his wife was underage (under 18) when he first met her, i believe. married a long time now, and now with grand-kids. but raiding the grade-schools for naive young ladies is not the ideal, by a long shot.
Roy moore accusations
- Thread starter birch
- Start date
- Status
his wife was underage (under 18) when he first met her, i believe. married a long time now, and now with grand-kids. but raiding the grade-schools for naive young ladies is not the ideal, by a long shot.
Maybe I'd like North Korea to nuke Alabama...
So, I stayed silent.
So, I stayed silent.
Aye... This idea that a parent can give consent to violate their child's body is just sickening.
And if you lose "the argument" that the Republican Party is doing it wrong, what then?
But that's not central. You appear to have lost track of who "the argument" is with: focused on the Republicans, it's not winning "the argument" - there's a dozen arguments, and most of them are clearly unwinnable with Republicans (Trump voters). It's winning the elections.
Then? Then you don't have a stable of Federal Court Justices promoted by Ailes and selected by Trumps and approved by McConnels ruling on your sexual harassment cases, corporate abuse policies, and gender-based civil rights issues generally.
For starters.
If you don't like that, stop collaborating with the Republicans in setting that up.
You can't lump perps without lumping victims, politically. That clears reason, analysis, good faith cooperation, and reality itself from the field, leaving the matter to be decided by power and money. The Reps figured that one out forty years ago - that's how Clinton lost the white women's vote, in 2016.
Bells
Staff member
There's a middle ground to sexual assault?
That's like saying 'it's okay, he's only a little bit rapey'.
Meanwhile, the victims get to sit back and watch people defend this kind of behaviour because 'poor men who sexually assault women' and admitted to doing it, could have their lives ruined if they are made to stand down from their governmental jobs..
I have to ask, how well do you sleep at night knowing that you are defending the behaviour and your tax dollars is going towards supporting the men who sexually assault women?
Then again, given the defenses you have put forward for sexual abusers in this thread, you probably don't really care enough to let it bother you.
Do you not see the contradiction between those two sentences?
Because you are demanding that victims do meet their harasser in the middle and you are demanding that the accused, even those who admitted to doing it, get a pass because apparently 'some aren't happy until we get their pound of flesh and demanding the lives of the accused be utterly ruined'.
Your entire contention in this thread has been to proclaim that sexual harassment can be accidental and a mistake, despite all evidence to the contrary. And you pushed that ridiculous "contention" by citing a story that has absolutely nothing to do with sexual harassment or sexual assault. In other words, your friend did not feel sexually harassed when you shook his hand hello.
And in case you aren't aware, Moore sexually assaulted teenage girls. What? Do you think that happened because the victims were unable to say "no" and that we shouldn't deem it as sexual harassment and sexual assault because he might not have intended it to be that? How about Franken? Do you think his groping women on their backsides and one on her breast was not intentional, and ergo, not sexual harassment?
At some point, you are going to have to a) stop trolling and b) stop changing the subject because ,for some inexplicable reason, you want there to be grey areas where it comes to sexual harassment and sexual assault.
Well if you cannot tell what constitutes sexual harassment, Kitta, if you are bending over backwards defending it to find a grey area, then perhaps you should not engage with others at all.
Men who do not sexually assault or sexually harass women have no problem with understanding that it is not acceptable and that the blame lies fully with the harasser and that when people do this, it is intentional. In other words, men who respect women don't try and pull the 'it could be accidental' or the 'perhaps the victim just couldn't say no' (which really, opens up a whole can of worms that could take months for you to get through) as an excuse. And they certainly do not come out with pity for the poor accused who might have their lives ruined because the victim could not refuse, etc.. More to the point, men who respect women as human beings, don't pull these dumbarse excuses.
According to your labeling system there would have to be, yes. The range of behavior labeled - by you - "sexual assault" is very wide, with a large middle ground.
Or to summarize the actual contention (removing the presumptions and attempted slander routine):
any man who thinks it's misleading, dishonest, politically destructive, and morally/ethically wrong, to lump without distinction the behavior revealed in the accounts of Franken's or Barton's, (possibly Keillor's depending), etc, with the behavior revealed in the accounts of Moore's, Trump's, Weinstein's, (probably Conyers depending) etc;
is themself someone who sexually assaults and/or harasses women.
Is the same true of such argumentative, morally and ethically bankrupt women? 'Cause there's a lot of them - so far as polled every woman I know, personally, for example.
The most offensive thing is that you're not even trying.
See, part of the problem is that in order to deal with the larger question of rape culture, one must have a clue. Lacking that, what remains is nothing more than, "Republicans! Republicans! Republicans!" and a bunch of halfwitted political nonsense reminding that this really is about easy political opportunism.
Your cheap political demands aren't useful toward anything but your own gratification.
To do what? Find better derogatives for your "responses" to my posting here? Life is short, vocabularies limited.
