Roy moore accusations

[Kittamaru]

you are the one screeching incoherently. your trying to discredit female victims of sexual harassment by stating that it's not about gender and there are women who are sexual predators too.

Did I? Kindly quote me, please. Where did I say that "female victims of sexual harassment" are not victims of sexual predators because there are female sexual predators too?

Quote me, or retract your libel.

guess what? no one said there wasn't.

So why are you bringing up a red herring?

but you don't even try to bring up an example to discuss if that's the argument or point you want to make and no one is stopping you.

Stopping me from what, precisely? Discussing something I didn't say?

i think it's because it does not minimize the fact there are more men who harass sexually as well as being sexual predators. what other logical reason is there or do you just like appearing ridiculous?

i suppose your mentioning of cultural and gender differences is some type of an excuse. what culture would that be? somewhere in the middle-east? lol.

Hm, how kind of you to emulate another member who resorts to nervous laughter when cornered.

No, a perfect example of this: In America, waving "hello" to someone, with palm open and towards the person, is a perfectly acceptable thing. In Greece, it is a highly offensive sign. Instead, you should wave with your palm in towards yourself.

Some typical Over the Counter medications in the US carry hefty fines, or even lifelong jail sentences, in parts of Asia.

now, why don't you calm down and cite examples of female sexual predators or those who have been inappropriate so you can feel better, okay? lol.

I don't feel any need to cite examples of your red herring. Nice try though.

 

[Bells]

See, this is the kind of behavior that confuses me Bells...

Are you saying Democrats shouldn't hold Moore, Trump and Co accountable just because one (now two) Democrats have been accused of the same behavior?

His request he be investigated is posturing.

The ethics committee is all male, bar one woman member. All are senators. They have no actual power to do anything really. He suggested the investigation, and the Republicans and Democrats suggested that he be investigated by the Ethics Committee, because it just looks good. Nothing will happen to him. He all but guaranteed that absolutely nothing will happen to him. He is being investigated by his colleagues, who have as much to gain in protecting such behaviour. The Committee has no real power, they have not sanctioned or even given a person a smack to the back of the hand for wrong doing in years, despite investigating countless of issues with Senators.

It's akin to a group investigating itself. Imagine if a police department is accused of breaking the law in some way, shape or form and the people who investigate those accusations and allegations are the police officer who belong to that station or department. Welcome to the Ethics Committee.

You keep harping on Franken - he has already welcomed an investigation. What more do you want? You seem to want him to resign in disgrace before any due process happens... a very interesting position for one supposedly so in-the-know with the law.

Are you equating what Franken supposedly did with what Moore and Trump supposedly did? Are they all equally bad?

If so, that's fine - just make sure we are all being clear.

Surely, you cannot be so obtuse.

 

[birch]

Did I? Kindly quote me, please. Where did I say that "female victims of sexual harassment" are not victims of sexual predators because there are female sexual predators too?

Quote me, or retract your libel.


So why are you bringing up a red herring?

I don't feel any need to cite examples of your red herring. Nice try though.

No, you do have an obligation to cite examples at least since you are focused repeatedly on the aspect that it should not be based on gender with a pretense of bigotry against males.

so give examples of the other gender if that is what you want to discuss also or shut up. what is the problem?

it seems you are pissed most of the accused tend to be men just as this topic. your twist that women should feel guilty for that as if its unfair or unequivalent is illogical.

No, a perfect example of this: In America, waving "hello" to someone, with palm open and towards the person, is a perfectly acceptable thing. In Greece, it is a highly offensive sign. Instead, you should wave with your palm in towards yourself.

what? this is your example?

Some typical Over the Counter medications in the US carry hefty fines, or even lifelong jail sentences, in parts of Asia.

again, what? lol.

it's you with the red herrings.

 

[Kittamaru]

You do understand that you are just making my point for me and birch's point, for that matter, when you behave this way, right?

I would have thought the sarcasm was evident. Apparently not.

Okay. Let me clear something up for you.

Sexual harassment is not an "uncomfortable situation".

Oh, it isn't? So you are comfortable with it then? No, obviously sexual harassment is not merely an "uncomfortable situation", and I did not say it was. What I said was that folks, like yourself, have seemingly made a game of saying someone is "avoiding the point" when they provide an example.

Women have been very clear about what is sexual harassment. So why do you think the goalpost is moving?

Just this morning, there was a discussion on the radio regarding consent and harassment; one of the things brought up was Clinton and Lewinsky, and the question of whether or not there can even BE consent between two people when there is any sort of power disparity.

Let that sink in a moment - how, pray tell, is someone to be 100% certain they aren't accidentally making someone feel like they are being prey'ed upon, when you can make someone fearful simply by engaging them in polite conversation? No wonder we have gotten away from the "village" mentality - people are starting to be afraid to even TALK to their neighbors, for fear of "harassment" of some sort.

Do you understand the problem with that mentality?

Sexual harassment, by its very nature, is malicious.

