A couple news stories caught my eye - as apparent results of current trends.
One was about former Pres. G.H. Bush sexually assaulting a female - in a public photo-op, and from his wheelchair.
Former President George H.W. Bush Accused by Heather Lind of Touching Her
Photo credit: NBCNews.com
I suppose it could be a testament to my insensitivity, due to being a dinosaur of the Baby Boomer generation. But geesh, even if the accusation of touching and the joke are true, (which I don't know, but I could see an appropriate "arm around the waist as a gesture of inclusion)) - I would think that at worst it would qualify as the acts of an old leech, but certainly not sexual assault.
That thought, and Ms. Lind's further explanation that:
"What comforts me is that I too can use my power, which isn't so different from a President really," Lind wrote. "I can enact positive change."
Lind concluded the post with the hashtag #metoo, which has been a rallying cry on social media in recent weeks for women ... "
The second story was about political pressure on the Military to prosecute sexual assault and harassment charges, which I don't deny should be prosecuted - if legitimate.
Military judge rules Navy Judge Advocate General illegally intervened in SEAL’s trial
"A military judge ruled Tuesday that the Navy Judge Advocate General illegally intervened in the sexual assault trial of a decorated Navy SEAL"
"The naval officer overseeing Barry’s judge-only court-martial had planned to overturn his 2014 conviction, having decided the SEAL was not guilty of sexual assault against a girlfriend with whom he had an intense sexual relationship.
But the now-retired Rear Adm. Patrick Lorge was persuaded not to act by Adm. Crawford, who was the Navy’s second-ranking lawyer at that time."
"Col. Spath wrote about the first conversation: “RADM Lorge’s ultimate impression was that VADM Crawford believed RADM Lorge should approve the findings and sentence in the case. While VADM Crawford may not have said these actual words, based on the conversations during the meeting, RADM Lorge was clearly left with that belief after the meeting. The meeting confirmed the pressures on the system at a minimum.”
“What seems evident is RADM Lorge believes pressure was brought to bear on him to take particular action in this case,” the colonel wrote.
The Navy Judge Advocate General at that time, Vice Adm. Nanette DeRenzi, also spoke to Adm. Lorge, but well before the Barry court-martial. She talked about the intense pressure the Navy was under from Congress in sexual assault cases."
Folks, I know that sexual assault and harassment are wrong and should not be tolerated, but ... in this case it seems that a possibly innocent man was prosectued for political reasons.
Has the trend for Political Correctness and political pandering gonetoo far?
Does a single incorrect accusation invalidate the claims of the many women who have been sexually assaulted? It is certainly an injustice if a single person is falsely accused, but does that mean we should make as big a deal out of it as the many sexual harassment claims?
Certainly, if it was me who was falsely accused, I'd be irate and want to point out that justice needs to be blind and that each prosecution has to move forward on its own merits, but I feel like responding to the vast number of harassment allegations with a "look at this one place where the allegation was false" frequently means to delegitimize the many truthful claims being made.
Crankalicious, it appears you read more than was said. Nothing was said about invalidating other women's claims. On the other hand, if this single case is the injustice it appears to be, and if it is because of political pressure to pander to a public perception, then yes, I do think we should make as big a deal of it as those other valid sexual harassment and assault cases.
Prosecuting an innocent just to ensure we don't miss a guilty one is not right. And for it to happen due to political pandering makes it an even worse injustice.
This same logic is applied to climate change in order to invalidate the massive amount of science supporting climate change. Opponents believe that if they can find a single example where somebody says there's no climate change, it invalidates the entire argument.
While you may not be using your examples to bully and silence those who would come forward about sexual abuse, that is often how such examples are used.
In support of your general idea though, I will say that I just read a claim by an actress who says Val Kilmer assaulted her. However, another person, a woman on the set, has come forward to say that the violence was in the context of the scene and that actresses had been warned prior to the scene. This sort of assault claim also does damage to those who have legitimate claims (not that her claim may not be legitimate, but it looks a little fishy to me).
Once again, Crankalicious, you read more into the point of the OP then was there. The logic of your climate change comparison wasn't the point of the OP. There was no intention to invalidate the concept - just to point out the abuses created by personal agendas and over-zealous PC action. I think the latter is extremely well illustrated by the Seal's case. The public screams, Congress mimics their scream, and the military brass bows to political pressure. That seems the definition of Political Correctness to me.
