International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   USA Politics (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   Senator Al Franken Kissed and Groped Me Without My Consent, And There’s Nothing Funny (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=324808)

theprestige 16th November 2017 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oystein (Post 12079611)
This is 50% nonsense.
Trump's nomination as the GOP candidate, against all odds, against the party leadership, was a reaction years of hypocrisy and shrill preaching from the right, i.e. within the Republican party. The "swamp" Trump offered to drain, the establishment he was fighting, is as much the Republicans' as the Democrats'.

Bill Clinton. The progs had their chance. I don't know why they're acting now, and bless their hearts for doing so, but the time for the progs to claim the moral high ground has long since passed.

PhantomWolf 16th November 2017 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChristianProgressive (Post 12079996)
And it's damn suspicious (as others have noted) that this came up now. It's damn suspicious just how many of these incidents are coming up now. With all the shennanigans going on with the tax bill, the voter suppression commission, extreme right-wing judicial appointments, etc the public is fixated on salacious revelations.

And the Hollywood sex abuse scandals!

The fact is that with the Scandals and victims coming forward in Hollywood and on TV, there are a lot of stories of women coming to terms with their abuse and seeing that people will believe them. Yes it';s a sudden rush, but it's not suspicious, it's quite understandable. All it needed were a few brave ones to stand up and say "I was abused" and others suddenly can see that "it wasn't just me" and "I'm not alone" and they are granted the courage to stand up as well. We saw the same thing happen in the UK with the Jimmy Savile case.

PhantomWolf 16th November 2017 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 12080006)
Bill Clinton. The progs had their chance. I don't know why they're acting now, and bless their hearts for doing so, but the time for the progs to claim the moral high ground has long since passed.

because Clinton was about 20 years again and attitudes have changed quite a bit since then, much of it due to what happened with Clinton and other big scandals such as Tailhook. If Bill was found out today, it's be a rather different story in how things are dealt with.

Brainster 16th November 2017 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oystein (Post 12079896)
Except no one uses these images to discredit Tweeden. You need to drop that lie.

The discrediting occurs a step later - and you wilfully ignore that step: that her accusation may be in part motivated politically, as she likely would have other accusations to make, but chose to make them on Franken. Again, I do not agree with this argument! Only informing you that Ginger didnt link google results to discredit Tweeden as a slut. Rather, she linked google results to portrait her as a likely victim of more abuses.

What does that have to do with anything? Are you saying that SG is so poor at communicating her thoughts that she should be given a break? From my experience she actually believes the silly things she writes.

Bringing up the fact that the victim posed nude in Playboy (as L8E did, and as SG approvingly cited) seems designed to discredit her. It seems quite a stretch to claim that it was just some attempt to solicit the names of more of the woman's abusers, since it was assumed she must have had many. Why? Is there some fantasy that perhaps she is withholding a few Republican names? Where is the call for all of Harvey Weinstein's accusers (most of them extremely good-looking women) to mention every other perv they've encountered?

Travis 16th November 2017 10:37 PM

It is equally probable that she was spurred into revealing the kiss and grope by someone looking to mitigate the Moore disaster as it is that she was just emboldened by all the other revelations recently.

It doesn't really matter why she did it since it really did happen to her. She always had the right to reveal it whenever she so choose.

llwyd 16th November 2017 10:48 PM

I find her career in modelling et al totally irrelevant but not her political connections nor the advance warning to Roger Stone - of all disgusting rat****ers in politics. Franken apologized for the photo but did not confirm the kissing incident and submitted to ethics investigation. I think the rational position is to wait for the result of that.

PhantomWolf 16th November 2017 10:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brainster (Post 12080017)
What does that have to do with anything? Are you saying that SG is so poor at communicating her thoughts that she should be given a break? From my experience she actually believes the silly things she writes.

Bringing up the fact that the victim posed nude in Playboy (as L8E did, and as SG approvingly cited) seems designed to discredit her. It seems quite a stretch to claim that it was just some attempt to solicit the names of more of the woman's abusers, since it was assumed she must have had many. Why? Is there some fantasy that perhaps she is withholding a few Republican names? Where is the call for all of Harvey Weinstein's accusers (most of them extremely good-looking women) to mention every other perv they've encountered?

again, here is her argument without the link....

