s/o What is sexual assault

[Sneezyone]

46 minutes ago, Bluegoat said:

 

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.

 

 

If there is no consequence or sanction-- legal, social, or otherwise, then the behavior is by definition OK. I think frowny faces, death stares and rude gestures aren't enough to deter or prevent harassment and sexual assault let alone convey some kind of global public disdain for the behavior.

[Murphy101]

18 hours ago, Sneezyone said:

 

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.

Good. 

[Bluegoat]

2 hours ago, Sneezyone said:

 

If there is no consequence or sanction-- legal, social, or otherwise, then the behavior is by definition OK. I think frowny faces, death stares and rude gestures aren't enough to deter or prevent harassment and sexual assault let alone convey some kind of global public disdain for the behavior.

 

Well, I was just talking about legal sanctions.  Lots of things that aren't "ok" are not illegal.  Unfortunately some people seem to think that if something is not illegal, it also is "ok" which is to say, if some people think it is wrong they should keep it private and be non-judgemental about others.  Don't give your own employees zero hours contracts if you don't like them, but don't say anything about how I run my company if it's within the law.

Some things too we don't censure heavily because it is difficult to judge them without being omniscient, not because we think it is always actually ok.

[Sneezyone]

8 hours ago, SKL said:

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.

 

I don't take my cues (or expect my kids to take theirs) from Hollywood. I expect they're much more heavily influenced by the things they see me and DH say and do, which means pushing for effective and appropriate punishments for violations of law and decency. Not once did my DD think she had to brush off what happened to her and her friend. She knew we would be behind her 1000%, even if it meant she got home super late after giving her statement to authorities.

[Sneezyone]

3 hours ago, Bluegoat said:

 

Well, I was just talking about legal sanctions.  Lots of things that aren't "ok" are not illegal.  Unfortunately some people seem to think that if something is not illegal, it also is "ok" which is to say, if some people think it is wrong they should keep it private and be non-judgemental about others.  Don't give your own employees zero hours contracts if you don't like them, but don't say anything about how I run my company if it's within the law.

Some things too we don't censure heavily because it is difficult to judge them without being omniscient, not because we think it is always actually ok.

 

Oh, I agree but isn't that what we're discussing? --there are many people who think an ass grab or boob fondle is something one needs to be quiet about since it's no big deal/wasn't traumatising for them/may not be provable in a court of law. I don't see how silence, or even a singular punch, sends a sufficiently powerful global/societal message. Changing the culture, I think, requires a more concerted effort to impose real and lasting consequences.

Edited October 11, 2018 by Sneezyone

[DesertBlossom]

To add another layer the question of sexual assault.... apparently some teaching hospitals use patients under general anesthesia for practice vaginal exams without their consent. I'd put this under the "morally wrong even if not illegal" category. I find this quite horrifying and would absolutely consider this sexual assault.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2018/05/14/pelvic-exams-on-anesthetized-women-without-consent-a-troubling-and-outdated-practice/#48e901778462

[Ausmumof3]

5 hours ago, DesertBlossom said:

To add another layer the question of sexual assault.... apparently some teaching hospitals use patients under general anesthesia for practice vaginal exams without their consent. I'd put this under the "morally wrong even if not illegal" category. I find this quite horrifying and would absolutely consider this sexual assault.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2018/05/14/pelvic-exams-on-anesthetized-women-without-consent-a-troubling-and-outdated-practice/#48e901778462

What the ??? How is this ok?!

[Murphy101]

9 hours ago, DesertBlossom said:

To add another layer the question of sexual assault.... apparently some teaching hospitals use patients under general anesthesia for practice vaginal exams without their consent. I'd put this under the "morally wrong even if not illegal" category. I find this quite horrifying and would absolutely consider this sexual assault.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2018/05/14/pelvic-exams-on-anesthetized-women-without-consent-a-troubling-and-outdated-practice/#48e901778462

 

Of course they quote Oklahoma. Not even slightly surprised. This state is shat on women’s health in general and yeah, ime, that’s the general attitude about what women deserve wrt to healthcare, especially gynological care.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it to my dying breath, being a teacher or a doctor does not magically make something that is wrong for anyone else to do suddenly okay for those people to do. 