I'll put it this way. Do you view racism and antisemitism and saying or doing things that is racist or antisemitic as always being malicious in nature?

Perfect example Bells - the word "Gook". I had grown up knowing "gook" as referring to a gooey substance, such as "a gooky, gooey mess":

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/gooky
gooky
(ˈɡʊkɪ)
adj, gookier or gookiest
sticky and messy

However, "gook" is also a racist term for one of Philippine, Korean, or Vietnamese descent.

Hence, using the word "gook", in an entirely innocuous context, can insult someone.

Does that mean I have been racist my entire life, insulting those of Philippine, Korean, or Vietnamese descent without ever knowing it? Does that mean I have had malicious intent towards them?

And she's right. Women always know what sexual harassment is. And that's actually a fairly general statement.

Ah, "women" always know what sexual harassment is.

So, then, when a woman sexually harasses a man, the man is just, what... unaware? Once again, Bells - absolutes are dangerous.

The only people who would view it as an absolute are those who perhaps feel that it is infringing on them in some way.

Or, perhaps, someone who is aware of the fact that people can make mistakes without intending to make someone uncomfortable or otherwise harm them. That's why we have the distinction between manslaughter and murder, for example. You already know this, Bells. Quit pretending you don't.

Then you are at risk of asphyxiation.

As I figured I would - you have no support, and no argument.

Because what Birch detailed is the reality for women. And the response you offered, is a perfect example of the facts that you seek.

Your misandry is showing with this:

Sexual harassment will never end, as long as men start ranting about "not all men" each time a woman opens her mouth to try to discuss the issue in your bid to shut us up and shut us down.

Where, at all, did I say "not all men". Quote me, Bells, or retract your libel.

For all of your self righteous posturing, you still don't understand what sexual harassment actually is.

Actually, I do. Thanks for pretending to know me so well

you gave an example, which was not sexual harassment

I never claimed my example was sexual harassment. Once again, you are attempting to poison the well. Pathetic, Bells, especially for someone who should know better.

you diminished sexual harassment to an "uncomfortable situation"

Utterly false, please quote me where I said sexual harassment was merely an "uncomfortable situation".

you demeaned, abused, insulted, attempted to silence, attempted to use your position here to silence a victim who is attempting to lend her voice and detail what she has experienced, because shock of shock, you took what she said personally because #notallmen!

Actually, what I took offense at was the misandry and shocking behavior both birch and yourself are showing. You are a disgrace, Bells, and you are doing irreparable damage to your own cause by acting like a fool.

So yeah, bate that breath. Let us know when you turn blue.

T'would seem it was you attempting to escape from your perch, Bells. I am quite secure where I am, since your childish tantrum has zero ability to effect me.

Ya. That's what it is.

It is - after all, you are the one that used the hashtag.

Your example has your friend telling you that your bro hugs make him uncomfortable because he doesn't like touching. You use this as an example of just how you "miss things" or miss social queues even from those you know. And this somehow or other plays into just how easily men can miss that they are sexually harassing a woman.

Go back and read it again, this time with your eyes open.

The entire point of the example was to show how, even for people who are good friends with one another, not everything is disclosed. I wasn't the only one that was unaware - the rest of our friends, and even his sister (who is incredibly huggy), were likewise saddened to hear we had ever made him uncomfortable.

My incredulity isn't feigned at this point.

Incredulous seems to be your default position of late.

The point that is relevant to this discussion is that it was not sexual harassment.

Once again - where did I claim it was?

It would be as relevant to the subject of sexual harassment as if you'd told us a story of how you saw a frog eat a bug once.

So you claim that an example of how someone can miss unspoken queues in Situation A renders the fact that people can miss said queues in Situation B irrelevant. Interesting... I wonder how that kind of (non)logic would hold up in court.

Acts of sexual harassment must all be collapsed to the most anodyne in order to minimise what is a very serious problem that goes well beyond the touch of an elbow. The language of the witch-hunt is a giveaway. It betrays an understanding that if any of these allegations are taken seriously, then so much entitled behaviour needs to be unlearned. The Humbling must not come to pass

.

Poor you.

And yet again, you are attempting to put words into peoples mouths.

Jesus Christ Bells... you really do have a problem, and to be frank - that problem is entirely internal to you.

 

[Kittamaru]

His request he be investigated is posturing.

Is it? I guess if he were to resign and remove himself from the public eye, it would simply be an attempt to "save face" then?

Face it, Bells. You would not be satisfied by anything he could do. You would find something to bitch about.

The ethics committee is all male, bar one woman member. All are senators. They have no actual power to do anything really. He suggested the investigation, and the Republicans and Democrats suggested that he be investigated by the Ethics Committee, because it just looks good. Nothing will happen to him. He all but guaranteed that absolutely nothing will happen to him. He is being investigated by his colleagues, who have as much to gain in protecting such behaviour. The Committee has no real power, they have not sanctioned or even given a person a smack to the back of the hand for wrong doing in years, despite investigating countless of issues with Senators.