Quote:

You do have to wonder how this stands out in her mind as the quintessential sexual harassment when clearly it must have been common in her life. You would think she had a gazillion worse complaints to be made.
It is a silly argument, but to ignore it and spend 5 pages screaming "slut shaming" is just beating a dead straw horse. Nor was it a suggestion that she was "attempt[ing] to solicit the names of more of the woman's abusers". The argument is purely:

1) She worked in the scantily clad modelling industry
2) The modelling industry is rife with abuse
3) She must have been abused a lot because 1) & 2)
4) Claiming that the lower level abuse of Franken ruined her life while ignoring all the other abuses on her is suspicious.

The pictures merely established point 1), that "She worked in the scantily clad modelling industry."

Of course the assumption that the second point is true is very questionable. While abuse does happen in the modelling industry, I don't believe it is as rife as SG indicates.

Of course point 3 is illogical regardless of the truth of points 1 and 2, as even in a highly abusive modelling industry she may have never actually been targeted herself.

Which leads to point 4 being shown to just be wrong logically and the argument defeated.

There is no need to create strawmen over it, especially when no-one other then those claiming the strawmen seem to be actually claiming that the images discredit her in anyway.

Cain 16th November 2017 11:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf (Post 12080033)
1) She worked in the scantily clad modelling industry
2) The modelling industry is rife with abuse
3) She must have been abused a lot because 1) & 2)
4) Claiming that the lower lower abuse of Franken ruined her life while ignoring all the other abuses on her is suspicious.

She initially worked at Hooters, but I'm certain the abuse Franken visited upon her was unprecedented. Why would she exaggerate? It's not like she's been a guest on Hannity before.

She's just a confident, empowered, beautiful woman (beautiful like all confident, empowered women, regardless of body shape). She's even comfortable with publicizing her nude photos on Fox alongside trusted colleagues. It's OK if co-workers have seen her naked. It's not like anyone buys Playboy for impure reasons -- except for sexual deviants like Franken.

PhantomWolf 16th November 2017 11:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cain (Post 12080046)
She initially worked at Hooters, but I'm certain the abuse Franken visited upon her was unprecedented.

It's illogical to be certain either way. She may have been harassed and/or even abused while working there, it seems from the articles I have read that so called "Breastraunts" such as Hooters does have an issue with customers doing so, but the fact is that even if there is a high probability, it isn't a certainty so she might have skated through her Hooters employment and avoided the harassment, without further evidence we can't know.

Quote:

Why would she exaggerate? It's not like she's been a guest on Hannity before.

She's just a confident, empowered, beautiful woman (beautiful like all confident, empowered women, regardless of body shape). She's even comfortable with publicizing her nude photos on Fox alongside trusted colleagues. It's OK if co-workers have seen her naked. It's not like anyone buys Playboy for impure reasons -- except for sexual deviants like Franken.
Seeing picture of you naked is not an invitation for unwanted sexual advances, and regardless of what you do to your copies of Playboy (I'd really rather not know) nothing gives someone the right to non-consensually press themselves onto any of the girls whose photographs are inside in the real world. It's quite simple really.

Oystein 16th November 2017 11:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pterodactyl (Post 12079985)
But see, that's the problem.

There is no "scale of offense".

In this climate you're either offender, victim, or sympathizer.

And I think THAT is the bigger problem: the equivocation of brutalized underage rape victims with women made the object of a tasteless joke. As if one is no worse than the other.

If you level standards - and punishments - like that, please report me, for my transgressiona are too numerous for the ISF to bear, and don't ever vote for any male, for chances are too big he has laughed at a sexist joke in a woman's presence at some point in life.

Oystein 16th November 2017 11:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 12080006)
Bill Clinton.

Whataboutism. I consider that validation of the point I made.

Oystein 17th November 2017 12:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChristianProgressive (Post 12079996)
Franken stood up like a man and a) apologized and b) submitted himself for his actions to be judged.

Contrast that with Moore (and Trump) who have a) obfuscated, and b) attacked their accusers.

Who comes off the better of all this?

And it's damn suspicious (as others have noted) that this came up now. It's damn suspicious just how many of these incidents are coming up now. With all the shennanigans going on with the tax bill, the voter suppression commission, extreme right-wing judicial appointments, etc the public is fixated on salacious revelations.

Can you please advise Mrs. Tweeden, or any victim of a D politician, or of a R politician, what specific time frame to make past abuse known is acceptable to you, and why? Thanks.