For this example, if it would be a crime to decide they want to practice exploring an unconscious woman’s vigina or a man’s rectum without their consent purely for the sake of their own wants and not because of any medical need for the actual patient - if that’s a crime outside of the hospital - it should damn well be illegal inside the hospital.

Edited October 11, 2018 by Murphy101

[LucyStoner]

9 hours ago, DesertBlossom said:

To add another layer the question of sexual assault.... apparently some teaching hospitals use patients under general anesthesia for practice vaginal exams without their consent. I'd put this under the "morally wrong even if not illegal" category. I find this quite horrifying and would absolutely consider this sexual assault.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2018/05/14/pelvic-exams-on-anesthetized-women-without-consent-a-troubling-and-outdated-practice/#48e901778462

 

When I heard about this my first thought was “if this practice is actually happening, it may explain why so many doctors are terrible at giving a comfortable pelvic exam.”   Besides the obvious issues of consent there’s also a consideration for quality of patient care.  If they learn on patients who aren’t awake or able to feel, they aren’t going to be learning how to do it in a way that is more comfortable for their patients!  

I read an article once about a woman who was paid by hospitals to have pelvic exams so that doctors could learn what to do.  That seems infinitely more reasonable to me than learning on knocked out women.  

Somehow I doubt they are teaching how to give prostrate exams on men undergoing other surgery.   

Edited October 11, 2018 by LucyStoner

[Murphy101]

25 minutes ago, LucyStoner said:

 

When I heard about this my first thought was “if this practice is actually happening, it may explain why so many doctors are terrible at giving a comfortable pelvic exam.”   Besides the obvious issues of consent there’s also a consideration for quality of patient care.  If they learn on patients who aren’t awake or able to feel, they aren’t going to be learning how to do it in a way that is more comfortable for their patients!  

I read an article once about a woman who was paid by hospitals to have pelvic exams so that doctors could learn what to do.  That seems infinitely more reasonable to me than learning on knocked out women.  

Somehow I doubt they are teaching how to give prostrate exams on men undergoing other surgery.  

It said in the article that this actually does happen to men. 

 

[Sneezyone]

3 hours ago, OKBud said:

 

If the act in question is, as I understand it, being groped in public, BEST of luck getting him to just hang out with you while you wait for the police to show up so that you can press charges. The average response time in  active emergencies hovers around ten minutes. Or would you be asking politely for his personal details so that you can bring a civil case?

I don't think anyone (here, currently, so far) is saying that hauling off and slapping a Mister Grabhands is what all women should do all the time. And even if someone did say it, we could all think about it for a second and realize that's an absurd position. As you've pointed out, it might hurt or she might be otherwise incapable of landing a blow. As others in general have pointed out: flight, freeze, demur, etc. As Stella has pointed out, there are different unspoken rules for different women. As another poster has implied, she'd have to have reasonable assurance of bail money and access to a lawyer for it to be a workable response. I will point out that some men will just hit you back.

But none of that means that no woman ever should slap or punch a man who gropes her in public. 

 

In my DDs case, and the FB post, security was more than willing to detain the individual. That may not always be the case but there are people in crowds who will assist.

If hitting works for some people, so be it. I’m questioning whether that sort of response has a global impact or just an immediate/individual one. Does it shift the needle on what people believe is appropriate or do they just assume, “I got a live one *that* time?”

It seems to me that, too often, the response that’s given isn’t big enough to actually deter that behavior going forward, not just for the immediate offender but for everyone he/she knows.

Edited October 11, 2018 by Sneezyone

[Scarlett]

On ‎10‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 1:04 AM, 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.

Interestingly as I read your post, 2 incidents came back to me that I rarely if ever think of.  I bet there are more buried.....but yes I have shaken off many intrusions of my person over the course of 53 years.  No girl--or boy--should have to tolerate that.  As I have been typing these last several sentences MORE memories came back.  They do add up.  Only one made me fearful and it is the one I have been unable to fully shake off.