In my experience, the right (and the left too in different cases) will pick one example to promote that runs counter to a wealth of other information and use it to create the perception that the evidence for the original overarching problem is somehow invalid.
I don't think that you personally were trying to suggest that the sexual harassment claims weren't valid.
In any situation where there are a lot of people claiming something, there are always going to be examples that don't fit. Is it more important to emphasize the larger point or to emphasize the exceptions?
I'm genuinely asking a question and just trying to explain why people who may be honestly trying to point out injustices that don't fit in with a larger narrative are often vilified for it.
Excellent point, Crank. I had the same concerns.
Gotta say those cases are indicative of bigger problems. I thought the first example was going to be a joke until I got to the end of it. It could be argued that, considering the ex-president's condition, it might be reasonable to believe that he had no idea where his hand was; or if he did know, that he lacked the ability to understand it's ramifications. My own dad, at the end, when suffering severe medical problems, was barely a mirror of his former self when it came to his actions and behavior patterns. This woman appears rather insensitive, to me.
The military incident reminds me of my days in the service. They push an agenda. Hard. Not knowing the facts; this guy could possibly be considered a case of collateral damage in the current campaign. Or, he could be guilty of the crime and this situation evidence of having two opposing schools of thought on the issue having a somewhat public disagreement.
The problem I have with the #metoo bandwagon is it continues the faulty assumption that women have no responsibility for their part of any exchange and that their behavior and demeanor, in no manner, is to be taken into account when determining if an inappropriate action was in response to an action which might have led them to believe it would not be inappropriate . What is appropriate, or inappropriate, can only be determined if put in full context; if the actions of both parties are taken into account. I'm not giving all women a free pass to conduct themselves in whatever manner they want and then complain about the outcome.
We see this in many facets of our society. The hoped for rewards of transitional sex (at any level) are myriad. What was the woman doing? What were her expectations? Had her expectations been met, would she consider herself to have been abused? Had her expectations been met, and her action simply driven by a desire for an expected result and not driven by a mutual interest; could she too be guilty of abuse; if the same litmus test were used? These questions remain unanswered in many instances. I have to know the answers prior to agreeing that a #metoo statement is valid, in the context originally intended.
I have a general philosophy of life that says: "stupid behavior results in stupid outcomes".
If a person gets drunk and falls off a balcony and breaks his/her neck, who is responsible?
If a person gets drunk and is raped by another drunk person, who is responsible?
The answer is pretty clear. In the first example, the person who got drunk is responsible. In the second answer, the rapist is responsible.
That said, a person who gets drunk and puts him or herself in harm's way is more likely to have something bad happen than somebody who does not. Still, that does not mean that the rapist is not responsible.
The conversation is not about drunks. Is it?
It seems to be veering toward the responsibility of women for their own sexual assaults, as it always does when men decide they need to create a definition for what constitutes a "real" sexual assault.
As a woman, I expect women to take responsibility. If they are sexually assaulted they deserve to see justice. If they contribute to the environment which allows this to happen they deserve to be expected to take responsibility. Women are not defenseless children who need protection because they cannot protect themselves. I am sick of the conversation appearing to be such.
Assault will happen. I know a woman who was violently raped. Hers is a true and horrific story. I do not consider aspiring actresses willingly walking into a hotel room for an 'interview' with a known lecher in an industry known for lechery; who subsequently have had their breasts fondled to be in the same category. By attempting to equate the two you negate the true horror experienced by women who are honestly taken advantage of.
So if a woman wants a job, she's partly responsible for being assaulted? I'm not sure what category you put the assaulted women in as opposed to the woman who was "really" assaulted, but you're clearly delineating the value of the assaults. One is truly valid and one is not? Or is one less valid?
Are women in violent relationships responsible for being assaulted because they don't leave when study after study shows the many reasons (children, money; etc.) it can be difficult to extricate oneself from those relationships? Of course, it makes more sense to just leave, right? Yet it's not that simple. So is the answer to blame the victim?