It's akin to a group investigating itself. Imagine if a police department is accused of breaking the law in some way, shape or form and the people who investigate those accusations and allegations are the police officer who belong to that station or department. Welcome to the Ethics Committee.


Surely, you cannot be so obtuse.

So, because the system itself is flawed, him submitting to the system that we do have is insufficient. Excellent - you have proven my point succinctly.

You. Would. Not. Be. Satisfied. Period.

 

[Kittamaru]

Oh no, please, mansplain it to us some more.

Ah, more misandristic buzzwords. Hi-larious.

Wow, you're still hugging and living up to the not all men spiel.

And further bullshit. Bells, sorry, but your house must be brown at this point, for all the shit you are spewing.

When women talk about experiencing sexism or feeling unsafe, it has become a cliché for men to respond with "not all men." "Not all men sexually harass women," some might say, or, "not all men are rapists." This is true, but there are many reasons "not all men" misses the point. When we shift the discussion from the oppression of women to the protection of men's images, we undermine the very real problems women and men face.

There is a place for discussions of "not all men" in feminism. We can talk about, for example, how not all men were assigned male at birth, not all men are attracted to women, and not all men are innately aggressive, unemotional, or other things men are stereotyped to be. And we can even talk about how not all men are rapists — when it's serving a purpose like, say, pointing out that sexual violence is not natural or normal. But too often, the phrase "not all men" is used to invalidate women's claims about gender inequality or make men feel less uncomfortable about their privilege. In that case, it's not really serving a purpose, and it's silencing women.

[...]

When men say "not all men," they're often speaking defensively, Clementine Ford points out in Daily Life. They see themselves in stories about women's oppression and don't like how they're being represented. But these stories aren't about them, and members of marginalized groups should be able to talk about their own experiences without worrying about damaging privileged people's egos. When men or white people or members of another privileged group have the opportunity (which nobody owes them!) to learn about another group's experience, their job is to listen, not to defend themselves.​

Stop making it about you.

You have proven my point. Men are scum. Nothing we do or say matters, because we are always simply trying to downplay what happens. None of us are on "your" side in this. Boo hoo, woe is you.

Sorry, Bells, but I don't buy it. What you want isn't equality, it's superiority. I would suggest you find Wonder Woman and ask to move in with her tribe.

Oh! I guess we forgot our place. You know, in regards to a subject matter in which we are victims, have experienced it often on a daily basis.. In regards to a movement that is about us, as women and victims.

Sexual Harassment isn't just about women, Bells. Women can sexually harass men. Men can sexually harass other men. Women can sexually harass other women. Guess what - it's still sexual harassment.

We forgot that we were meant to ask you what the narrative should be? Because we all so luuuurve it when you mansplain this subject to us. We really do. So set the narrative, Kitta. Protect your ego and privilege some more. Want to tell us how your friend is uncomfortable with bro hugs and compare sexual harassment to an "uncomfortable situation" some more?

This isn't even worth responding to, and honestly just show how utterly hysterical you are.

How many ways can we tell you that your scenario is not sexual harassment and has nothing whatsoever to do with sexual harassment?

You cannot, because I never said it was sexual harassment. Get the doughnut out of your ear.

How many ways can we get it past your inflated self importance and ego, that you don't get to set the narrative on what we view as sexual harassment?

This isn't about me, Bells. It's just rather sad to watch you rant and rave like this.

Ya. Tell me how being a woman has no bearing in a discussion about sexual harassment some more.

No no, please, mansplain sexual harassment some more, keep demanding that we take you seriously. You're just proving our point.

Actually, my point is already proven. Your desire to play the fool is your problem, not mine. However, it is further evidence that you are unstable and incapable of arguing in a rational manner.

If anything, it is folks such as yourself, on both sides of the gender line, that prevent anything from being done. You are the problem, Bells. Enjoy knowing that you are helping ensure the next sexual predator goes free.

 

[Kittamaru]

But if we are to take sexual harassment and assault seriously, then we need to address the whole thing regardless of politics and that will never happen. Because women's bodies are once again political fodder for both sides. The partisan politics is making a mockery of what victims endure and go through and hell, it's helping pile more on.

Your own words Bells. You are, right now, refusing to address the whole thing. Why? What are you afraid of? Why do you refuse to look at the entire picture right now?

They either declare such behaviour to be unacceptable and hold their moral ground, or they just wallow in the muck with the rest of them and hope that the 'well, it's not as bad as Moore' and the 'he'll resign when Trump and Moore stand down' goes down well. Meanwhile, women are explaining just how prevalent and problematic sexual harassment is, Democrats are nodding their heads in agreement, while ignoring the giant pink elephants in the room and Republicans are voting in sex offenders because it's better to vote for the pedophile than to vote for a progressive.

You are blaming Franken for this; is he able to control the rest of their statements? No, that doesn't fucking excuse what he did... but as I've already asked you several times (and you have yet to reply), what does he need to do to make things right? What punishment is sufficient, and what is due process?