 

[Lady Florida.]

23 hours ago, goldberry said:

 

.  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.

I was never a fan of her music or how she presented herself in her public life (I know nothing about the private Taylor) but I cheered her on when she did that. I can't understand why anyone, except those who just want to hate her, would demean her for it.  It reminds me of Justin Bieber haters. No, I'm not a fan of his either and he did some foolish things, but there are people who love to hate both of those celebrities no matter what they do. 

23 hours ago, goldberry said:

 

 

 5 year old in kindergarten.   There was no violence, and likely no malice on the part of the other 5 year old.

This is why I posted upthread about my grandson hugging girls in preschool. Too many people brush that stuff off and think it's "just so cute". I'm happy that neither his teacher nor dss and ddil brushed it off. He was not at fault as he was 4 and just wanted to show the girls he liked them, but the correct response from the adults was to teach him,  1. That's not the appropriate way to show you like them. 2. How to appropriately let someone know you like them and would like to be friends. 3. If they say no you need to respect that.

I know I'm bragging on his parents because they're amazing people ? but seriously, teaching boys how to behave appropriately in this area needs to begin early and it needs to be continually reinforced, especially as they hit puberty, until it's normal for them NOT to think it's okay to touch girls and women people without their consent. And they need to understand what consent is. That lesson for a 4 year old will look different from the lesson reinforced to a 14 year old, but such lessons are important and it's never too early to start teaching them.

Also, our default mode needs to be "I believe her." It doesn't matter if her is a loved one, a casual acquaintance, or a total stranger. Relying on he said-she said hasn't fixed the problem. Worrying about false accusations hasn't fixed the problem. (Statistically, a person is more likely to be struck by lightning than to be falsely accused of sexual assault.) Excusing a man because he was young and full of hormones or too old to serve time hasn't fixed the problem. It's time to start believing women and girls who say this happened to me. (Yes I know sexual assault happens to boys an men but we're mostly discussing female victims in this thread. Besides, women are less likely to be physically strong enough to resist/fight back.)

Rape culture won't just go away. We have to eliminate it. Men and women together need to eliminate it. Men like my stepson. Men like the LEO in that link Sneezyone shared. Women like the mother in that link SKL shared. All of us. All the time. It seems like we shouldn't have to work hard but the reality is we do. If we keep speaking out and fighting back then perhaps by the time our grandchildren are adults those who think an ass grab is just an ass grab will not only be in the minority, but will be ostracized for their beliefs and punished if they act on such beliefs.

ETA: @goldberry I realized you said you'll delete your post so I'm deleting most of the quote. I hope others will get the context by what I left but if you want me to delete entire quote I will. 

Edited October 11, 2018 by Lady Florida.

[LucyStoner]

46 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

It said in the article that this actually does happen to men. 

 

 

It said “can sometimes”.  It’s not clear how widespread either is.

[Sneezyone]

24 minutes ago, OKBud said:

 

I agree with everything you've written; I'm not arguing your point I promise. 

But it's not on women who have just been violated to save all of womankind. Or, more still, to save mankind from itself. 

 

True, I don’t disagree. Any one individual can do what’s best for them. It’s just that, to my mind, handling things as individuals and seeing ourselves as lone actors is, in part, what makes us more vulnerable. Everything can seem like a one off that way rather than a pattern. I’m thinking, specifically, about all the disbelieving men and women who claim to have no idea these things occur/offenders routinely act with impunity. Every time someone who can speak up, or prosecute, or act, does so they increase the risk of consequence for the next possible violator.

Edited October 11, 2018 by Sneezyone

[Sneezyone]

1 minute ago, OKBud said:

Well I bet if men up to nasty business routinely got punched or slapped by the women they were violating (and it ended there-- he walked away) I would wager a week's wages that they'd all start making a lot of noise about it, thereby unwittingly bringing unwanted attention to the blight on humanity that they themselves  are. So perhaps it would all come out in the wash anyway ? .