I also don't think that these women are equating themselves with rape victims other than the women who were actually raped. They are saying they were assaulted and harassed and if they wanted to work, they had to put up with it. Women have a right to work without being harassed in any industry and if they are, the harassers, not the women, should be blamed and dealt with appropriately.
And it was unclear to me that any of these women knew that their harasser was a known entity. Some may have. But what if they didn't? What if they were new and had no idea that Harvey Weinstein (or whomever) was going to do this. How do you expect them to take responsibility?
"What is appropriate, or inappropriate, can only be determined if put in full context..."
Live to learn, your comment spoke to my perspective, however, it may also put you into the same "insensitivity" boat I am in.
My intention in the OP was not to condone or dismiss any degree of sexual assault or harassment, but to point out the dangers of extremes. I think the examples of a 93-year old man in a wheelchair, and a decorated Seal being railroaded, (if the military judge's determination is valid), offer proof to that point.
As 93 year old man in a wheel chair who almost certainly has impaired motor skills, I am prepared to give the benefit of the doubt. There has not been any pattern of this behavior reported or observed and Mr. Bush apologized if any of his actions were considered inappropriate.
While I am aware that sexism permeates our society at all levels, that does not mean that a woman can point her finger in accusation and have it accepted as gospel merely based upon her word.
I want proof and substantiation like that which is expected when one accuses anyone of anything else.
Right now, I have bigger fish to fry....
Uh yes there has - --- it's standard op for the old buzzard. Does it every time "as a joke" Everybody know that.
In my experience, what "everybody knows" is generally false. Seems that "common knowledge" is actually "common belief".
Flat earth, earth centered universe, man can't fly, man hasn't been to the moon and Bush mining the towers with bombs all come to mind.
Hear hear. Way to say it. I knew my favorite left leaning contributor would see this thing clearly.
... and I think that illustrates my point Cred.
When combined with her comment about her voice being as powerful as a president's to affect change, and using the #metoo tag as a vehicle - I remain skeptical of her motivations. Or, as previously named - her agenda.
Has the trend for hiding sexual assaults gone too far?
Is that all you have promisem?
No thoughts on the point of the OP? Just a blanket acceptance that a charge of sexual assault isn't to be challenged - no matter the details?
No thoughts on the Seal being denied justice because Congress is pressuring the military brass?
I guess you don't understand my point or that it's a rhetorical question in response to your OP.
Intentional misunderstanding for the sake of political rhetoric seems to be a trend too.
I suggest conservatives need to do much more in focusing on the massive sexual assault problem in this country -- about which they are very silent -- and not worry so much about minor "political correctness" events.
You should be more careful with your determination of what is and isn't "intentional" by someone else promisem.
I did get your point - as a rhetorical question, but it wasn't relative to the point of the OP.
As you read the thread, surely you noticed my various comments concerning your point - that your point, as also expressed by others, such as Crankalicious, wasn't the point of the OP, nor was the OP intended to address your point.
I don't think that my repeated statements that the OP wasn't intended to diminish the pervasive problem of sexual assault and harassment, but to discuss other aspects of the problems in the new push to address it. I don't think that supports your contention that I intentionally ignored your point. I just asked you to make a point relevant to the conversation.
Also, I don't think a Seal being railroaded, (if that happened), to fit the public political mood is a "... minor political correctness event." I also think that if you do think it is, then the point of my OP might be an even more important thought for us all to consider.
“Sexual assault is any type of sexual contact or behavior that occurs without the explicit consent of the recipient.”
A quick butt-grab may be a more tame version of this definition but it still applies. And honestly, no matter how small, I’m perfectly happy with people calling it out. It’s the same pervasive mindset that leads to “more serious” sexual assaults - that men can put their hands on a woman’s ass, breasts, or *ahem* the p-word that the president himself enjoys grabbing, without clear consent. I’ve had perfect strangers touch my behind before without any indication that I’d like them to do so and it does really feel like a violation. Not one that rocks me to my core and affects me for the rest of my life, but one that makes me feel uncomfortable, embarrassed, and disrespected on an intimate level... and isn’t that enough?
The #metoo hashtag is not a result of being PC, it’s a result of women being fed up of keeping quiet in the face of sexual harassment, unwanted touching, and worse, because it’s been seen as “normal” for so long and because men can get away with it, especially if they have some sort of power over people.
