s/o What is sexual assault

[Bluegoat]

42 minutes ago, SKL said:

State law differs a lot as far as the terminology of sexual misbehavior.

As for then vs. now, I just don't think people thought in terms of "consent" back then (generally). 

Most men both then and now did not engage in predatory behavior - either they were too shy or respectful or it didn't occur to them.  I have always felt generally safe except for a few rare times when someone was giving me "that look" or a couple of times when an impulsive boy reached out and grabbed as if it was funny.  I mean, I don't think men/boys in general feel like women are theirs to touch as they please.  But for some, there is apparently some gray area.

I like "consent" because it kind of makes things black and white.  If it cools things down a bit in a mutual "heat of the moment," I have no problem with that.  I do believe it should be applied equally to both sexes.

Another thing I'll say about "then."  I was growing up during the sexual revolution when the media and other agents of cultural change were really encouraging girls to relax and let loose and be open or however you want to say it.  Movies, music, etc. made it clear that any boy who didn't "try" was an idiot, and even that girls were offended if they didn't try.  The people who tried to convince both boys and girls to wait were considered backward and even misogynist.  So that was a factor, and I would like to think the pendulum is swinging back.

 

I think that it is very true that there was a real shift in mores at the sexual revolution, that kind of left things very wide open for quite some time.  My mom learned the pre-revolution approach from her mom "it's up to a boy to try and the girl to deny".  Which is kind of yuck, but it did absolutely knowledge that the girl really might want to deny and was allowed to do so, in fact she should in order to preserve her virtue and not give away the milk for free and all the other cliches.

 Once you get to the sexual revolution all of a sudden there was a lot of pressure not to deny because that was square and not free.  And especially in a case where it was someone you really were interested in - all of a sudden there was no reason, no excuse, to say no - it was just a sign that you had sexual hang-ups, an oppressed sexuality, or an old fashioned belief that women are less sexual than men.  Even the excuse of avoiding pregnancy became less useful.  The mental or moral pressure seems to have become much greater.  But also I think in a weird way it added legitimacy to harassment and even assault - because all of a sudden even pretty intimate sexuality was no big deal.  If something is no big deal, it isn't something you get your knickers in a twist when someone does it, right?  The fact that a lot of young women felt like they should go along with things that made them uncomfortable, or some went along with things that were kind of degrading whether or not they consented, just made that much more of a confusing mess for all.

Now I think we are looking back and seeing a lot of that didn't work, but it's not necessarily easy to construct a new set of behavioural expectations.  Explicit verbal consent before touching is a good example, in the abstract I think a lot of people think it makes sense in newer relationships, but in practice I'm not sure it works as well because so many people don't seem to communicate about sex in a primarily verbal way. 

[Bluegoat]

45 minutes ago, LucyStoner said:

 

I can see your point about abuse, on an ongoing basis especially.  Molestation however, not so much.  

Child molestation and molester sound quite different than child rape and rapist.  Molestation could be anything, yet assaults on women that we would call rape we call child molestation when the victim is a child instead of a grown woman.  

That’s my take on it anyways.  

 

Hmm, I would have said that a child molester might not be a rapist, but a child rapist would always be a child molester.  Child rape is always pretty horrific while molestation can vary a lot more in it's effects and seriousness, so I can see why it might seem minimizing to use the term molestation, but it would also be a larger category which is sometimes what you need for a description.

[ktgrok]

Thank you for the bit about "freeze or appease". I knew about freeze, but hadn't heard the appease one. It really clarifies a lot of my own experiences, and those of my friends. The need to just do whatever it takes to get it over with as fast as possible, as safely as possible. 

[LucyStoner]

9 minutes ago, Bluegoat said:

 

Hmm, I would have said that a child molester might not be a rapist, but a child rapist would always be a child molester.  Child rape is always pretty horrific while molestation can vary a lot more in it's effects and seriousness, so I can see why it might seem minimizing to use the term molestation, but it would also be a larger category which is sometimes what you need for a description.

 

Psst,  I’m not denying that it’s a larger category.  However, I have first hand experience here and feel strongly we minimize child sexual abuse in pretty much every form.  People want to talk a good game in this regard but we overwhelmingly focus on lower risks (stranger abduction by registered sex offenders) than higher risks (people in your life you know and think you can trust) and a great number of child rape survivors are either not believed or are blamed even when they do report.  Children are also highly susceptible to be coerced into secrecy about it.  

I think we use the somewhat more sanitized term molestation so much more often than rape precisely because the phrase child rape is gut wrenchingly horrible. We’d really like to pretend it doesn’t exist to the extent that it does. I think we do this because as a culture who wants to admit that we have failed to protect our children?  

 

Edited October 9, 2018 by LucyStoner

[Bluegoat]

1 minute ago, LucyStoner said:

 

Psst,  I’m not denying that it’s a larger category.  However, I have first hand experience here and feel strongly we minimize child sexual abuse.  People want to talk a good game in this regard but we  focus on lower risks (stranger abduction by registered sex offenders) than higher risks (people in your life you know and think you can trust).  I think we do this because as a culture who wants to admit that we have failed to protect our children?  

I think we use the somewhat more sanitized term molestation so much more often than rape precisely because the phrase child rape is gut wrenchingly horrible. We’d really like to pretend it doesn’t exist to the extent that it does. 