Lessee, got to look like I have a clue, like I'm trying, - - - I know: How about if I post as those hard-trying folks who all agree they have the clues, the best clues, post?
Ok: The women are speaking. Why don't you shut up. Full stop.
Sexual harassment can be unintentional, but it doesn't mean that a harasser can't or won't be held responsible.
Having said that, these days employers and educational institutions are expected to educate their employees and students about what kinds of behaviours constitute sexual harassment, and there is a general level of understanding about harassment i in the community, so the excuse that "I didn't know that what I was doing might be considered harassment" is both a hard one to run and unlikely to be a successful defence if it is run.
Young people, in particular, can sometimes unintentionally step over the line into harassing behaviour. However, many complaints about such behaviours do not end up progressing far through formal processes set up to deal with them, for the reason that they can often be dealt with by educating the harasser and mediating as appropriate between harasser and complainant.
The bottom line for harassment is that the perceptions of the harasser count for very little when a complaint is made. The victim's perception of the behaviour is considered paramount.
Careful James - this kind of simple, logical observation unleashed the Wrath of Bells™
that's one of the most random opinions i've ever read. strange, most of the sexual harassment i've experienced was from full-grown men, even much older. i didn't know men in their 30's-60's are 'young'. in fact, only two was in their 30's, the rest were much older. so in my experience, older men have less respect for women or was not raised correctly.
you forget that anyone who is accused of sexual harassment will most likely at first, especially with no physical evidence, feign ignorance or innocence. do you realize that is even a common tactic to feign innocence (even when ridiculously obvious) "while" harassing someone? of course, one's sincerity cannot be proven or dis-proven as in physical/tangible evidence.
it has nothing to do with age, it has to do with that it can happen in any environment and since most sexual harassment is a series of events that is not taken seriously unless it results in actual physical sexual assault, it's not something that's going to be reported to police, for example.
though you may perceive this statement as being fair, the one who is feeling harassed more often would have a reason which is why they would complain.
it is also not taken into account or appreciated how much various indiginities and forms of harassment victims go ahead and endure without reporting to police anyways.
Last edited:
birch:
I was specifically talking about unintentional harassment there. Older, more experienced men are far more likely to intentionally harass, if they are going to harass at all.
I don't dispute any of that.
Most large organisations today have specific sexual harassment policies and procedures in place. By law, at least where I live, they must take complaints seriously. In practice, that is not always the case, but businesses and institutions that are found not to be dealing appropriately with harassment issues can be and sometimes are subject to court and/or government sanction. When these kinds of things get as far as a court, they tend to generate lots of adverse publicity for the organisation concerned, too.
I don't dispute that. The presumption should always be that the complainant is genuine and honest, in the first instance.
I am not disputing that the vast majority of sexual harassment incidents go unreported.
Bells
Staff member
I don't think one unintentionally gropes a woman's backside or breast, or sexually assaults teenage girls as was the case of Roy Moore, unintentionally.
Nor does cat calling, leering at women, staring at their breasts or commenting on their body in that way, propositioning women in the workplace, threatening women with dismissal or not promote them, if they do not go out with them or have sex with them for example, happen unintentionally.
Kitta's example ran along the lines of a friend of his did not like to be touched at all, not even a handshake and never told anyone about how he felt. It came out, by the looks of Kitta's telling, years later, when he admitted that he has a problem with human touch. By any logical thought, this does not fall into the realm of sexual harassment.
Say you accidentally brush against a woman's breast at work or when you are out and about. It isn't sexual harassment. Because it was not intentional and completely accidental and I have never heard of or seen a woman declare such an unintentional touch as being sexual harassment.
Which is exactly the point we were trying to make. People do know. I have never, in all my years of working, not worked somewhere where staff were not instructed on what was and not acceptable in the workplace. First on the list was commenting on what the women one works with is wearing or how they look. To the one, it's not acceptable in the workplace and men who go out of their way to single out women at work to do this to, know what they are doing as it is a way of letting the woman know that she has been noticed and seen by him. This isn't unintentional.
In a social setting, a guy in a bar deliberately telling women who pass by how hot they look by looking them up and down, is not classified as unintentional.
The line is basically unacceptable behaviour. Having a guy leer at you while commenting on how you look, again, this isn't unintentional.
What people are deeming as unintentional sexual harassment, say in the workplace, say like commenting on how 'that's a nice dress', few women classify that as sexual harassment. We do see it as sexual harassment when it keeps happening and women are singled out for that sort of attention and it comes across as being distinctly sexual and sleazy. It's about defining the woman as someone sexual. It's about singling her out in that way. And again, this is not unintentional or accidental.