Hi Amie, I can see the correctness of your thoughts, so it appears that my perception that the issue has been extended to areas that I don't think meet the threshold of what I view as sexual assault or harassment does show that my perspective is from another era.
Even so, I still think that this type of application of "sexual assault" charges is beyond the intended scope of the definition. And for me, Ms. Lind's statement validates that thought. If I am wrong about the rest, then I am probably also wrong in thinking she is making a mountain out of a molehill for her own purposes.
Bush Sr. touched her ass several times, and admitted and apologized for the specific act described. Where is the injustice? It happened, readers can consider it as important as they feel it to be.
And if I and other people want to take part in a campaign raising awareness of sexual assaults and harassment, how is that a problem for anyone else? Not interested? Then don't pay attention to it.
I am not interested in all of sports, most celebrities of any kind, the stock market and a million other things. But I accept that the media caters to the interests of people in general and just skip to the bits I do care about.
As a man who has been sexually assaulted, I don't find myself getting too worked up about dirty old men grabbing butts, but maybe I should.
That said, it's up to the person who has been assaulted to decide that for themselves and assuming this allegation to be true, it's a classic case of a man in a position of power deciding that he's free to do whatever the hell he wants to somebody who has absolutely no power to stop him.
Could you imagine if she had hauled off and slapped him? I'm sure she would have been vilified in the press and had her life threatened.
Do tell us, what is the appropriate response when somebody puts their hands on you and you literally have no power to stop it or do anything about it? I think this woman has pursued her ONLY recourse, which is to make it public.
I think that if she "...had hauled off and slapped him.", it would have been the perfect response. Even if he was a president.
I think the part I have the most problem with here is your question of 'what is the most appropriate response?' That, to me, is easy. Immediately ensure that the other party knows the behavior displayed is unwarranted, unwelcome and inappropriate. You'd be surprised how well that works out. I've always found it to mark the end of that type of behavior.
You don't seem to be "with it" very well, LTL. The "appropriate response" lately is go on national TV, scream to the world that "He touched my butt!" and do whatever is necessary to ruin reputations, end careers and embarrass spouses and children to the maximum extent possible. If jail time can be wangled out of it, all the better!
Shouldn't that be the result of a sexual assault - a ruined reputation and embarrassment? Shouldn't jail time be the result? Certainly, it would be better to come forward with witnesses, but a lot of the Weinstein stuff happened behind closed doors precisely so it would be a he-said, she-said situation. Public figures who behave badly deserve public shaming. I don't see how you can blame victims for coming forward and telling their story. Don't they have that right?
I'm not sure a 93-year-old guy in a wheel chair has all his faculties, so there might be a bit of leeway there unless it's a pattern.
Did I post in the wrong forum? I was under the impression the topic was Bush touching a woman, presumably on the butt. In my mind that does NOT qualify as "sexual assault". And yes, I know that the legal definition of "assault" is touching another person and that touching cloth covering buttocks flesh can be considered sexual (although I don't think the law would agree that touching that cloth constitutes "sexual assault").
All I can do is repeat the same thing: touching someone inappropriately like that does not deserve a penalty of a ruined life. There ARE other options, you know; quietly tell them to back off, move away (not difficult when the "assaulter" is in a wheelchair) or even speak loudly enough to be heard 10 feet away with a "Don't touch my a$$ again!" when nothing else works!
I would submit that when none of those options are chosen the person who did it can reasonably assume that the action was not considered offensive by the other party.
We should really try to bring this around to the Clintons, if we can.
Wilderness, sorry if I overreacted, but I read your comment in a general way and not as a specific reaction to the Bush thing.
I'll just repeat though, 93-year-old men touching butts (probably accidentally) is not on the same level as movie moguls raping people who need employment.
It wasn’t an accident, he made a joke about copping a feel before he did it. But he did apologize and while that doesn’t make it okay to grab someone in the first place, showing some recognition that it was inappropriate is essentially all you can hope for once it’s been done. Honestly I don’t see much difference between calling him out in person where reporters will overhear and make it public and telling people about it herself at a later date. The reaction is going to be basically the same either way.