 

 

I'm wondering a bit how you are seeing it used - I don't know that I actually see the term child molester a lot.  I tend to see "pedophile" or "convicted pedophile".  I know I don't see "child rapist" much but I think the reason is that there are fewer child rapists than people who assault kids, and the ones that are rapists have also assaulted kids without raping them.  My impression in the media is they often use terms to be as inclusive as possible.

I do think we concentrate on things we perceive as more scary but which often are much less common - this seems to happen in a lot of risk perception scenarios.  I do think there is a kind of weird psychological transference going on, but I'm not sure it's about minimizing exactly - l sometimes think it's about creating ritual scapegoats.

[Janeway]

That definition needs to be more specific to say what a sexual act is and what non consent is. There are the obvious cases of sexual assault, so I don't need to repeat those here, but then I hear cases of..being called sexual assault..where someone does something and later changes their mind, that would be sexual assault. Some say coercion constitutes sexual assault. But then we would need a definition to say what the difference is between coercion and convincing. Some say only a woman can be sexually assault. Some say if both parties to the act were incapacitated, then only the man has committed a crime and the woman is a victim. How does one then address actions between two people of the same gender? Using those standards, if it is female on female or male on male.....can it still be sexual assault? And then there is the question of what actions make it sexual vs non sexual assault. If someone is shoved on to a bed....is that sexual or not? If their body is pressed against..is that sexual or not? Does it take sexual overtones or the touching of an actual sexual body part? Since assault does require actual touching, it would make sense that sexual assault would make to mean actually touching a sex body part. Or would it be touching but in a sexual nature?

 

I don't have all the answers. But the very few points I have opinions on are....laws should be applied equally to both genders. Men and woman can both be assaulted. They should be held to the same exact standards regardless of gender. Also, one changing their mind should not be held as a standard for calling something sexual assault. Someone incapacitating themselves knowing they will be having sex and then having sex is not the same as someone ending up incapacitated and then someone having sex with them. For example, if I get drunk with my husband and then we have sex, no crime has happened. But, if I go out and get drunk and some guy has sex with me, that would be sexual assault (rape in that case actually). My husband knows I was drinking with the intent to consent and that guy knows not. For the record, I do not drink at all so none of this will ever be an issue, I was just trying to think of an example to use. It might not be the best one to use, but trying here. 

 

One puzzlement though..if both people are incapacitated and then have sex.......either both should be charged with rape or neither. It should not be the male gets charged and the female is a victim. And when women rape, they should receive as much punishment as men do. The laws should always be applied equally. But really, the laws need to be more specific. 

[LucyStoner]

1 hour ago, Bluegoat said:

 

I'm wondering a bit how you are seeing it used - I don't know that I actually see the term child molester a lot.  I tend to see "pedophile" or "convicted pedophile".  I know I don't see "child rapist" much but I think the reason is that there are fewer child rapists than people who assault kids, and the ones that are rapists have also assaulted kids without raping them.  My impression in the media is they often use terms to be as inclusive as possible.

I do think we concentrate on things we perceive as more scary but which often are much less common - this seems to happen in a lot of risk perception scenarios.  I do think there is a kind of weird psychological transference going on, but I'm not sure it's about minimizing exactly - l sometimes think it's about creating ritual scapegoats.

 

Well, I’ve lived for 27 years, or more than 7/10ths of my life as a rape survivor.  In that time I’ve read a lot on the topic, worked for various groups in various ways working against violence against children and women, been in a research study about the long term impacts on survivors decades later and read pretty extensively. I tend to see the term child rape used more often if the crime was paired with murder.  Most children who are raped are not raped by murderers,  they are raped by people who either *are in their family* or have gained their family’s trust.  Another term we used to downplay this is “incest” the which can also apply to sexual attraction between family members rather than rape.  

At the end of the day, I’ve come to see that calling a spade a spade has value. 

I am quite certain that just like other sex crimes, those involving children are minimized and we, regardless of if we can admit it or not, aren’t doing survivors many, if any, favors. We demand they report it but we don’t do a very good job of listening when they do tell us.  

 

Edited October 9, 2018 by LucyStoner

[Ravin]

5 hours ago, LucyStoner said:

 

I agree.  Words mean something and just like we all understand the difference between swearing at someone, punching someone, assaulting someone with a deadly weapon and killing someone, I think people naturally do understand that not all sexual misconduct or sex crimes are the same thing.  

I have noticed that what we used to call sexual harassment is sometimes now, culturally (not legally), considered sexual assault.  I really don’t think this is helpful.  It’s important that words have meaning.  Having men yell lewd things at me is simply not the same think as being raped.  The former could be terrifying and traumatic but it’s not one and the same thing as the latter.  The impact on me is different and the legal consequences (if any) are and should be very different.  

 

There can be some confusion there with the underlying definition of "assault." An assault, generally, can mean an attempted battery (battery being unwanted physical contact/force), or it can mean putting the person in fear that they were immediately going to receive a battery. 

With the same logic applied to the definition of sexual assault, it could be anything from behavior that makes the person afraid they are in immediate danger of unwanted sexual contact, to attempting unwanted sexual contact/rape.

Assault in other jurisdictions can mean the same thing as battery, which is where sexual assault can encompass various definitions of rape comes in.

Part of the issue here is that while, in a criminal code, these terms are given specific meanings which make sense within the overall structure of what type of offenses are recognized, in general parlance, overlapping definitions are simply something that must be contended with, because the working definition, if not referring to a legal code or clearly defined in context, is going to be slippery.

[gardenmom5]

4 hours ago, unsinkable said:

In a few weeks, some posters will say that people on this board blame sexual assault on Satan. 