You are bloodthirsty, Bells, and you are throwing due process to the wind in order to get whatever it is you want (which, honestly, I don't think you even know what you want).

Maybe that's why I have such a hard time taking anything you say right now seriously... because if we followed what you seem to be proposing, we'd be back to gouging out peoples eyes for looking at you the wrong way, and lopping your hand off at the wrist for stealing a loaf of bread.

I get it - you feel some connection with birch, and now you feel the need to defend her from a perceived threat.

I feel the need to remind you that birch is the one that attacked me; she is the one that said

you can be offended all the fuk you want.

and

since you are a man, obviously you are unaware that men who are sexual harassers take even conversation or any attention their way as an opportunity to continue to try you.

I guess that's OK in your book, though, since she was attacking a man.

It's kind of funny, in a sad sort of way... y'all go on about "mansplaining"... yet when a woman acts the same way, you are justified. How about both genders quit the bullshit hashtag warrior fuckery and actually sit down and figure out a way to solve the issue?

Or... is solving the issue not the actual point anymore... because right now, Bells, that seems to be the case. You want blood, not a solution; that is the perception you are giving. That's why examples from women are fine, but examples from men are to be disregarded. It's why any attempt by a man to explain a possible pitfall results in a screeching of "not all men" bullshit, when in reality it's just that - an attempt to have both sides heard.

You don't want both sides heard, Bells. To you, there is your side, and the wrong side. That's it.

That mindset is going to see this problem continue for a long, long time, because you are going to push away anyone and everyone who wants to see the problem(s) resolved.

You know what, though? It's all A-OK.

birch - I am sorry for getting personal with you. Yes, many of your comments got under my skin (as I've no doubt was the intent). Many of them, I found, were belittling or insulting, and so I responded in kind. I am sorry for that. I should have simply ignored those comments.

 

[Bells]

Your own words Bells. You are, right now, refusing to address the whole thing. Why? What are you afraid of? Why do you refuse to look at the entire picture right now?

It's 2am for me, Kitta. I mean, I get it, you demand that I address "the whole thing" right now and you're a bit antsy that I am not jumping to respond right away..

Perhaps you want to tell us about your bro hugs some more as an example of just how badly you handle social cues and you don't know or can't tell that grabbing a woman on her backside or anywhere on her body without her consent, groping a woman in general, not taking no for an answer, sexually propositioning a woman and being pushy about it, commenting on a stranger's appearance because she's a woman, making lewd jokes about the woman, her body or other women in front of her, demeaning her sexually in front of others, like work colleagues, catcalling, etc, amounts to sexual harassment because you apparently may need extra cues or that women need to be more explicit about what is sexual harassment, because you just can't tell...

And these things are soooo easy to miss..

I get it! I really do.

But I am going to bed now.

Please feel free to keep digging yourself into that giant hole you just dug for yourself in your hysterics driven male ego defense.

While I am gone, here is a small example of some behaviour that constitutes sexual harassment. Since, you know, it's all so hard to miss and all that..

 

[origin]

since there are gray areas along this subject according to you, then you can provide examples of such, can't you? otherwise it's tantamount to bullshit. please provide examples as i'm sure if it's legitimate, then it will stand on it's own.

Well let's see what you said in the same post.

mfao! you are in no man's land there. harassment is simply continuing along a course of action against someone who has clearly made it known it is unwelcome.

You are implying that if I tell a sexual joke, for instance, to a woman and she tells me that it is inappropriate and I never do anything of the sort again then it was not sexual harassment. I think that would be sexual harassment.
We disagree on whether that would be sexual harassment - seems like a gray area, right?

Edited to add:
It seems like I always look at this issue like I am at work. In a social setting a sexual joke is probably not harassment but it depends on the joke - hey, another gray area!

 

[Kittamaru]

It's 2am for me, Kitta. I mean, I get it, you demand that I address "the whole thing" right now and you're a bit antsy that I am not jumping to respond right away..

Actually, no. I don't demand you address it right now. I just want it addressed at some point.

Perhaps you want to tell us about your bro hugs some more as an example of just how badly you handle social cues and you don't know or can't tell that grabbing a woman on her backside or anywhere on her body without her consent, groping a woman in general, not taking no for an answer, sexually propositioning a woman and being pushy about it, commenting on a stranger's appearance because she's a woman, making lewd jokes about the woman, her body or other women in front of her, demeaning her sexually in front of others, like work colleagues, catcalling, etc, amounts to sexual harassment because you apparently may need extra cues or that women need to be more explicit about what is sexual harassment, because you just can't tell...