 

I dunno. I suspect there’d just be a whole lot of women with criminal records while the men walk off Scott free, not unlike what happens in schools when kids hit back.

[Bluegoat]

14 hours ago, Sneezyone said:

 

Oh, I agree but isn't that what we're discussing? --there are many people who think an ass grab or boob fondle is something one needs to be quiet about since it's no big deal/wasn't traumatising for them/may not be provable in a court of law. I don't see how silence, or even a singular punch, sends a sufficiently powerful global/societal message. Changing the culture, I think, requires a more concerted effort to impose real and lasting consequences.

 

I think you end up with a sort of pulling in both directions, but neither really works.  So - some people think if it's not outside the law it is ok.  As a result, some others say we need to put all of it clearly outside the law.

I don't think that can work though - there will always be fuzzy areas that are walking the line or where it is impossible to tell what the real motive was, or things that are recognized as bad but really it is disproportionate to give legal sanction, or which are impossible or inefficient to deal with that way.  It's not really different than other types of anti-social behaviour - are you going to prosecute the guy who pinches other people's lunch from the employee fridge, or takes a coffee without leaving a dollar?  It would be disproportionate, a waste of police time, and not easy to treat legally anyway.  

Stuff that isn't provable in a court of law - how would we make that legally culpable?  

Social approbation can be a very powerful motivator, more so even than the law.  In some cases it can ruin people socially, make them unmarraigable or unemployable, disinherit them.  But for any clear social or legal response, you do need to have some kind of social consensus on where we will draw the line.  And even then there will probably always be behaviours that are considered inappropriate, almost crossing the line but not quite.  Personally, I'm not sure I am really a fan of the cultural constructs where such harsh consequences, legal or social, are the response to any and all transgressions.

[Sneezyone]

12 minutes ago, Bluegoat said:

 

I think you end up with a sort of pulling in both directions, but neither really works.  So - some people think if it's not outside the law it is ok.  As a result, some others say we need to put all of it clearly outside the law.

I don't think that can work though - there will always be fuzzy areas that are walking the line or where it is impossible to tell what the real motive was, or things that are recognized as bad but really it is disproportionate to give legal sanction, or which are impossible or inefficient to deal with that way.  It's not really different than other types of anti-social behaviour - are you going to prosecute the guy who pinches other people's lunch from the employee fridge, or takes a coffee without leaving a dollar?  It would be disproportionate, a waste of police time, and not easy to treat legally anyway.  

Stuff that isn't provable in a court of law - how would we make that legally culpable?  

Social approbation can be a very powerful motivator, more so even than the law.  In some cases it can ruin people socially, make them unmarraigable or unemployable, disinherit them.  But for any clear social or legal response, you do need to have some kind of social consensus on where we will draw the line.  And even then there will probably always be behaviours that are considered inappropriate, almost crossing the line but not quite.  Personally, I'm not sure I am really a fan of the cultural constructs where such harsh consequences, legal or social, are the response to any and all transgressions.

 

But we’re not talking about any and all transgressions. We’re talking about physically violent behaviors (I’m sure there are those who think a fondle isn’t violent, I’m not one of them) that are already punishable by law and that, for a variety of reasons, are rarely prosecuted. This isn’t about drawing a new line so much as enforcing, with the full weight of the law, the rules that are already in place.

[Bluegoat]

24 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

 

But we’re not talking about any and all transgressions. We’re talking about physically violent behaviors (I’m sure there are those who think a fondle isn’t violent, I’m not one of them) that are already punishable by law and that, for a variety of reasons, are rarely prosecuted. This isn’t about drawing a new line so much as enforcing, with the full weight of the law, the rules that are already in place.

 

I think the reason we don't treat such things in a clear way is that we don't in fact have consensus on them.  If you have effective consensus, you can deal with such things through the law or other ways effectively.  If you don't, neither is going to be very effective.

You say yourself that not everyone agrees about whether a fondle is violent.  I would tend to say it isn't normally, to say it is makes the word violent a little meaningless.  Beyond that question, not everyone things a fondle is even always a problem, many seem to think it depends on context.  And then some would actually disagree on what counts as fondling in the first place.