 

3 hours ago, Quill said:

No, only the Duggars do that. ?

the Pope just did that.  for real.  that satan made those priests abuse children (mostly boys), and made the cardinals cover it up.

he left out what he plans on doing about it . . . .

[Liz CA]

10 minutes ago, Ravin said:

 

There can be some confusion there with the underlying definition of "assault." An assault, generally, can mean an attempted battery (battery being unwanted physical contact/force), or it can mean putting the person in fear that they were immediately going to receive a battery. 

 

 

I think this is exactly why it always puzzled me a bit. The word "assault" meant to me a physical aggression of some sort with physical contact. 

[LucyStoner]

19 minutes ago, Ravin said:

 

There can be some confusion there with the underlying definition of "assault." An assault, generally, can mean an attempted battery (battery being unwanted physical contact/force), or it can mean putting the person in fear that they were immediately going to receive a battery. 

With the same logic applied to the definition of sexual assault, it could be anything from behavior that makes the person afraid they are in immediate danger of unwanted sexual contact, to attempting unwanted sexual contact/rape.

Assault in other jurisdictions can mean the same thing as battery, which is where sexual assault can encompass various definitions of rape comes in.

Part of the issue here is that while, in a criminal code, these terms are given specific meanings which make sense within the overall structure of what type of offenses are recognized, in general parlance, overlapping definitions are simply something that must be contended with, because the working definition, if not referring to a legal code or clearly defined in context, is going to be slippery.

 

What I think OKBud and I were discussing is the use of the colloquial term even beyond the context of the law.  It’s not a crime for instance, to say something suggestive in many or even most contexts, even if it is gross or unwelcome.  Not all sexual misconduct is criminal in nature.  

Edited October 9, 2018 by LucyStoner

[gardenmom5]

in answer to the OP #1 post, at what point does it become a problem? when it happens.

the person don't have to understand - I didn't understand the long-term effects being molested when i was three would do to me.  (teenage neighbor, I NEVER forgot the details).  I didn't tell anyone,  - I didn't understand. I displayed many behaviors typical of molested children. around the same time (I don't know the timing), I was taken in to my pediatrician and diagnosed with an infection "down there" - but it was easier to just assume a three year old girl was having a reaction to her bubble bath than something untoward. I don't think telling my mother would have changed anything.

I was  assaulted (and battered) by a stranger, not raped, in my own home as a young wife and mother - but it left me paranoid and afraid to be alone in my own home.  

damage is damage.

 
I had typed out details (not graphic), but I think it's better to delete them.

including dsil's paranoia after a female college friend was raped in her dorm room. (I don't know if they were just close friends, or he'd been dating her at the time.)

[gardenmom5]

9 minutes ago, Liz CA said:

 

I think this is exactly why it always puzzled me a bit. The word "assault" meant to me a physical aggression of some sort with physical contact. 

the police at the time of mine tired to explain  the difference- assault being the threat of violence, battery as the actual physical blows.

such as: I was s3xually assaulted, I wasn't raped.  I was also battered.

consider "battered wife" (one who is beaten.)

molestation is rarely as physically violent.  there is a lot of subtle mind games getting the victim to cooperate.  those mind games can be worse in some ways because it changes how the victim sees things.  the victims are generally young.    I don't think it's prejudicial to call what happens to small children molestation - I think it indicates this is a horrific crime, of an adult against a young child.

[unsinkable]

1 hour ago, gardenmom5 said:

 

the Pope just did that.  for real.  that satan made those priests abuse children (mostly boys), and made the cardinals cover it up.

he left out what he plans on doing about it . . . .

Since according to Catholic teaching, Satan can't *make* anyone do anything, I am almost certain the Pope didn't and wouldn't say this.

[Murphy101]

5 hours ago, Amy in NH said:

 

Fight or flight aren't the only two adrenal responses to a perceived danger. 

It is often called:

fight, flight, freeze, or fawn

OR

fight, flight, freeze, or appease

I think a lot of us have the freeze or appease response, which sets us up for accusations of consent because we didn't fight or flee.

 

Yes. I’m aware of that and just mentioned the general phrase to get my point across. Buy I’m glad you pointed it out because you are totally right that those other categories are OFTEN viewed as acceptance or even approval when a woman does it. And they just aren’t. They are viewed entirely differently when men have them.

[J-rap]

46 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

I will say, though, having grown up in the 70's and 80's, that while boys got away with a wide range of behaviours, it didn't generally involved pinning a girl down with his hand over her mouth. That was going too far, even for the 70's.

Absolutely.

[6packofun]

What acts are "proscribed"?  For example, is grabbing someone's butt considered sexual assault? Taylor Swift would probably say so.  And yet, I would be a sexual assault victim about 10x over because it happened to me in large crowds nearly every time I went to a Browns games with my dad when I was a teen.  As much as I would have liked to identify the person and give him (I assume him) a huge piece of my mind and maybe a big slap, it was impossible.  It was disgusting and annoying but I've never felt like an assault victim.  At the same time, who am I to say that other women shouldn't feel victimized for the rest of their lives because of it?  (I have my opinion on it, of course.)  

Adding that Taylor Swift was apparently wearing a thong or no panties because the guy put his hand up her skirt and it was on bare skin. I was grabbed through my jeans.  But I was also a child.  All of these little things come into the picture and create context.  I just think that we're having a hard time delineating.  Matt Damon was excoriated for saying that there is a spectrum of this stuff and not to conflate two very different things.  People went insane over that so how are we to decide??