I have seen young men step over the line in regards to sexual harassment quite often. From leering at women, to touching them, following and catcalling them and again, this isn't unintentional. To the one, it isn't appropriate and to the other, sexual harassment like that is quite distinct. A guy asking a woman out is not sexual harassment. A guy who refuses to take no for an answer, is sexual harassment. I've seen guys ask women out, they are rebuffed and they keep pushing for a yes. Such behaviour is not unintentional or accidental. I've had guys ask me out in restaurants, even quite recently and in front of my children, I say no thank you, they push. I say stop, I'm not interested, they keep pushing. I tell them to go away, they call me a bitch, whore, c*nt, slut, ask me if I'm too good for them while I am trying to a) get my kids to cover their ears because no child should ever hear their mother or any woman called names like that and b) protect them from the man who is now a predator.. Again, that behaviour is not unintentional. And you would be surprised at just how common this kind of behaviour is.
It's about a lack of boundaries for some people, where they think they can or should go out of their way to compliment you on how you look or ask you out or try to gain your attention to let you know that they think you are attractive or 'sexy'. And I am sorry, but that isn't unintentional.
Well yes. Usually in the workplace, for example, if a guy keeps asking a woman out and she says no and he won't take no for an answer, the employer or supervisor will tell them to stop. If they do not stop, then that employee is usually fired. Not only is the earlier persistent behaviour sexual harassment, continuing the behaviour after being warned about it, is sexual harassment. The employee may feel hard done by, may claim that he didn't mean it, but I think most people these days, will recognise that that kind of pushy behaviour is not acceptable in any setting.
You know Kitta, it's behaviour like this that makes me see you as a troll.
Bells:
My point was not that young men only harass unintentionally. Clearly some of them harass deliberately. My point was that the law (for one) recognises that sexual harassment can be unintentional.
I don't either.
I agree with all this.
Again, I agree.
You recognise that there's a continuum there, though, don't you? I mean, at one end we have a guy commenting once that "that's a nice dress", which might not be sexual harassment, and at the other end you have the same guy repeatedly singling a particular woman out to comment on her appearance, even when it's clear that his comments and attention are not welcome, which certainly is sexual harassment. And in between, there are shades of grey, depending both on the perception of the woman and the particular actions of the man.
Yes.
My point was not that young men only harass unintentionally. Clearly some of them harass deliberately. My point was that the law (for one) recognises that sexual harassment can be unintentional.
There's no viable excuse for a perpetrator after a clear signal is given that certain behaviour is not welcome or appropriate. That signal can come circumstantially, or formally. However, it is also the case that it is not necessary for a woman to have explicitly told a man to leave her alone, or anything like that, in order to establish harassment.
Bells
Staff member
It isn't really that grey.
For example, I go to work and a male work colleague tells me 'oh, that's a nice shirt', which has happened to me quite often or he will say 'oh, new suit!'. Much like I would comment on his new suit or new ties. It isn't sexual, it isn't leering and it was never a comment about how I looked in said shirt or suit. And it isn't sexual harassment, it's two friends making social comments like that at work because it is how we would speak to each other outside of work. It is never something that was ever uttered with another male colleague I did not have that kind of relationship with and certainly never with senior prosecutors or my bosses. And my colleague never commented 'nice shirt' with other women in the office, again, because he was not friends with them outside of the office and it would not have been appropriate. But we shared an office space, we saw each other socially with our respective partners and spouses. It was never inappropriate and never crossed any line. It was more a line of "hey [last name] nice shirt", and usually comments about giving it till lunch time and I will probably spill something on myself as a shared joke for when I once spilled tomato sauce on my shirt (*sigh*) one lunch time (ask for a small squirt of sauce and they smother it on!) and had to rush home to change, as I had a meeting that afternoon. Again, that isn't sexual harassment because it's between two people who have that kind of relationship and have had that kind of friendship for years.
It becomes sexual harassment when it's said in a particular manner that lets the woman know that 'hey, I've noticed you' in that way and I want you to know that I've noticed you'.
Does this make sense?
There actually isn't a grey area when it comes to sexual harassment. We like to tell ourselves there is as it leaves us some wiggle room, but in reality, sexual harassment is intentional behaviour. For example, say a guy tells a woman how nice she looks (and this is sexual harassment, he might think he's giving her a compliment, but again, it's sexual harassment in the sense that why does this guy think that his opinion of how his work colleague looks in her clothes, matters to her) and she tells him that she doesn't like him doing that and he keeps doing it intentionally. Or he keeps doing it, every day, and letting her know that he's noticed her, not as a colleague, but as a sexual woman, for example, or he starts talking about his sexual conquests to her, just to let her know how good he is in bed, for example. That's not really a grey area.
I mean, that's the thing. People often cite complimenting a work colleagues on her looks as being just a compliment, not sexual harassment, they argue it's unintentional. To the one, it's another form of sexual harassment because of the sense that why do men think that women need to know or be told how they look and to the other, it's in a work setting, it's inappropriate.