Lets dissect this Bells, and showcase to the community just why I have issues with your behavior here:

Perhaps you want to tell us about your bro hugs some more

BroHug - where is this coming from? I certainly never used the term bro-hug in what I said - it seems like an attempt at gender-based insult.

as an example of just how badly you handle social cues

Actually, I'm generally good with social queues. Again, you are distorting what was said in order to avoid something that doesn't fit your narrative. I will explain it to you, yet again - the entire point was to show how, even with folks you know very well, it is possible to completely and utterly miss something important. Now, expand that to the logical next step - with a stranger you don't know at all, how can you be sure you aren't going to potentially insult them, make them feel threatened, or otherwise upset them, short of simply not interacting with them in any manner whatsoever?

For crying out loud, Bells, this should be easy for you...

and you don't know or can't tell that grabbing a woman on her backside or anywhere on her body without her consent, groping a woman in general, not taking no for an answer, sexually propositioning a woman and being pushy about it, commenting on a stranger's appearance because she's a woman, making lewd jokes about the woman, her body or other women in front of her, demeaning her sexually in front of others, like work colleagues, catcalling, etc, amounts to sexual harassment because you apparently may need extra cues or that women need to be more explicit about what is sexual harassment, because you just can't tell...

Where the flying fuck did I say, or even imply, any of that? It seems to me that you don't have an actual argument to stand on, so you are taking to ad hominem insult to fill the gap... actions you yourself have issued infractions to others for, Bells.

And these things are soooo easy to miss..

I get it! I really do.

Bells - honest question. Are you capable of debating with someone without resorting to (not so subtle) insults? Do you put these barbs into your posts to incite an emotional response so you can then feel justified replying in kind?

But I am going to bed now.

Pleasant dreams.

Please feel free to keep digging yourself into that giant hole you just dug for yourself in your hysterics driven male ego defense.

Yet again, you just have to make it a matter of me being male... are you incapable of arguing the premise on actual, rational facts?

While I am gone, here is a small example of some behaviour that constitutes sexual harassment. Since, you know, it's all so hard to miss and all that..

Ah, excellent.

My wife worked as a certified massage therapist for quite some time. Tell me, Bells, what is the deciding factor in whether her giving someone a back rub is sexual harassment or not?

I would wager your immediate response is consent, is it not?

Now, think about it for a moment Bells - can you possibly see how my story fits into this regarding consent? Surely you can put the pieces together here.

Re moving goalposts - we have reached a point where, in general, it is accept that a minor cannot give consent to an adult, due to the difference in maturity, power held, et al. Now, though, we are starting to ask questions about whether or not a person who is under another can give consent at all, because of the balance of power question.

Are we really to assume that our subordinates are so weak as to be unable or unwilling to say "no"... because that seems pretty damn insulting. Or are we simply assuming that all people in power are swine and will do anything to get in someone else's pants? What is the intent here, and how do we ensure a safe and level playing field for everyone?

Now, if you are done trying to vilify someone who is actually in your corner on all this?

 

[parmalee]

Perfect example Bells - the word "Gook". I had grown up knowing "gook" as referring to a gooey substance, such as "a gooky, gooey mess":

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/gooky
gooky
(ˈɡʊkɪ)
adj, gookier or gookiest
sticky and messy

However, "gook" is also a racist term for one of Philippine, Korean, or Vietnamese descent.

Hence, using the word "gook", in an entirely innocuous context, can insult someone.

Does that mean I have been racist my entire life, insulting those of Philippine, Korean, or Vietnamese descent without ever knowing it? Does that mean I have had malicious intent towards them?
...

Or, perhaps, someone who is aware of the fact that people can make mistakes without intending to make someone uncomfortable or otherwise harm them. That's why we have the distinction between manslaughter and murder, for example. You already know this, Bells. Quit pretending you don't.

The parallels you give here--"gook" and murder/manslaughter--are more akin to someone, say, accidentally brushing against someone's boob. No one is suggesting that something accidental would be sexual harassment, and accidents are, by definition, unintentional, and therefore,not malicious.

Grabbing someone's butt--with foreknowledge... well, there's intent and it's malicious, insofar as it is unwelcome and uninvited--in a manner of speaking, it puts someone "in their place."

 

[Kittamaru]

The parallels you give here--"gook" and murder/manslaughter--are more akin to someone, say, accidentally brushing against someone's boob. No one is suggesting that something accidental would be sexual harassment, and accidents are, by definition, unintentional, and therefore,not malicious.

Grabbing someone's butt--with foreknowledge... well, there's intent and it's malicious, insofar as it is unwelcome and uninvited--in a manner of speaking, it puts someone "in their place."

And this was exactly the point I was attempting to make. Referencing back to my tale about my buddy, for years I was unintentionally making him uncomfortable, and I wasn't even aware of it. One could make the claim of intent because I didn't "accidentally hug him", yet the intent was never to make him uncomfortable.

Is it impossible to fathom a situation where people are comfortable around one another to the point of dropping some of their usual walls that could result in leaving one of them feeling as though they may have been taken advantage of or otherwise disrespected?

Is it impossible, given Bells provided example of sexual harassment (profanity, off colour jokes, leering) that someone could cross that line without malicious intent, and be genuinely sorry that they have left someone feeling like they were sexually harassed?