[MeghanL]

1 hour ago, unsinkable said:

Since according to Catholic teaching, Satan can't *make* anyone do anything, I am almost certain the Pope didn't and wouldn't say this.

It's fairly easy enough to google a news source of your liking to verify this information. Here are two to get you started. 

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/410401-pope-says-devil-trying-to-divide-attack-the-catholic-church

https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/sex-abuse-scandal-pope-seeks-prayers-fight-devil-58168326

[unsinkable]

27 minutes ago, MeghanL said:

It's fairly easy enough to google a news source of your liking to verify this information. Here are two to get you started. 

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/410401-pope-says-devil-trying-to-divide-attack-the-catholic-church

https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/sex-abuse-scandal-pope-seeks-prayers-fight-devil-58168326

Neither of those articles have the Pope saying Satan *made* the priests do anything. According to the RC Church, Satan can't make you do anything.

Which is what I said...And since I don't have access to everything the Pope said, ever, I qualified my statement with "I'm almost certain" he didn't say it.

 

[Sneezyone]

2 hours ago, 6packofun said:

What acts are "proscribed"?  For example, is grabbing someone's butt considered sexual assault? Taylor Swift would probably say so.  And yet, I would be a sexual assault victim about 10x over because it happened to me in large crowds nearly every time I went to a Browns games with my dad when I was a teen.  As much as I would have liked to identify the person and give him (I assume him) a huge piece of my mind and maybe a big slap, it was impossible.  It was disgusting and annoying but I've never felt like an assault victim.  At the same time, who am I to say that other women shouldn't feel victimized for the rest of their lives because of it?  (I have my opinion on it, of course.)  

Adding that Taylor Swift was apparently wearing a thong or no panties because the guy put his hand up her skirt and it was on bare skin. I was grabbed through my jeans.  But I was also a child.  All of these little things come into the picture and create context.  I just think that we're having a hard time delineating.  Matt Damon was excoriated for saying that there is a spectrum of this stuff and not to conflate two very different things.  People went insane over that so how are we to decide??

 

In some states that is assault and in others it is sexual battery. It is a crime. It was a crime. Wearing a thong to avoid panty lines or for your own pleasure and kicks isn’t an invitation to be touched without your permission. Here’s a nice story about an LEO encouraging somebody to press charges for exactly that sort of behavior. Why? To protect his daughters from experiencing the same.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10217628450566765&id=1343766684

Edited October 10, 2018 by Sneezyone

[MeghanL]

1 hour ago, Sneezyone said:

 

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10217628450566765&id=1343766684

You know what? I've been thinking about this a lot tonight and I think this is the answer. 

Every.single.time. Make a report. Make it known. Stop the idea that a woman's body is public property if she goes outside. Stop the idea that "This doesn't actually ever happen; only for your 15 minutes of fame." Make it inconvenient and make it stop. 

[Sneezyone]

1 hour ago, MeghanL said:

You know what? I've been thinking about this a lot tonight and I think this is the answer. 

Every.single.time. Make a report. Make it known. Stop the idea that a woman's body is public property if she goes outside. Stop the idea that "This doesn't actually ever happen; only for your 15 minutes of fame." Make it inconvenient and make it stop. 

 

My daughter and her friend were harassed at a water park overseas. Her friend was physically touched, DD was not. When the girls and the friend's dad went to park security and police viewed the video footage, the guy (18+) was arrested. Yes, the authorities practically begged the girls to renounce their claims and 'let him go' but that's because the punishments there are much more harsh for these types of offenses. Rape/statutory rape of a child under 14, and aggravated sexual assault are all death penalty offenses. We like to think women are treated so much worse in other countries, and in some ways they are, but the guy that did that to my daughter and her friend spent the night in a craphole jail, was immediately expelled from the country, and had to pay a $1,500 USD fine...within 48 hours.

[gardenmom5]

4 hours ago, MeghanL said:

You know what? I've been thinking about this a lot tonight and I think this is the answer. 

Every.single.time. Make a report. Make it known. Stop the idea that a woman's body is public property if she goes outside. Stop the idea that "This doesn't actually ever happen; only for your 15 minutes of fame." Make it inconvenient and make it stop. 

I have to admit, I've enjoyed the three videos I've seen (I think all were in asia) of guys groping a girl in a very public place (then walking on by as though nothing had happened), and she whips around and punches him.   and instead of being angry at her - the crowds have all backed up the girl when they find out what happened and hold the jerk for the police to deal with.

[Farrar]

I've never been traumatized by sexual assault. I've only ever experienced what I would personally call very low level assault - guys grabbing my rear at a party in my youth kind of level stuff. It's sexual assault by the definition provided for sure - it was sexual contact without my consent. But while I didn't like it, I also wasn't deeply bothered by it. I never felt unsafe. I always felt I could walk off or throw a drink in someone's face or whatever if I needed. I always had allies around me (hooray for women's colleges). It never became an unrelenting thing for me. I know other women who have experienced what I would call greater levels of assault without experiencing trauma as well - things like guys kissing or cornering them and rubbing against them or holding a wrist down briefly. And they were able to shake it off. Because some people can.

One of the things that bothers me is that some people who had those experiences and were able to shake them off seem to think everyone should be able to. And that's an unfair standard. I mean, just because I wasn't deeply scarred by having my breast fondled without my permission as a teen doesn't mean it was okay in any way shape or form. It's still a problem.