You could try getting a clue, but I'm aware you're not a fan↑ of such outcomes, preferring instead to blame everybody else for the sake of your politics.
By definition, one would hope.
The grey area question would not be whether these actions are "unintentional", but what the intention is.
If you pretend there are not very ugly intentions, much worse than others, you provide cover for the ugly - they hide in plain sight, under the cover you have thrown them.
Not unintentional - well-intended. If it's bothering people, that's probably not true (outside of autism spectrum, or inexperience). If it isn't, it won't come up.
I doubt that's what they are thinking - that would be rare, in my experience.
We arrive at distinctions, contexts - they make a difference. And even work settings vary, as do co-workers, no?
Consider one of the motives of abusive men, significant in many workplace and public settings, not clearly distinguished so far: status among "fellow" men. Demonstrating the ability and willingness to transgress personal boundaries and social norms of courtesy etc can be a power move, a status play, within a strictly (defended) male hierarchy. That affects the best response, defined as the one that best establishes the will, interests, and understanding of the women involved.
Last edited:
Bells
Staff member
So, by your definition, groping a women, sexually assaulting women should get a pass because it's not as bad as sexually assaulting a teenage girl?
Yes, because your boss, for example, telling you 'just how pretty or sexy' you are is just well intended banter, right?
If anything, this discussion has opened up a whole frigging hole as to just how some men on this site view women and sexual harassment is suddenly just "well intended".
Sexual harassment is about power and control. It's about making the victim aware. When a guy tells me that my tits look good in a top, he's telling me that he's noticed, and he just has to let me know that he's noticed. Put simply, if you see a guy walking down the street and he's wearing nice pants, would you walk up to him and tell him his crotch looked good in those pants? Gay men have been subjected to such harassment, as are women. Heterosexual men from other men? How often has a heterosexual men complimented you on your backside or crotch looked in a pair of jeans as you were walking down the street or in your office at work? At a guess, this isn't a common occurrence for you?
I mean, men who do this to me literally tell me that they just wanted me to know, just because.. Apparently this is something that I needed to know.
It happens more often than you think.
Consider the hypothetical (and stereotyped - apologies in advance) example of a young man working in, let's say, a repair shop, who sticks up photos from a magazine of scantily-clad women, lingerie models perhaps. He is doing that intentionally, the intention being that he enjoys looking at the pictures. Let's say he doesn't consider the effect of his actions on any female co-workers, or on customers who might see the images.Bells said:
Does his behaviour amount to sexual harassment? Quite possibly yes. By posting the images where they are visible (even if not overtly on display to all customers or employees), he might be contributing to creating an oppressive atmosphere in which women are given the impression that they are regarded as sex objects, or that it is acceptable to objectify women in general, and so on. If somebody was to lodge a complaint with management/the owners/authorities, this man might well be reprimanded or at least told that the images are inappropriate for the workplace. No doubt he would be asked to take them down.
But, the point is, his intention was not necessarily to oppress women, or to create an intimidating atmosphere, or to make anybody feel uncomfortable. Even if that effect is reasonably foreseeable with a bit of experience and knowledge, this particular man might not be aware of it.
This is an example of unintentional sexual harassment. There was intent to stick the images on the wall, but there was not an intent to oppress or harass women, even if that was the effect. My point is, again, that sexual harassment is not necessarily always intentional on the part of the perpetrator. It need not even necessarily involve specific malice towards any woman.
This hypothetical man might be surprised to learn that his images are considered inappropriate (though, as I wrote previously, this is very unlikely in the present social climate). He also might well have no problem at all with taking the images down once he learns of how they are perceived. In the process, he might learn something that benefit him in future dealings with women.
The point of all this, in a nutshell, is that not all sexual harassment occurs as a result of deliberate, calculated malice. Is is a mistake to assume that it does. And, in case this is misinterpreted, I should add that a lot of sexual harassment definitely does have a deliberate and calculated intent.
And you then require that I accept your representations of people I've never met, believe your accounts of others, take for granted your framing of issues, and entrust you and those who agree with you with political power.
After continually representing my posts, right there in front of you, like that, you want to be taken seriously about what other people say and do.
So if it's not about that, it's not sexual harassment? There's a loophole I hadn't thought of. The whole male status competition thing gets a pass.
Meanwhile: there are distinguishable degrees of that - from situations of essentially no power and no control possible, even no awareness of self or other, to deliberate creation of great misery and pain. Agreed?
Also: Despite your listed characteristics, Franken's miming for the camera a grope of the flak jacket of a sleeping woman is not excused on the grounds that it involved no creation of awareness and no power or control - maybe it's not sexual harassment, in your definition, but there's something wrong with it, surely.
I hate to break it to you, but most of these men are not being open and honest - I know it's a shock.
Last edited:
- Status