Darat 17th November 2017 12:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis (Post 12079340)
Do you really believe what franken was accused of doing and what trump was accused of doing are equivalent ?

Really ?

Slight correction, Trump wasn't accused Trump claimed he did that.

Oystein 17th November 2017 12:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brainster (Post 12080017)
What does that have to do with anything? Are you saying that SG is so poor at communicating her thoughts that she should be given a break? From my experience she actually believes the silly things she writes.

Bringing up the fact that the victim posed nude in Playboy (as L8E did, and as SG approvingly cited) seems designed to discredit her. It seems quite a stretch to claim that it was just some attempt to solicit the names of more of the woman's abusers, since it was assumed she must have had many. Why? Is there some fantasy that perhaps she is withholding a few Republican names? Where is the call for all of Harvey Weinstein's accusers (most of them extremely good-looking women) to mention every other perv they've encountered?

No, I am actually saying SG communicated her thoughts so well
Edited by Agatha:  Edited to remove breach of rule 0


You repeat one bit, but it has already been pointed out that it's false: no, the reference to her modelling career was not designed to discredit her. Not at all. That is not in SG's teyt. Not at all. It seems to be in your head.

I agree with the rest: the argument SG does in fact make is poorly constructed, for it assumes facts not in evidence, and makes demands of harrassment victims that are none of her business to make. But it is not the argument TBD strawmans.

Darat 17th November 2017 12:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dudalb (Post 12079435)
Not if you think Moore's should end........

If you give one a pass, you need to give both a pass.

You really believe sexual advances and sexual assault on a 14 year old is equivalent?

Darat 17th November 2017 12:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dudalb (Post 12079442)
Thing is they were certainly picking them up instantly in the case of Roy Moore.

Don't get me wrong:I think Moore is totally Reprehensible. I just don't like double standards.

I suppose as is usual you will not actually support your claim?

Darat 17th November 2017 12:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dudalb (Post 12079466)
Funny, that sounds an awful lot like what the Moore supporters are saying.....

Moore supporters are admitting he made sexual/advances and/or sexually assaulted a 14 year old? I I honestly haven't seen that.

Darat 17th November 2017 12:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeBentley (Post 12079471)
Who cares?

We're talking about Franken, not Moore. What Moore did isn't relevant, unless, as noted, making sure each side's slaps on the wrist are properly and accurately tallied for future "Whataboutism" is like super important you.

Why does a worse case somewhere matter outside of ideological point scoring? It doesn't change what what Franken did. We're not grading on a curve.

You might as well go "Well this lady was harassed by let's not forget this other lady that was hit by a meteorite."

Oh right because meteorites aren't partisan. If there was a Republican meteorite you would be doing that.

Be an American, be a Human, be something other than just a Democrat for thirty seconds and care about what happened to this women.

Are you perhaps not also allowing your political biases to cloud your reactions? By this I mean seeing it through a partisan filter because it is a politician? My responses in all these reports have been the same regardless of which USA side they are meant to represent.

Darat 17th November 2017 12:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf (Post 12079506)
This is kind of my point. We give people passes on their bad behaviour because it's "just a prank" and that allows it to become acceptable to do. It's time we stopped seeing it as acceptable behaviour when it quite clearly isn't.

I really wouldn't want to live in the world you advocating for. There is nothing wrong with pranks or jokes, there is nothing wrong with sexualised communication and relationships, what is wrong is bullying, harassment and assault (whether sexual or otherwise).

Darat 17th November 2017 12:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf (Post 12079521)
I see it as red apples vs green apples.



The problem here is that you are comparing benign but potentially humiliating behaviours, such as video taping a friend snoring or playing a prank without sexual connotations to things that do have sexual connotations or are clearly sexual harassment in the least. Pretending to, or actually, groping someone who passd out is quite different to shaving their eyebrow or putting their hand in warm water. (though I'd actually say that even shaving an eyebrow these days might be too going too far to be honest.) I have no issue with pranking and joking and bonding, you can do that without the sexual references, innuendos, and harassment. You don't have to squeeze a woman's boobs (or pretend to squeeze them) to bond!



Familiar enough to know that more happened than just "standing in the same elevator."

As I said above, assault is wrong, whether it is sexual or otherwise. But humans will find each other sexually attractive and of course we will act on such matters. Whether that is appropriate or not is contextual and situational, you still seem to be advocating that we totally remove anything sexual in our communications and other interactions with other people.