Even when the sexual assault doesn't merit a legal punishment - such as when it's an elementary school kid grabbing or kissing another inappropriately or possibly even a teen or young adult who grabs and the victim doesn't want to press charges - it's still a problem.

[Katy]

10 hours ago, MeghanL said:

You know what? I've been thinking about this a lot tonight and I think this is the answer. 

Every.single.time. Make a report. Make it known. Stop the idea that a woman's body is public property if she goes outside. Stop the idea that "This doesn't actually ever happen; only for your 15 minutes of fame." Make it inconvenient and make it stop. 

 

I think you're right, but the issue is there is a big difference in severity.  I was thinking perhaps there should be a lesser degree - groping over clothes is different than under or something, but if that was added it would simply be a way for lawyers to plea down to a lesser offense.

[Bluegoat]

7 hours ago, Farrar said:

I've never been traumatized by sexual assault. I've only ever experienced what I would personally call very low level assault - guys grabbing my rear at a party in my youth kind of level stuff. It's sexual assault by the definition provided for sure - it was sexual contact without my consent. But while I didn't like it, I also wasn't deeply bothered by it. I never felt unsafe. I always felt I could walk off or throw a drink in someone's face or whatever if I needed. I always had allies around me (hooray for women's colleges). It never became an unrelenting thing for me. I know other women who have experienced what I would call greater levels of assault without experiencing trauma as well - things like guys kissing or cornering them and rubbing against them or holding a wrist down briefly. And they were able to shake it off. Because some people can.

One of the things that bothers me is that some people who had those experiences and were able to shake them off seem to think everyone should be able to. And that's an unfair standard. I mean, just because I wasn't deeply scarred by having my breast fondled without my permission as a teen doesn't mean it was okay in any way shape or form. It's still a problem.

Even when the sexual assault doesn't merit a legal punishment - such as when it's an elementary school kid grabbing or kissing another inappropriately or possibly even a teen or young adult who grabs and the victim doesn't want to press charges - it's still a problem.

 

I think though that the while sometimes there is no way to affect how someone experiences such things, the way we conceptualize them on a group level can also affect how people experience such things.  The experience that really made me start to think about this was a male friend of mine who was, according to the legal definition, raped.  He however didn't think about it that way, and he didn't really experience any of the effects you'd expect - and I'm sure those things were directly related.  He thought the person involved was rude, and he was really ticked off that he got an STD, but it was the way you'd experience someone butting in line,, not an assault.

That's an extreme example, but more generally I think we can see instances where society places the line in a different place affects people's experience.  In some more prudish times it's been placed where it includes even verbal interactions as a kind of assault, and some people correspondingly found them shocking or traumatizing.  I'm not sure it's good for people as a whole to make every bad/rude/selfish sexual interaction as something we perceive as assault, any more than it would be if we conceptualized of other social interactions that way.  

Don't tend to think it would even be positive from a legal standpoint, as some have suggested, if we levelled out sexual assault and relentlessly pursued every example.  I don't know that it would have the effect of making people revile it more - if it did, it might well lead to injustices.  I think what is just as likely is that people would be less inclined to take action over less serious instances, because they wouldn't feel right about it resulting in severe consequences.

[nixpix5]

This post has reminded me of an incident I had in middle school. I lived in a largely migrant area and my middle school was a primary ELL resource for Mexican immigrant's teens. We had 3 main halls and the west hall housed classes for us but also these teens. Their culture dictated very different norms and when girls would go down that hall the boys would all be hanging around lockers wagging their tongues, licking their lips, grabbing at any body part they could reach. No amount of "no" seemed to work. They would laugh and try harder. The girls all panicked if they got stuck with a locker in west hall for the year because it was impossible to get your stuff. We complained numerous times to staff and were told to not take offense because it was part of their courting rituals in their culture. This made it worse because we felt like we had to endure it or we were insulting their culture. It also set a presidence around the school to the other boys to be more bold. I still feel like I want to take a shower every time I think of my 2 years as a female in that middle school. Of course the times were different and it would never fly now thank goodness. 

[LucyStoner]

8 minutes ago, nixpix5 said:

This post has reminded me of an incident I had in middle school. I lived in a largely migrant area and my middle school was a primary ELL resource for Mexican immigrant's teens. We had 3 main halls and the west hall housed classes for us but also these teens. Their culture dictated very different norms and when girls would go down that hall the boys would all be hanging around lockers wagging their tongues, licking their lips, grabbing at any body part they could reach. No amount of "no" seemed to work. They would laugh and try harder. The girls all panicked if they got stuck with a locker in west hall for the year because it was impossible to get your stuff. We complained numerous times to staff and were told to not take offense because it was part of their courting rituals in their culture. This made it worse because we felt like we had to endure it or we were insulting their culture. It also set a presidence around the school to the other boys to be more bold. I still feel like I want to take a shower every time I think of my 2 years as a female in that middle school. Of course the times were different and it would never fly now thank goodness. 

 

Sexual harassment still goes on in schools in a major way.  My niece is in 11th grade this year and it’s been a big problem since 7th grade.  The administration doesn’t come down on it unless they see it, which of course they rarely do, and girls don’t want to report it because they won’t be taken seriously and they will get blow back from their peers.  

[goldberry]

17 hours ago, 6packofun said:

What acts are "proscribed"?  For example, is grabbing someone's butt considered sexual assault? Taylor Swift would probably say so.  And yet, I would be a sexual assault victim about 10x over because it happened to me in large crowds nearly every time I went to a Browns games with my dad when I was a teen.  As much as I would have liked to identify the person and give him (I assume him) a huge piece of my mind and maybe a big slap, it was impossible.  It was disgusting and annoying but I've never felt like an assault victim. 

