I think it's glaringly obvious that Alderman Johnson was given some compelling reason to drop his pursuit of this matter. Of course I would imagine that only a few intimately involved in the "resolution" of this incident are aware of what that persuasion looked like. I have to wonder how it is that we can expect or "leaders", local or national, to stand up for our interest as a community when they can't seem to be dissuaded from standing up and speaking out on their own behalf. Fortunately I don't expect very much from those "leaders". My perspective shouldn't necessarily be interpreted as a slight on Mr. Johnson's character however if one feels uncomfortable with his lack of pursuit in this matter, then it's probably because we all should feel uncomfortable with it. Just one man's opinion.

I suspect the wife's behavior was more than likely a reaction based on the disrespect displayed by your friend as well as some measure of insecurity. I think you friends action was definitely disrespectful because as most married individuals wear a wedding ring, it should have been easy to observe whether or not this man was married. As such, I think it's safe to assume that your friend knew that man around whom she placed her arm was married. Being a gentleman, I never casually assume that it's okay to lay hands on anyone with whom I don't have a previously establish understanding, certainly not stranger. When some women do this, thinking that it okay for women, it sets a really bad precedent for men to engage in the same behavior which I am certain most women will say is absolutely not cool. No women wants to have some stranger at a club casually place his hands on her hip without her anticipating or welcoming it. That would be a dangerous move on the part of any brother. That part of the scenario is easy to assess. Now I think the wife was equally wrong and disrespectful as well, somewhat to your friend but more so to her husband. Much of what we speak of in western society having to do with that magical, nearly meaningless buzzword "love", has more to do with ownership than anything else. The essence of "love" is selflessness. As such, we should stop calling selflessness "love" because in everyday behavior, the both manifest and look quite different from each other. As such, I think we can all agree that selflessness and ownership have absolutely nothing to do with each other. In addition, I think it can be agreed that she does not own her husband's body. As such, she does not have absolute discretion over who he does and does not allow to touch it... his body that is. ;-)Her behavior is tantamount to a toddler, having a favorite toy, becomes physically aggressive when observing another child attempting to enjoy her or his toy. The wife's behavior is psychologically the exact same as the toddler in the example above. The mere touching of her husband by another woman, does absolutely nothing to diminish the relationship she and her husband have, unless her husband has a weak character in which case her husband is the issue and not the other woman. Although I can definitely understand her behavior, I don't think it's appropriate or justified in an adult relationship. Under some circumstances I might be inclined to believe that the husband has some measure of culpability in this seemingly benign interaction. However, assuming that he had little opportunity to correct the misdeed I think he's the only innocent person in this scenario. If the situation was different and he did have an opportunity to correct your friend, I absolutely think he should have out of consideration and respect for his wife. Yet still though, he should have done so in a way that was firm yet unoffensive or non-hostile as not to drawn attention to the misdeed or to embarrass your friend. Just one man's opinion. Trav