Darat 17th November 2017 12:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 12079527)
Man, some of the stuff my brother showed me while he was at a prestigious military academy made me very uncomfortable . . . I'm in the camp that such behavior is also sexual harassment and shouldn't happen. The difference is that it seems to be an accepted part of the culture in such environments; nobody seems bothered by it and can appreciate the pranks as the jokes they are intended to be. But I'd be willing to bet that it makes some of the guys it happens to uncomfortable. In this case, it's clear that Tweeden did not view it as a joke.

I never really accepted the rape culture idea but, Jesus . . . I think I have to rethink my naive view of the world.

"nobody seems bothered by it" have you never read about the problems with hazing in the military?

Darat 17th November 2017 12:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 12079610)

Sexual assault is a terrible thing, that picture even in the worse light cannot be considered sexual assault. It is wrong to equate the two and I think doing so makes it much harder to deal with the actual issue of sexual assault.

uke2se 17th November 2017 03:47 AM

While it's clear to me that this is brought out in order to mitigate the Moore-disaster, and it might well be exaggerated, the optics of it are very bad for Franken. There should be some form of censure (very public) awaiting the ethics investigation, and if that shows that what he did could be considered unethical or even illegal, he should resign or be kicked out.

Democrats need to own this issue and show that there's nothing partisan about combating sexual assault.

PhantomWolf 17th November 2017 03:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 12080097)
I really wouldn't want to live in the world you advocating for. There is nothing wrong with pranks or jokes, there is nothing wrong with sexualised communication and relationships, what is wrong is bullying, harassment and assault (whether sexual or otherwise).

You should perhaps read what I wrote in context. There in nothing wrong with pranks and jokes, until they stop being pranks and jokes and become sexual assault and harassment. The problem is that they do and people still write them off as "Just a prank." (yes I know this is from Italy and men are even worse there, but it gets the point across.) My point is not that jokes and pranks are bad, my point is that when it's moved into the realms of bullying, harassment and assault we need to be calling it what it is and not just saying, "awww, it was just a joke why are you upset?"

But calling the bad behaviours that really are sexual assaults just pranks, we allow sexual assaults and harassment to be acceptable, whether it's grabbing a woman's breasts or anyone's butt, or poking a classmate in the butt with a broom handle. It's not acceptable behaviour and we need to stop justifying it and giving those that do it a pass.

PhantomWolf 17th November 2017 04:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 12080100)
As I said above, assault is wrong, whether it is sexual or otherwise. But humans will find each other sexually attractive and of course we will act on such matters. Whether that is appropriate or not is contextual and situational, you still seem to be advocating that we totally remove anything sexual in our communications and other interactions with other people.

No not at all, but if you can't interact with other people without pretending to or actually squeezing a woman's breasts, then you're doing it wrong.

We can have bonding and interactions with each other without taking advantage of each other in a non-consensual and sexual manner.

It's really simply, if you want to touch or even pretend to touch, someone in a sexual manner, then ask their permission first before doing it. If they say no, don't do it. And especially don't do it without permission and then just claim it was a prank or a joke.

PhantomWolf 17th November 2017 04:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 12080110)
Sexual assault is a terrible thing, that picture even in the worse light cannot be considered sexual assault. It is wrong to equate the two and I think doing so makes it much harder to deal with the actual issue of sexual assault.

Sexual Assault comes in many forms. Pinching an girl on the butt without permission is Sexual Assault, so is Rape. In the worst light, this picture would be Sexual Assault because it'd be a grope, but since he's not touching her, it's not.

That doesn't make it right though, it still reduces her to a pair of breasts that are there just for these men's entertainment as their playthings. It is treating her as a object, not as a person, and that is the essence of what makes Sexual Harassment and Assault so bad, it devalues the person that is victimised by it and discounts their humanity.

It's clear that he thought it was a joke and a prank, but it's not, it's turning her into his toy to be played with, a thing for his entertainment, and that is why it is so wrong.

d4m10n 17th November 2017 04:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 12080110)
Sexual assault is a terrible thing, that picture even in the worse light cannot be considered sexual assault. It is wrong to equate the two and I think doing so makes it much harder to deal with the actual issue of sexual assault.


Who’s equating the two? I'm pointing about two very different messages from the same source.