 

Isn't that part of the discussion though, whether how a person *feels* changes the status of what happens?

That Facebook story was great.  No, I don't consider ass grabbing equivalent to full on rape.  But it seems to easy too blow it off, and then guys just keep doing it, or worse. As others have noted, it's part of a culture that assumes male right to access women's bodies.  People demeaned Swift for taking it to court, but she said at the time she was tired of that kind of behavior being accepted or blown off.  It makes a statement as a society what we choose to accept as normal, or just annoying.

[SKL]

What made me mad was when recently a restaurant employee punched a guy for grabbing her butt, she got in trouble for it.  I don't think it's something you go to the cops about (especially if it's one time and not adult-on-child), but it's not OK either.  I would be glad if my kids physically punished a guy who did that to them.

[goldberry]

21 hours ago, Janeway said:

 but then I hear cases of..being called sexual assault..where someone does something and later changes their mind, that would be sexual assault. Some say coercion constitutes sexual assault. But then we would need a definition to say what the difference is between coercion and convincing. Some say only a woman can be sexually assault. Some say if both parties to the act were incapacitated, then only the man has committed a crime and the woman is a victim.

One puzzlement though..if both people are incapacitated and then have sex.......either both should be charged with rape or neither. It should not be the male gets charged and the female is a victim. And when women rape, they should receive as much punishment as men do. The laws should always be applied equally. But really, the laws need to be more specific. 

 

I have never heard anyone say that having sex and then later changing their mind equals sexual assault.  Unless you are referring to deciding to have sex but then saying no at some point during the encounter?  I hope you would agree that it is okay to change your mind and either leave or stop during the encounter.

Regarding the line between coercion and convincing...power balance comes into play there, and well as implied negative consequences for refusing, as well as physical intimidation.

I have honestly never heard a woman say that men can't be assaulted, although I'm sure there are some out there.  I have heard men say or imply that, and I think it's disgusting. 

If both parties are equally incapacitated then I agree both are equally responsible.  However, a man (or anyone) can't claim he was "equally incapacitated" when he is fully functioning and the other party is either unconscious or close to unconsciousness.  That seems more common in these cases than "equally incapacitated".

Something I've been thinking about is the idea that although something might not be criminal, or prosecutable, it can still be WRONG as well as traumatizing.  The idea that well, if it was really bad it would have been reported or prosecuted, or the man found guilty... that's just not true.  Many things, like butt-grabbing, may not be reportable or prosecutable.  But neither should it just be accepted as part of life for women.  I'm glad we are seeing a change there.

[goldberry]

On 10/10/2018 at 12:04 AM, Farrar said:

Even when the sexual assault doesn't merit a legal punishment - such as when it's an elementary school kid grabbing or kissing another inappropriately or possibly even a teen or young adult who grabs and the victim doesn't want to press charges - it's still a problem.

 

I'll delete this later, but...

... 

I wanted to share this because it's so easy to think that because there is no violence there is little impact.  

Edited October 16, 2018 by goldberry

[goldberry]

6 minutes ago, HeighHo said:

 

Reporting intensifies it as it gives the males power.  

 

Can you clarify this?  Are you saying that females should not report these things or try to stop them?  What's the alternative?

[unsinkable]

3 hours ago, HeighHo said:

 

My feeling is that those traumatized encountered more violence, some also mention the eyes don't show humanity.  It's not someone experimenting, or loosened inhibition, its a predator. The chill is there along with knowing its going to be very difficult to get away alive or unraped.

The eyes don't show humanity? Is this more "Mark of the beast" stuff?

 

 

[historically accurate]

16 minutes ago, SKL said:

What made me mad was when recently a restaurant employee punched a guy for grabbing her butt, she got in trouble for it.  I don't think it's something you go to the cops about (especially if it's one time and not adult-on-child), but it's not OK either.  I would be glad if my kids physically punished a guy who did that to them.

Sorry, I can't get behind this. 

People bring up false accusations of rape often, so I can't see how the legal aspect would work if a woman hauls off and punches a guy for pinching/grabbing/etc. "Light" sexual assault (for lack of a better phrase) would be even harder to prove than rape, and now a woman has done physical harm to a man, so it's pretty obvious to me that what happened to the waitress would be the default as she would be the one who gets caught. 

Taking it to a physical fight is just going to physically hurt the woman because the man will then escalate the altercation and usually win and/or get her in trouble with the law for an "unprovoked" attack. 

This is not to say that I don't love the idea of a woman taking down some man who can't keep his hands to himself, he 100% deserves it. But I don't think we can assume that it would be, "oh, okay, you say he touched you. No problem, ma'am, you're free to go." 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

57 minutes ago, SKL said:

What made me mad was when recently a restaurant employee punched a guy for grabbing her butt, she got in trouble for it.  I don't think it's something you go to the cops about (especially if it's one time and not adult-on-child), but it's not OK either.  I would be glad if my kids physically punished a guy who did that to them.

 

I don't get your logic at all. Why is it okay for a stranger to get one free grab at the privates of another if they are adults?

[SKL]

1 minute ago, beckyjo said:

Sorry, I can't get behind this. 

People bring up false accusations of rape often, so I can't see how the legal aspect would work if a woman hauls off and punches a guy for pinching/grabbing/etc. "Light" sexual assault (for lack of a better phrase) would be even harder to prove than rape, and now a woman has done physical harm to a man, so it's pretty obvious to me that what happened to the waitress would be the default as she would be the one who gets caught. 