I'm not trying to claim someone who intentionally "grabs em by the pussy" has "accidentally" sexually harassed someone, though it seems Bells is intent on making it seem like that is what I desire to say... but intent matters.

To reference back to the whole thing with Moore and Franken - what was their intent? Well, lets take a look at a different scenario: Ozzy Osbourne had a radio show that had all kinds of stupid and, honestly, demeaning contests - often of a sexual nature. Yet, people flocked to it in an attempt to win various prizes.

Does sexually humiliating someone count as sexual harassment? I would think it does... but what about when they have willingly agreed to it before hand? Well, now we're into the subject of consent... and the subject of power disparity.

Was the picture Franken took where he was pretending to cup her breasts acceptable? I don't believe it was. Is it as bad as coercing a minor to perform sexual acts? I think not - a tasteless joke from a comedian seems like a far cry from physical sexual abuse, and I think one needs a much harsher punishment than the other.

Or, maybe not - maybe they should both be punished the same. If that's the case, fine - we have some work to do with the law to make that the case.

 

[parmalee]

Still, two very different scenarios are presented:

Accidentally brushing against someone's boob. There is absolutely NO intent there.

Doing something--touching, leering, commenting--but, ostensibly, without the intent to cause harm, make someone uncomfortable, etc. is markedly different from my preceding example. That the person did not intend such does not exonerate them (as far as harassment goes), rather, it simply demonstrates their ignorance or obliviousness to such.

I suppose where I might disagree with Bells is with respect to "malice." Intent? Definitely. Malice? Honestly, I don't know. Some people are just so goddamned ignorant about, well, pretty much everything that it's kinda difficult to ascribe "malice" to them--but then, that's kinda the perennial question, eh? Stupid or evil?

 

[Kittamaru]

Still, two very different scenarios are presented:

Accidentally brushing against someone's boob. There is absolutely NO intent there.

Indeed.

Doing something--touching, leering, commenting--but, ostensibly, without the intent to cause harm, make someone uncomfortable, etc. is markedly different from my preceding example. That the person did not intend such does not exonerate them (as far as harassment goes), rather, it simply demonstrates their ignorance or obliviousness to such.

So if, to propose a hypothetical example, you mentioned to someone that you found them beautiful and asked them on a date, but they took it as sexual harassment because they felt you held some power over them, your intent is irrelevant, and you should be punished the same as someone who knew they held power over a subordinate and attempted to use that position?

Obviously the physical situations (where touch is involved, or leering) are far more cut and dry.
What about a shy and sheltered young lad who is averse to eye contact, and feels his manger is leering at him when she talks to him when, in reality, she simply makes eye contact with the person she is talking to? Should she be more aware that she is making her subordinate uneasy - of course. Is it sexual harassment? From her point of view, highly doubtful. From his point of view? He could very well feel intimidated, like a piece of meat being gazed upon by a predator, and get the wrong idea that she is leering at him.

I suppose where I might disagree with Bells is with respect to "malice." Intent? Definitely. Malice? Honestly, I don't know. Some people are just so goddamned ignorant about, well, pretty much everything that it's kinda difficult to ascribe "malice" to them--but then, that's kinda the perennial question, eh? Stupid or evil?

Stupid, evil, or naive may be more accurate.

 

[billvon]

Some people are just so goddamned ignorant about, well, pretty much everything that it's kinda difficult to ascribe "malice" to them--but then, that's kinda the perennial question, eh? Stupid or evil?

Hanlon's Razor - never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

 

[parmalee]

Hanlon's Razor - never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

Number one cause of "brain hurt." Or, at least in the top five.

 

[parmalee]

So if, to propose a hypothetical example, you mentioned to someone that you found them beautiful and asked them on a date, but they took it as sexual harassment because they felt you held some power over them, your intent is irrelevant, and you should be punished the same as someone who knew they held power over a subordinate and attempted to use that position?

I suppose a lot more context would be needed for such a scenario, but there are still some clear cut guidelines: Has some sort of exchange or conversation already commenced, or is this completely out of the blue? What sort of power differential--employer/employee, etc.?

Obviously the physical situations (where touch is involved, or leering) are far more cut and dry.
What about a shy and sheltered young lad who is averse to eye contact, and feels his manger is leering at him when she talks to him when, in reality, she simply makes eye contact with the person she is talking to? Should she be more aware that she is making her subordinate uneasy - of course. Is it sexual harassment? From her point of view, highly doubtful. From his point of view? He could very well feel intimidated, like a piece of meat being gazed upon by a predator, and get the wrong idea that she is leering at him.

He certainly has a right to claim such, of course, and the appropriate course of action for the manager would be to acknowledge his contention.

Further than that... damn. I don't know. I think an apology would be appropriate regardless.

Stupid, evil, or naive may be more accurate.

The law seems to be a lot more forgiving with respect to stupidity, as opposed to ignorance--I mean, with respect to congenital stupidity, that is, not just the, erm, plain, ordinary, everyday variety. But, yeah, it's an important distinction.

