo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Exactly. The way to win people over isn’t to smash up their house and then tell them to build themselves one like yours. You need to build them a better place to live that feels doable for them and ask them to move in. Forgive my metaphor but it makes sense to me.

      • jjjalljs@ttrpg.network
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        I get a lot of mileage out of this Sartre quote

        “Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”

  • RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    38
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    The article really is just about how she responded to a thing. Not even mentioning in title if she did it in a noteworthy way or anything, just that she responded. Amazing

    • SpezBroughtMeHere@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      Right. But people will eat it up, as evidenced by this comments section. Something happened, people will create their own facts based on feelings and find articles with the right buzzwords to support said feelings. How did we get here?

  • Infinity187@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Didn’t those weirdos also go on about AOC’s boyfriends feet at some point? The right wing media and the GQP have absolutely no substance. Their whole existence is a huge drain on our society.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has spoken out after video emerged appearing to show House Republican Lauren Boebert engaging in what the New York congresswoman described as “sexually lewd acts” in a Colorado theater on September 10.

    Boebert and a male companion were thrown out of the Buell Theatre in Denver after repeatedly vaping, using a cell phone and “causing a disturbance” during a performance of musical Beetlejuice.

    In a statement, Boebert apologized for her behavior, which she claimed “fell short of my values,” but made no reference to the alleged sexual acts.

    She commented: "All I gotta say is I can’t go out to lunch in Florida in my free time, not doing anything, just eating outside and it’s wall-to-wall Fox News coverage and then you have a member of Congress engaging is sexually lewd acts in a public theater and they got nothing to say.

    Boebert’s team had initially denied she was vaping during Beetlejuice, but after footage emerged contradicting this, the congresswoman admitted she had been, but insisted there had been no deliberate attempt to deceive.

    Boebert’s male companion at the musical was later identified as 46-year-old Quinn Gallagher, co-owner of the Hooch Craft Cocktail Bar, which has previously hosted drag shows.


    The original article contains 673 words, the summary contains 202 words. Saved 70%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

  • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    They are hypocrites and liars. Republicans don’t believe in shit other than “rules for me, not for thee,” and fear-mongering hate.

    ETA: Dems too, just not nearly on the same scale.