Taking it to a physical fight is just going to physically hurt the woman because the man will then escalate the altercation and usually win and/or get her in trouble with the law for an "unprovoked" attack. 

This is not to say that I don't love the idea of a woman taking down some man who can't keep his hands to himself, he 100% deserves it. But I don't think we can assume that it would be, "oh, okay, you say he touched you. No problem, ma'am, you're free to go." 

Well in the incident I mentioned, there was video proof.  Also there is more and more often a camera videotaping the goings-on.  Also there are usually witnesses in public who would both vouch for the woman, and stop a man from beating her up even if she hit him first.

And I don't agree that men are likely to escalate it and all that.  Women have been indignantly slapping men for centuries, and it is pretty rare for a man to admit it hurt him, though he will in fact think twice before he tries to paw that woman again.

[SKL]

4 minutes ago, ChocolateReignRemix said:

 

I don't get your logic at all. Why is it okay for a stranger to get one free grab at the privates of another if they are adults?

I didn't say that at all.  In fact I clearly said it is NOT OK.  I said I don't see going to the cops over it.  I don't call the cops over every thing that is wrong or ticks me off.

Edited October 10, 2018 by SKL

[SKL]

I agree with this mom.

https://stuffhappens.us/boy-at-school-snapped-her-14307/

[ChocolateReignRemix]

6 minutes ago, SKL said:

I didn't say that at all.  In fact I clearly said it is NOT OK.  I said I don't see going to the cops over it.  I don't call the cops over every thing that is wrong or ticks me off.

Grabbing the genitals of another goes past being "wrong" imo. We aren't talking about someone being rude and ticking someone off.

[SKL]

5 minutes ago, ChocolateReignRemix said:

Grabbing the genitals of another goes past being "wrong" imo. We aren't talking about someone being rude and ticking someone off.

I was talking about butts, not genitals, but whatever.  I say knock him flat.  Chances are you won't have a chance to do anything else because you don't have his name and whereabouts.

I like the way you are twisting my post saying I'd be happy if my kids punched someone who grabbed their butt, into me saying it's fine and dandy for anyone to grab a woman's genitals.

Edited October 10, 2018 by SKL

[Carrie12345]

22 minutes ago, beckyjo said:

Sorry, I can't get behind this. 

People bring up false accusations of rape often, so I can't see how the legal aspect would work if a woman hauls off and punches a guy for pinching/grabbing/etc. "Light" sexual assault (for lack of a better phrase) would be even harder to prove than rape, and now a woman has done physical harm to a man, so it's pretty obvious to me that what happened to the waitress would be the default as she would be the one who gets caught. 

Taking it to a physical fight is just going to physically hurt the woman because the man will then escalate the altercation and usually win and/or get her in trouble with the law for an "unprovoked" attack. 

This is not to say that I don't love the idea of a woman taking down some man who can't keep his hands to himself, he 100% deserves it. But I don't think we can assume that it would be, "oh, okay, you say he touched you. No problem, ma'am, you're free to go." 

We've told our daughters that we will always have access to bail money.  For them and in case I, too, get arrested on the courthouse steps.  If they deem a situation too physically dangerous to fight, that's one thing.  They are not to hold back out of fear of legal issues.  Men don't.

[Sneezyone]

8 minutes ago, SKL said:

I was talking about butts, not genitals, but whatever.  I say knock him flat.  Chances are you won't have a chance to do anything else because you don't have his name and whereabouts.

 

I don't like to be hit or hit others (my arthritic hands would never allow it anyway) and my DD is not even a little bit aggressive so I don't see that as a viable option for non-bruisers. I/we will press charges on somebody in a New York minute tho. I'm perfectly happy to make them spend all of their money and time.

Edited October 10, 2018 by Sneezyone

[SKL]

Obviously I understand that not everyone is a hitter.  I myself am not one.  My original point was that it made me mad when a woman who did hit a grabber got punished for it.  IMO having a stranger grab your butt is at least as much of an assault as punching him for it.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

32 minutes ago, SKL said:

I was talking about butts, not genitals, but whatever.  I say knock him flat.  Chances are you won't have a chance to do anything else because you don't have his name and whereabouts.

I like the way you are twisting my post saying I'd be happy if my kids punched someone who grabbed their butt, into me saying it's fine and dandy for anyone to grab a woman's genitals.

 

I didn't say one word about kids who punched someone for grabbing their butt.

Your logic is strange. I am not sure how you can say something is not a big deal but also worthy of punching someone over.  One would think you would also support those who take the route of reporting someone who grabbed their butt.

[Janeway]

1 hour ago, goldberry said:

 

I have never heard anyone say that having sex and then later changing their mind equals sexual assault.  Unless you are referring to deciding to have sex but then saying no at some point during the encounter?  I hope you would agree that it is okay to change your mind and either leave or stop during the encounter.

Regarding the line between coercion and convincing...power balance comes into play there, and well as implied negative consequences for refusing, as well as physical intimidation.

I have honestly never heard a woman say that men can't be assaulted, although I'm sure there are some out there.  I have heard men say or imply that, and I think it's disgusting. 

If both parties are equally incapacitated then I agree both are equally responsible.  However, a man (or anyone) can't claim he was "equally incapacitated" when he is fully functioning and the other party is either unconscious or close to unconsciousness.  That seems more common in these cases than "equally incapacitated".