 

[Kittamaru]

I suppose a lot more context would be needed for such a scenario, but there are still some clear cut guidelines: Has some sort of exchange or conversation already commenced, or is this completely out of the blue? What sort of power differential--employer/employee, etc.?

Which I agree with - there is an entire backstory to this that is unknown, so trying to pass judgement on it is rather difficult.

He certainly has a right to claim such, of course, and the appropriate course of action for the manager would be to acknowledge his contention.

Further than that... damn. I don't know. I think an apology would be appropriate regardless.

And once again, I agree - he has the right to make his concerns known, and at the least an apology would seem appropriate, as well as the manager taking steps to ensure she isn't inadvertently making him feel that way in future interactions.

Now, lets draw this over to some of the 'comedy' that happens in the US (and I use quotes because I find most of it to be anything but funny). If part of a comedic act involves a person, who has already agreed to it, being humiliated in some way, especially a sexual way (the Family Guy parody of Ozzy with the hot dog cannon comes to mind) - is that sexual harassment?

I actually would say yes, yes it is. However, for a number of years, it was considered just fine, because the person agreed to it - they gave consent. This notion seems to be changing. I'm not averse to that change - it is all too easy for people with power to abuse it to 'get what they want' from those under them.

At the same time, we need to make sure that someone's life isn't ruined because they unintentionally made someone feel like they were being harassed (much like the "tough laws" we have regarding drugs now have seen non-violent offenders locked up for long stretches of their lives).

The law seems to be a lot more forgiving with respect to stupidity, as opposed to ignorance--I mean, with respect to congenital stupidity, that is, not just the, erm, plain, ordinary, everyday variety. But, yeah, it's an important distinction.

Case in point - my example about OTC medications. In the US and Europe, no problem. In some parts of Asia - life in prison. That... that is a terrifying thought.

 

[Bells]

I would have thought the sarcasm was evident. Apparently not.

You know Kitta, you're really bad at this sort of thing.

It wasn't sarcasm. That has been a running theme in your posts in this thread. You are literally approaching this like an MRA, pitching hysterics because #NotAllMen and then pitching an even bigger fit by trying to make it about you, you cited a frankly ridiculous example that not only had nothing to do with sexual harassment, but the meaning behind said example had nothing to do with sexual harassment. Perhaps you wish to derail the discussion, perhaps that's the deal with these bizarre hypothetical's you are coming up with that actively diminish sexual harassment? Is that your intent?

No, you don't get to hide behind the sarcasm line, when your entire argument has been to diminish sexual harassment and its victims. As I noted, you are pretty bad at this sort of thing and having seen you do this numerous times, you are kind of transparent.

Oh, it isn't? So you are comfortable with it then?

Are you really, really, that gormless?

No, obviously sexual harassment is not merely an "uncomfortable situation", and I did not say it was. What I said was that folks, like yourself, have seemingly made a game of saying someone is "avoiding the point" when they provide an example.

Then why did you choose to compare it to what was an "uncomfortable situation"? You keep foisting your friend doesn't like to be touched and how he would have been uncomfortable for a long time onto us, as though it's an example of not seeing or missing his rejection of your touching him.. When this is not what we are even discussing.

It is clear that you clearly have no idea what constitutes sexual harassment and instead of admitting that you don't know, you pitch a #NotAllMen fit when sexual harassment is explained to you, you continue to attempt to make it about you and how you are apparently being maligned because you are a man (which you have kept reminding us over and over again for some bizarre reason) and you then demand that the victims of sexual harassment change the narrative to fit your narrative and you basically bitch and moan that you aren't being taken seriously and as you keep reminding us that you are a man and the cycle of your 'what about me' whine begins anew... It's not that you are avoiding the point, Kitta. The issue here is that you don't even know what that point is. The so called example you provided was not even sexual harassment and is not what people and was certainly not what Birch was discussing. You missed the entire point. She called you out on it and you pitched your, well, manly ego protecting fit and here we are, you still not listening to the fact that your so called example has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. As I said, it's about as worthy as you saying you once saw a frog eat a bug once as an example of sexual harassment. Zero value, an attempt to derail a victim's account of what she experienced and for what? To protect your "male" ego.

Just this morning, there was a discussion on the radio regarding consent and harassment; one of the things brought up was Clinton and Lewinsky, and the question of whether or not there can even BE consent between two people when there is any sort of power disparity.

Let that sink in a moment - how, pray tell, is someone to be 100% certain they aren't accidentally making someone feel like they are being prey'ed upon, when you can make someone fearful simply by engaging them in polite conversation? No wonder we have gotten away from the "village" mentality - people are starting to be afraid to even TALK to their neighbors, for fear of "harassment" of some sort.

Do you understand the problem with that mentality?

Let me ask you this, do you understand why the people on the radio asked that question? Well, your next sentence indicates that you do not...