I have been through this over and over again on here but I’ll simply say again that often when in a situation where someone feels unsafe or is with a person that has some power, whether it be directly over them or in general, turning around lecturing them on their behaviour is not really that easy. I never told my boss that he was making me uncomfortable or treating me differently because I was afraid I’d lose my job which I desperately needed. I never told the two guys that I thought were going to assault me that they were scaring me and being inappropriate because I physically felt unsafe, among other more complicated reasons that I’m not sure you’d be sympathetic to so I won’t even bother to explain. There are a lot of reasons women don’t just speak up and defend themselves in the moment.
Yes Aime. There are certainly situations when commenting will make things worse. I've been in situations where they could have become dangerous. I've actually told companions to shut up in order to give us time to remove ourselves safely. Calm and composure can go a long way toward keeping harm at bay.
But, we are not talking about the extremes. I have seen, too often, women allow banter to move into inappropriate areas. They've giggled and flirted and enjoyed every minute of it; then became highly offended when the guy involved assumed this obvious delight meant there was a mutual attraction. I've seen men dressed down and reprimanded for inappropriate behavior when both parties should have not participated in that behavior during work hours in the first place. I've seen tops cut so low that the items contained must have had to work diligently to stay covered. Then, the woman is highly offended that someone looks at the items.
Personal responsibility coupled with personal integrity would nip 90% of problems in the bud. These are the instances where I find #metoo ridiculous.
I agree that there are probably some women whose claims to sexual harassment are questionable, but I honestly don’t believe that’s the majority.
I hadn’t really the thought about the number of times that I was technically harassed until recently because I always just brushed it off and thought “nothing that bad has ever happened to me” but then I realized that’s part of the problem.
Maybe some of the people who got on board with #metoo have stories that a lot of people also don’t think are “that bad” but honestly any time someone makes you feel uncomfortable or compromised sexually, it’s bad. It doesn’t have to ruin someone’s life to be relevant or important, it doesn’t even have to be something that they think about on a regular basis. Because from my own experience, I learned to tolerate the bad behaviour because I thought I had to, because I thought every woman experienced this sometimes and we just have to learn to deal with it. And I’m not talking about extremes, I’m talking about comments or unwanted touching that isn’t blatantly sexual but rather suggestive. Maybe that’s a grey area for some people but if it a makes a woman truly feel like she was taken advantage of or put in an ucomfortable situation then she shouldn’t be afraid to say so. So with #metoo people are able to express that they were assaulted or harassed without going into detail and being judged on whether it was “serious” enough to feel that way. Maybe that’s a fault to some people, but to me it’s kind of the best part.
All of that said, I still didn’t participate in the hashtag because I still think to myself “what I’ve experienced is not even half as bad as what some other people have experienced” and while I can sit here and explain away all the reasons that it doesn’t make sense to think that way, it’s so engrained in me that I cannot get past it. So for every woman that tweeted “#metoo” over a guy who glanced at her boobs falling out of her top, there’s probably a woman like me who has stories but still didn’t want to share them with everyone they know.
And I realize that I went off on a bit of a more general commentary regarding the metoo thing, that wasn’t necessarily all directed at you but the original criticism of the movement as a whole.
'Technically harrassed'. I like that. You didn't feel offended, didn't see it as offensive, until it was pointed out to you that it could be considered offensive.
If you don't feel harassed then you can assume you aren't being harassed. This does not imply that the person on the other end isn't harassing but you'd have to feel it to be it. Although, I do find this interesting because I remember a couple of times women came to me, all proud about something that had happened, and when I explained to them it would be highly offensive to me if in the same predicament; all of a sudden they were 'morally outraged'. I suppose it boils down to how they want to be perceived at any particular moment. In these instances I wonder how the rest of us are supposed to keep up.
I certainly didn’t mean it to imply that I wasn’t offended or uncomfortable. I meant it to imply that I didn’t think it was a big enough deal to make a fuss over at the time because it was so common it didn’t occur to me that it could actually be filed under “harassment”. I always just told myself to get over it.
Now that I’m older I can see that just because it’s common doesn’t mean that it’s okay. Does that make sense?
But we have to be careful that those 'reasons" do not become excuses, where her credibility is on the line. Every charge needs to be proven and substantiated, if it is all he said/she said who among us are safe?