Darat 17th November 2017 04:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf (Post 12080245)
No not at all, but if you can't interact with other people without pretending to or actually squeezing a woman's breasts, then you're doing it wrong.

I do get your point but I think the grey area varies enormously depending on the context, situation.
Quote:

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf (Post 12080245)
We can have bonding and interactions with each other without taking advantage of each other in a non-consensual and sexual manner.

Of course we can. And I don't think anyone is saying we can't?
Quote:

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf (Post 12080245)
It's really simply, if you want to touch or even pretend to touch, someone in a sexual manner, then ask their permission first before doing it. If they say no, don't do it. And especially don't do it without permission and then just claim it was a prank or a joke.

This is where I think there is a difference between us. I think in certain situations the consent can be implied and this is the area where a lot of miscommunication happens and (raised this in another of these threads) because we have a problem in our culture with accepting sex as just another human behaviour it can rapidly lead to a lot of unnecessary embarrassment and even fear.

We should be able to simply shrug off and accept miscommunication will happen in regards to sexual relationships.

(And before people try to build straw pyramids I am of course not using "miscommunication" to mean anything like rape, sexual assault and harassment etc.)

Darat 17th November 2017 04:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 12080254)
Who’s equating the two? I'm pointing about two very different messages from the same source.

I am sure he has said many different messages - why did you pick those two examples of different messages?

applecorped 17th November 2017 04:37 AM

Remember men, consent can be implied, even when the woman is asleep:rolleyes:

Darat 17th November 2017 04:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf (Post 12080250)
Sexual Assault comes in many forms. Pinching an girl on the butt without permission is Sexual Assault, so is Rape. In the worst light, this picture would be Sexual Assault because it'd be a grope, but since he's not touching her, it's not.

That seems a bit strange - the worse light in this picture is what he actually did which was not sexual assault.
Quote:

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf (Post 12080250)
That doesn't make it right though, it still reduces her to a pair of breasts that are there just for these men's entertainment as their playthings. It is treating her as a object, not as a person, and that is the essence of what makes Sexual Harassment and Assault so bad, it devalues the person that is victimised by it and discounts their humanity.

It's clear that he thought it was a joke and a prank, but it's not, it's turning her into his toy to be played with, a thing for his entertainment, and that is why it is so wrong.

(I'm finding this interesting so I'm not trying to construct any kind of "gotcha", genuinely want to have a discussion.)

What would your reaction have been of he had say drawn a moustache on her (using this as a slightly less extreme example of something people mentioned earlier)?

What would your reaction have been if it was a bloke he was pretending to reach for?

Darat 17th November 2017 04:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by applecorped (Post 12080271)
Remember men, consent can be implied, even when the woman is asleep:rolleyes:

:rolleyes: indeed...

....(And before people try to build straw pyramids I am of course not using "miscommunication" to mean anything like rape, sexual assault and harassment etc.)....

d4m10n 17th November 2017 04:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 12080270)
I am sure he has said many different messages - why did you pick those two examples of different messages?


Because they run in precisely opposite directions.

Darat 17th November 2017 04:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 12080279)
Because they run in precisely opposite directions.

How? :confused:

PhantomWolf 17th November 2017 04:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 12080269)
I do get your point but I think the grey area varies enormously depending on the context, situation.

There really isn't a lot of gray area in this, if you are unsure, then you ask and make sure you have a clear answer. You don't just assume.

Quote:

This is where I think there is a difference between us. I think in certain situations the consent can be implied and this is the area where a lot of miscommunication happens and (raised this in another of these threads) because we have a problem in our culture with accepting sex as just another human behaviour it can rapidly lead to a lot of unnecessary embarrassment and even fear.

We should be able to simply shrug off and accept miscommunication will happen in regards to sexual relationships.
The thing is that when it comes to things of a sexual nature, heck I'd just say of touching another person, make sure that there is no miscommunications about it. Yes I can understand that it can be embarrassing asking, but it's better to get a little embarrassed than to end up sexually assaulting someone because you got your communications mixed up and you thought she wanted you to kiss her and feel her up but really she had gas.

Miscommunications can be avoided by opening your mouth and speaking.

However at the end of the day thins isn't what was being discussed anyways. What was being talked about was where jokes and pranks cross an inappropriate and non-consensual touching line.

d4m10n 17th November 2017 04:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 12080283)
How?


One of them says sexual assault is a serious problem which needs to be fixed.