Something I've been thinking about is the idea that although something might not be criminal, or prosecutable, it can still be WRONG as well as traumatizing.  The idea that well, if it was really bad it would have been reported or prosecuted, or the man found guilty... that's just not true.  Many things, like butt-grabbing, may not be reportable or prosecutable.  But neither should it just be accepted as part of life for women.  I'm glad we are seeing a change there.

Interestingly enough, it always seem to be the men who make light of men being sexually assaulted. I have seen it go around on FB where a woman was charged with sexual assault and the men were passing her picture around and basically laughing about it commenting how much they would love to be the victim if he didn't like it and such. Just disgusting! But on the..change their mind after the fact, I have seen that online too. Not here. I saw it on Reddit. Not change mind during sex but if a woman wakes up the next day and has changed her mind then it was rape. Also, there was a movie, something about 40 days. In the end, the exgirlfriend breaks in to the apartment and has sex with the man against his will while he begs her to stop. It was kind of a popular movie. It felt like no one was as shocked about the rape as I was and the current girlfriend in the movie acted all hurt that he "cheated" on her and so on. It was awful and I think showed how society, at that point in time, viewed rape on men. And it is not ok. It was never called on during the movie that it was rape. 

[SKL]

10 minutes ago, ChocolateReignRemix said:

 

I didn't say one word about kids who punched someone for grabbing their butt.

Your logic is strange. I am not sure how you can say something is not a big deal but also worthy of punching someone over.  One would think you would also support those who take the route of reporting someone who grabbed their butt.

I wouldn't report it if it was a one-time thing and no aggravating circs such as workplace, teacher on student, etc.  If someone else wants to report it for whatever reason, whatever, not my business.  Preferably close in time to the event.

Edited October 10, 2018 by SKL

[SKL]

5 minutes ago, Janeway said:

Interestingly enough, it always seem to be the men who make light of men being sexually assaulted. I have seen it go around on FB where a woman was charged with sexual assault and the men were passing her picture around and basically laughing about it commenting how much they would love to be the victim if he didn't like it and such. Just disgusting! But on the..change their mind after the fact, I have seen that online too. Not here. I saw it on Reddit. Not change mind during sex but if a woman wakes up the next day and has changed her mind then it was rape. Also, there was a movie, something about 40 days. In the end, the exgirlfriend breaks in to the apartment and has sex with the man against his will while he begs her to stop. It was kind of a popular movie. It felt like no one was as shocked about the rape as I was and the current girlfriend in the movie acted all hurt that he "cheated" on her and so on. It was awful and I think showed how society, at that point in time, viewed rape on men. And it is not ok. It was never called on during the movie that it was rape. 

In general, the licentiousness in almost all popular movies has been a real factor in how people see sex and consent.  It has long been a concern of mine, but now to see Hollywood act like this is against their principles ... well great, I hope those better principles start showing up in all the movies they are producing these days.  Maybe they should take the offending ones out of circulation or re-rate them.

[Bluegoat]

3 hours ago, goldberry said:

 

I have never heard anyone say that having sex and then later changing their mind equals sexual assault.  Unless you are referring to deciding to have sex but then saying no at some point during the encounter?  I hope you would agree that it is okay to change your mind and either leave or stop during the encounter.

Regarding the line between coercion and convincing...power balance comes into play there, and well as implied negative consequences for refusing, as well as physical intimidation.

I have honestly never heard a woman say that men can't be assaulted, although I'm sure there are some out there.  I have heard men say or imply that, and I think it's disgusting. 

If both parties are equally incapacitated then I agree both are equally responsible.  However, a man (or anyone) can't claim he was "equally incapacitated" when he is fully functioning and the other party is either unconscious or close to unconsciousness.  That seems more common in these cases than "equally incapacitated".

Something I've been thinking about is the idea that although something might not be criminal, or prosecutable, it can still be WRONG as well as traumatizing.  The idea that well, if it was really bad it would have been reported or prosecuted, or the man found guilty... that's just not true.  Many things, like butt-grabbing, may not be reportable or prosecutable.  But neither should it just be accepted as part of life for women.  I'm glad we are seeing a change there.

 

I think this is something people struggle with in a lot of areas.  I was watching something a few nights ago, related to business, and really immoral employment practices.  The person involved was really having a hard time understanding that although something might be legal, and in some cases it might make sense and be moral, that didn't mean it was moral or ok as a blanket approach or in every instance.

People seem often to think, ok, something we may not for various reasons choose to deal with through the law, that absolutely doesn't mean it is ok, or that it is somehow a matter of choice and personal morality, or that there shouldn't be social/cultural taboos or expectations around it.  I think when we have that tendency to think that what isn't forbidden is ok, it makes us feel like we have to deal with everything that is a problem with the law.

 

[Bluegoat]

1 hour ago, ChocolateReignRemix said:

 

I didn't say one word about kids who punched someone for grabbing their butt.

Your logic is strange. I am not sure how you can say something is not a big deal but also worthy of punching someone over.  One would think you would also support those who take the route of reporting someone who grabbed their butt.

 

I don't know, I can see that as a reasonable response. Not the only one, but a possibility for someone being what used to be described as "fresh". I am thinking here of a hard slap or the equivalent, not knocking out the guy's teeth etc. I can really never imagine getting the law involved unless there were more complicating circumstances, but some guy touches me in a way that is clearly sexual, but without violence etc?  A good slap and embarrassing public moment of everyone looking at him and knowing he is an ass?  That seems about right to me.

Edited October 10, 2018 by Bluegoat