Are you suggesting that a woman is responsible for gathering some sort of proof or conducting herself in a very specific way in the midst of being assaulted so that her story is more believable than a man’s?
No, I am saying that women, too, can lie and misrepresent situations and circumstances. The thing at Duke University a few years ago can attest to that.
Everybody is responsible for gathering proof and conducting themselves in a way that make any charge that he or she makes against another credible.
It is not a matter of believable more than it is, what can be proved.
Oh, okay. Next time a woman is being raped you should remind her to gather a quick semen sample. Can’t believe they always forget!
Being fair, I am aware the trauma may be such that these things do not get reported immediately, but are there not other forms of conclusive or even corroborative evidence that could support the accusation that a crime has been committed, enough for a warrant?
Not really, unless you’ve been “lucky” enough to be assaulted in front of witnesses. But women have absolutely no control over that, either, unless they make sure to never be alone at any point.
Can the woman describe her attacker? Physical description, clothing worn..
Would there be evidence of any sign of struggle? The evidence of a struggle, blood, scratches would be found on the accused as well as on her. The appearance of such evidence on the attacker would have to be more than just a coincidence, and it provides reasonable suspicion. I ask this as there have been cases of women who say that they were raped when the guy says that the encounter was consentual. There has to be evidence to support one account over the other.
Well of course she can describe the person but that’s not going to fly as proof that anything happened.
As for signs of a struggle, men generally overpower women by quite a bit and it could be quite difficult to leave any physical evidence of a struggle. Especially if he’s wearing long sleeves, a hat, anything that makes it harder to make marks on his skin/grab hair/whatever. And sometimes women don’t want to put up much of a fight once things are already initiated because there’s a chance things will get worse for them.
If they can get some proof then that’s great. If they can’t I’d rather us not just assume that they didn’t take enough responsibility in getting it while trying to process being assaulted.
I hear you, Aime, I wonder how, if you were in charge, you go about gathering evidence to support that a rape has occurred and when you prosecute.? Surely, it has to based on more than just her word.... You are saying that the current system does not help, what would propose to improve it?
I don’t know if there is a way to improve it within the justice system. But I know that without concrete evidence a woman’s word is not good enough yet it’s all she has, and that makes me sad. So I try to be sympathetic and I try not to tell anyone what they should have/could have done during or after it happens because I don’t believe it’s helpful and I believe that everyone processes it differently.
The only thing that will definitively help is focusing on holding the men (and sometimes women) who touch another person without their consent accountable, no matter how small, rather than focusing more on how the person on the receiving end should have handled the situation.
When people pay attention to how they handle the situation in an inappropriate encounter, they make it much more likely that the offender can and will be held accountable for his or her actions.
Perhaps. But that’s for them to come to terms with. I certainly don’t feel comfortable holding someone to any particular standard of coping. I do, however, feel comfortable telling people that they don’t have any right to put someone in that position in the first place. So I stick to that.
Now hold on a minute Cred. You too Aime and Live to Learn. This is getting out of hand. I considered this thread might go in this direction, but was hopeful I could keep it focused on the point of the OP.
I appreciate you all in these forums, but this discussion of rape and extreme abuse details aren't where any of us really want to go. Can I nudge you back to the points of the OP; over-zealous promotion and agenda-driven motives?
Come on folks, can't we all just get along? Can't we just give peace a chance? (yes, that was an attempt at humor ;-) )
GA, you know that you can't broach a topic like this without this coming up. Men taking sexual related liberties with women are going to be touched on here at some point. There is a larger issue associated with Bush Sr. and his problem. I think that the conversation was stimulating and we got a lot of the underlying concerns out into the open. That is what the better OP topics should do. In this case, it is hard to separate one from the other; over zealous promotion and agenda driven motives vs. sexual exploitation.
We are all at peace, with an enhanced understanding at the underlying issues involved, from a variety of perspectives.
No worries, GA.....
You are right, I should have known better. But relative to your and Aime's exchange, I'm with her. I think you applied a valid point to an example that couldn't support it.
And... I can agree even more with Live to learn's perspective - without going into the extremes of rape and violent physical abuse.