I don't think you can push a particular view of these things socially by simply making them illegal.  If there is some moral momentum it might help things along, if there are no contraindications in the sense of practical difficulties or fragmented social perspectives.  Otherwise, you have to win the conceptual argument first.

[LucyStoner]

The first episode of Season 3 of Serial deals with a woman who fought back against having her butt grabbed and smacked, situation dissolved into a bar fight and SHE ended up arrested and charged for assaulting a police officer.  The whole thing was on tape, including the officer saying she didn’t intentionally hit him and it wasn’t a big deal.  Worth a listen to all those who say punch back.  Some people are not privileged by gender,  class or race enough to be able to hit back without repercussions.  The guy who was grabbing her? Never even arrested.  

Edited October 13, 2018 by LucyStoner

[Scarlett]

On October 9, 2018 at 7:22 AM, Quill said:

I think the first definition is accurate, because it includes mention of “lacking ability to consent,” which is an important element. 

Part of my view I was expressing in the locked thread is this: cultural understanding of consent has come a looooong way in thirty years. It is problematic to apply today’s standard - which I am happy is where we have arrived - to events that may have happened far in the past.

To me it is comparable to issues of discrimination suffered several decades ago. The treatment of protected groups of people has improved over decades; I am very happy this is the case. It wouldn’t make sense to me, though, if, say, a woman claimed she was discriminated against for the promotion of Chief of Police and was permanetly kept on parking violations duty thirty years prior, because she was a woman. Or if a gay couple tried to sue a Landlord now because the LL refused to rent to them in the 70s. 

I am very glad we, on the whole, are thoroughly instructing our kids in what it means to consent. My 18yo ds has had it drummed into his head by me and the college also drums it into their heads. I surely hope he never does anything to anyone without consent and I hope nothing non-consensual is never done to him. I have also instructed him to avoid situations where he could be accused. 

I am one of the people who said something like this happened in my life when I was 14. While I don’t want that to be an experience any of my kids have, it - for me; not implying others should feel the same! - was not traumatic. It was embarassing; I previously liked the guy. He was cute and popular. Later, seeing him around was embarassing. He never had another conversation with me. But it didn’t traumatize me. For me it was like, “Wow. That was a sh!tty turn of events. I used to think he was cute.” I, personally, have spent almost zero minutes thinking about that event in 33 years. I don’t horrible-ize the words I use to describe that event. Only in the wake of the #metoo movement have I even thought about it at all. 

I personally do not feel it would be right for me to bring an accusation against this guy now if he were famous or running for office. For one thing, there were no witnesses at all. Someone could perhaps know or remember or produce a yearbook in which I wrote something about how I thought that guy was cute. No way would I open that can of worms for anything. But, more importantly, it’s back to what I said about judging past behaviors through today’s understanding of them and that is not right. I did not take legal action against him in the 80s, partially because I thought it was lousy but I was not harmed. I think I may have told my best friend about it but other than that, I did not tell anyone. 

Also, suppose it turns out he went on to a lifetime of assaulting women. Suppose they start coming forward now and tell their tales. Well, I would not throw my hat in the ring on that. I would feel it was too long ago, too “small” of a matter, not provable, and not worth it. I would feel he could get what’s coming to him on the strength of the more recent/provable events. 

Please, please, nobody personalize what I am saying as “sexual assault is no big deal.”  I am only speaking about how it affected me personally, thirty+ years ago when views of consent were a lot different. 

Yes, this is exactly how I feel.  I could sit here and itemize the things done to me that would be considered sexual assault.  But I wasn't traumatized.  At all.  The ONLY time I was is when a drunk 21 year old crawled into my bed while I slept, with my 2 year old across the hall...and ran his hands over my body that was clad in a t shirt and undies only......I thought he was my husband until I opened my eyes and saw my husband standing in the doorway. Then all hell broke loose and yes I was traumatized.  Very much so.   I don't think about it much these days, 17 years later, until something hits the news like Kavanaugh .