The other says it's fun to pretend to sexually assault someone without their consent.

You really don't see the incongruity here?

PhantomWolf 17th November 2017 05:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 12080274)
That seems a bit strange - the worse light in this picture is what he actually did which was not sexual assault.

The worst light is that it was a picture of him actually in the action of groping her. Groping is a form of sexual assault.

Quote:

(I'm finding this interesting so I'm not trying to construct any kind of "gotcha", genuinely want to have a discussion.)
Appreciated, though I do try and remain pretty consistent if I can.

Quote:

What would your reaction have been of he had say drawn a moustache on her (using this as a slightly less extreme example of something people mentioned earlier)?
As I noted at the time it was mentioned, since it's not demeaning sexually, I'd have less of an issue with it. Drawing a mustache on her is not devaluing her to being a body part to be used for men's entertainment. I do think that we have to be careful with it comes to touching other people without permission, especially strangers, but of it was a prank between friends then I'd be a lot more okay with it. Drawing a penis though I'd object too as again it's sexualising the person.

Quote:

What would your reaction have been if it was a bloke he was pretending to reach for?
Depends. If it was the same place he was reaching for, then we don't really sexualise the male chest, so it has different connotations that reaching for a woman's breasts. If he has been reaching for the guy'd crotch then I'd say that was as inappropriate as reaching for a woman's breasts or groin because those are parts that we sexualise, and it's that sexualisation that objectifies the person and makes it wrong.

Darat 17th November 2017 05:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf (Post 12080285)
There really isn't a lot of gray area in this, if you are unsure, then you ask and make sure you have a clear answer. You don't just assume.

Example: You've been dancing together in a nightclub, you've got very close, smooched a bit, they've had their head on your shoulder, you look at them and in the moment go to kiss the other person.

I really don't think in such circumstances there is any fault by the kisser, if the other person pulls away, gives you a what-the-heck etc. it should be a simply "Sorry, lets carry on dancing". It is not a sexual assault.


Quote:

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf (Post 12080285)
The thing is that when it comes to things of a sexual nature, heck I'd just say of touching another person, make sure that there is no miscommunications about it. Yes I can understand that it can be embarrassing asking, but it's better to get a little embarrassed than to end up sexually assaulting someone because you got your communications mixed up and you thought she wanted you to kiss her and feel her up but really she had gas.

This is definitely a difference between us, I would not say that any kind of sexual assault has occurred and I think re-casting such human behaviour in such terms would be terrible way for society to go.

As a sort of general disclaimer. I hate being touched unexpectedly, I hate people putting a hand on my shoulder saying "hello mate", any kind of unexpected touch I find distressing. However all I do in those circumstances I either ignore it or ask them not to do that again. I do not feel as if I would be right to call those unexpected touches assault of any kind, they are part of the usual social human behaviours. Now if someone repeatedly touched me - no matter how slight or innocuous after I've asked them not to then it moves into potential harassment and perhaps even assault.
Quote:

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf (Post 12080285)
Miscommunications can be avoided by opening your mouth and speaking.

Of course, but even that isn't foolproof and people will still mistake what each other is saying.
Quote:

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf (Post 12080285)
However at the end of the day thins isn't what was being discussed anyways. What was being talked about was where jokes and pranks cross an inappropriate and non-consensual touching line.

But I think it is all part and parcel of the general discussion, how we communicate to one another is all part and parcel of deciding where we draw lines and create boundaries. I am just cautious about the "sex" aspect that tends to dominate these discussions and we end up escalating the matter by thinking just because there is a sexual element in a human interaction it is always bad without a formal, notarized agreement between two people (yeah I am being silly with the last bit but I hope you get what I mean).

Belz... 17th November 2017 05:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 12080110)
Sexual assault is a terrible thing, that picture even in the worse light cannot be considered sexual assault. It is wrong to equate the two and I think doing so makes it much harder to deal with the actual issue of sexual assault.

+1.

Depending on how he used the picture, it could be harassment, but judging by just the picture it's not assault.

However, it's pretty stupid for a senator to engage in something like this, and such behaviour should be strongly discouraged.

Darat 17th November 2017 05:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 12080290)
One of them says sexual assault is a serious problem which needs to be fixed.

The other says it's fun to pretend to sexually assault someone without their consent.

You really don't see the incongruity here?

And different contexts and situations don't make a difference to you?


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:58 PM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-19, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.