Hi psychiskinner, like my response to Aimie, I can certainly see your point. However, I haven't seen the specific info you relate. I have found no reference that he touched her ass, (you may have), and the only apology reference I saw was to making her feel uncomfortable - no admission of guilt that I see. So, I don't have the benefit of determining the degree of injustice.
And that degree of injustice, (or degree of assault), was my point.
Yes, it is a testament to your insensitivity.
Instead of imagining a dirty old man laying hands on a younger woman, think this instead:
A young guy grabbing onto your cock and balls so quickly - and without permission and then lets go and laughs, walking away, while you're still in shock.
No so funny now, eh?
Then a punch in the nose, (like a slap to the face), would be an appropriate response - not a scream of sexual assault. I will live with my insensitivity because I think it is sensible to the degree of offense the OP noted.
*I didn't say the noted offense was funny - that is your interpretation.
I'm pretty sure the Secret Service would shoot you in that situation.
You're still not getting it GA,
So let's say that you're a guy of about 185, 6' 1" tall and in pretty good shape with upper body strength. So in your mind , hell yeah you're going to strike back! I would too. except for that time I was 17 and I was in shock, and ever since then I don't like being in crowds. So yeah- that happened to me, having someone grab my groin area real fast on the sidewalk and walking away real fast laughing. I WAS SO PISSED, but yet wasn't going to run after the guy and his friend down. But I'm super vigilant now. Go into spastic defense motions when someone in a crowd is coming up to me too fast.
Please try to imagine once when you were young and not so tall and not so strong. Your priest gets weird on you. Going to punch the priest in the nose?
I know everybody at sometime in their lives - mostly when a kid - when some bully hit you and had to learn to fight back. I'll fight back with an equalizer. Soon as I pick up that lead pipe - oh now it's aggravated assault!
I bit hyper-defensive am I
I do think I am 'getting it' ptosis, but relative to the point of my OP, I don't think you are. And based on your comment, I don't think I can explain further.
I am sorry to hear you were so affected by your experience. Maybe you and I should just let this one go.
Bush's butt touching was reported as butt touching. No one made false equivalencies. But acting like butt touching is okay is part of the problem the current campaign is trying to address. Accepting it happened and he apologized is the most de-escalating option. Trying to say it didn't happen or is acceptable in any way is what will keep it in the news.
3 words for the day: (not directed at anyone)
In the field of psychology, the Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias wherein people of low ability suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their cognitive ability as greater than it is. The cognitive bias of illusory superiority derives from the metacognitive inability of low-ability persons to recognize their own ineptitude.
I'll tell you what's different about the incident with President Bush II. He didn't call his lawyer. He apologized if he offended the lady involved. Period. Done. The guilty don't do that.
FYI - Every five minutes, somewhere in the world, a female meets a violent death at the hands of a male. And five women a week in America are shot by the man in their life.
Women are not imagining assault.
Fifth woman accuses former US president Bush of groping
"Amanda Staples, a former Republican candidate for Maine's state Senate has accused former US president George H.W. Bush of groping her years ago.
This is before the last five years of being in a wheelchair - so that cheap excuse is no longer valid.
by PrettyPanther3 days ago
Sexual assault is not a left/right issue. Sexual assault, from unwanted touching to rape, is a cultural issue. Men have historically had the power, the authority, and the physical strength to dominate women. Some men...
by Susan Reid5 years ago
GOP Congressional candidate Todd Akins wants to make a brand new category: "legitimate" rape. Anyway, for those still considering which candidate they will vote for in November,it's pretty clear where...
by Jack Lee3 weeks ago
Where are the others? This news is not news at all. This has been going on forever ever since the early days of film...It is only now that people are coming out to speaking about it...The big question is who else? Will...
by Jack Lee2 days ago
It seems another side effect of the latest sexual harrassment revelations, is that some democratic women, including Senator Gillibrand of NY is having a conscience after 20 years...Now they are claiming that Bill...
by NGRIA Bassett7 years ago
It must be difficult to trust someone sexually after a sexual assault, when and how would you disclose this information?
by Susie Lehto4 hours ago
A leading Democratic congressman settled a wrongful dismissal complaint for more than $27,000 in taxpayer funding after he allegedly fired the staffer because she would not “succumb to [his] sexual advances,”...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.