Sexual harassment is not an accident, Kitta. And your attempts to demand that we discuss how it can be an accident diminishes what is a very serious problem that women face. Not to mention that you are basically second guessing what women clearly understand and know they have and are experiencing.

Perfect example Bells - the word "Gook". I had grown up knowing "gook" as referring to a gooey substance, such as "a gooky, gooey mess":

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/gooky
gooky
(ˈɡʊkɪ)
adj, gookier or gookiest
sticky and messy

However, "gook" is also a racist term for one of Philippine, Korean, or Vietnamese descent.

Hence, using the word "gook", in an entirely innocuous context, can insult someone.

Does that mean I have been racist my entire life, insulting those of Philippine, Korean, or Vietnamese descent without ever knowing it? Does that mean I have had malicious intent towards them?

Again, sexual harassment is not accidental, Kitta.

Ah, "women" always know what sexual harassment is.

So, then, when a woman sexually harasses a man, the man is just, what... unaware? Once again, Bells - absolutes are dangerous.

I literally just face palmed.

Or, perhaps, someone who is aware of the fact that people can make mistakes without intending to make someone uncomfortable or otherwise harm them. That's why we have the distinction between manslaughter and murder, for example. You already know this, Bells. Quit pretending you don't.

Once more, sexual harassment is not accidental. So perhaps you should quit demanding that we take you and your bizarre scenario seriously when it has nothing to do with sexual harassment. By which I mean the whole "mistake" thing of your making your "buddy" "uncomfortable" with your touching because he does not like to be touched or even shake hands, has anything to do with sexual harassment.

 

[Bells]

As I figured I would - you have no support, and no argument.

Well it's the truth. You keep demanding we take you seriously, when you have no idea what the adults are actually discussing. You are currently fighting to save your own ego, at the moment and you and I have been through this before, on a similar subject, when you went on a rampage, because you simply did not understand what was being discussed.

Your misandry is showing with this:

Where, at all, did I say "not all men". Quote me, Bells, or retract your libel.

Kitta, your whole display here is right out of the "not all men" playbook. And I mean that literally. This basically describes you perfectly:

A victim of sexual harassment and sexual assault is attempting to discuss sexual harassment and you literally jump down her throat, you dismiss and diminish her experiences, belittle her because of it, because she said the word "men" or "man". You then attempt to derail the discussion to discuss something that has nothing to do with sexual harassment..

Instead of actually listening to what birch was saying, you instead deliberately chose to become part of the problem facing us in every day society by your actions in this thread.

Actually, I do. Thanks for pretending to know me so well

I don't think you realise just how transparent you actually are.

I never claimed my example was sexual harassment. Once again, you are attempting to poison the well. Pathetic, Bells, especially for someone who should know better.

No, you used your example to diminish sexual harassment, by going on this spiel about how mistakes can happen by citing your example. Sexual harassment is not a mistake, Kitta. Do you understand now?

As for your "someone who should know better", you are again making my point for me.

Utterly false, please quote me where I said sexual harassment was merely an "uncomfortable situation".

Once again, your comparison to your scenario, by questioning about how mistakes can happen and how such mistakes can make people uncomfortable is what I have been responding to, Kitta. In effect, that is how you are coming across.

Please stop doing this.

Actually, what I took offense at was the misandry and shocking behavior both birch and yourself are showing. You are a disgrace, Bells, and you are doing irreparable damage to your own cause by acting like a fool.

What misandry, Kitta? When women discuss sexual harassment, we use the words "men" or "man". Do you know why? Because the people who sexually harass us are "men" or a "man".

We are speaking of our experience.

Accusing women of misandry for using such words just shows how little you understand the issue and most importantly, just how you are more interested in protecting the status quo and defending your own personal masculine ego by your ridiculous attempts to shut us up and silence us.

T'would seem it was you attempting to escape from your perch, Bells. I am quite secure where I am, since your childish tantrum has zero ability to effect me.

The crux of sexism, is the manner in which "men" resort to diminishing women when we speak about it. So we will often face comments about how we are stupid, foolish, my personal favourite, "childish", etc. As I have noted several times now, you are simply making my point for me with this display.

Go back and read it again, this time with your eyes open.

The entire point of the example was to show how, even for people who are good friends with one another, not everything is disclosed. I wasn't the only one that was unaware - the rest of our friends, and even his sister (who is incredibly huggy), were likewise saddened to hear we had ever made him uncomfortable.

This has nothing to do with sexual harassment or why victims of sexual harassment do not speak out, Kitta. What part of that haven't you grasped yet?

So you claim that an example of how someone can miss unspoken queues in Situation A renders the fact that people can miss said queues in Situation B irrelevant. Interesting... I wonder how that kind of (non)logic would hold up in court.

Sexual harassment is not an unspoken cue. It isn't a mistake. It isn't accidental.

And yet again, you are attempting to put words into peoples mouths.

Jesus Christ Bells... you really do have a problem, and to be frank - that problem is entirely internal to you.

Yep. It's my problem. Again, you are simply making my point for me.