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 view this power, authority, and strength as inherent permission to do things to women against their will. Some know it is wrong and do it anyway, knowing their wealth or power will likely protect them. Some actually view grabbing and unwanted touching as "not a big deal." Older men of a certain generation sometimes think this way.
The only way we will change this cultural acceptance of harassment is to stop excusing it, stop ignoring it, and make the perpetrators responsible for their behavior. This means all perpetrators, regardless of their position, wealth, or political party.
Will you take off your political blinders and hold your president, your senator, your representative, accountable? I ask this question because I see people excusing their president while excoriating others.
Are you willing to stand against sexual assault, period? Or, are you going to give politicsl cover to the perpetrators?
When we can convince women NOT to use sexuality or outright sex as a tool, or even a weapon, to get what they want we'll find it a lot easier to get the men to quit doing it.
Yep, let’s see how we can bring this back around to make excuses for men and put more of the blame on women. Sounds about right.
You are going to be trying to accomplish the impossible unless you can change societies views on the matter. Which includes BOTH halves, and if you don't think some women share the blame with some men you really need to re-think your conclusions.
Please be more specific then about a situation where a woman is as much to blame for her sexual assault as the man who assaults her, and how the perception of women’s sexuality as a “tool” brought that situation on.
I'm sorry Aime, but if you have never witnessed a woman in the job place using her sex as a tool for advancement or other perk, you aren't going to accept anything I might say. And if you HAVE watched it happen then you know perfectly well what I'm talking about.
Ugh, I know I said we should save this for another thread, and we should. I can't let this stand, though. I've witnessed men use their wealth, athletic prowess, drinking ability, and all kinds of strengths to get ahead in the workplace. Does that mean it's okay to rob a guy, because he exploited his wealth to get ahead in the workplace?
Even more simply put, if you wave a $100 in my face, is it okay for me to snatch it from you and keep it?
If you wave that $100 bill in my face, offering to buy a promotion or a raise with it, is it okay if I take it while giving the promotion - a quid pro quo that is understood by both?
If not, who is wrong? Me, you or both? Personally, I find that both are wrong, and it doesn't matter if it is $100 bill or sexual favors. PP, you can pretend that this isn't pretty common practice all you want, but I've seen too much of it to agree.The majority of women won't do it any more than the majority of men will, but it is far from uncommon.
That is not the example I gave. I did not offer or imply anything in exchange for the $100.
Sexual assault, by definition, is not consensual. Mutually consensual bargaining is not sexual assault. If, however, the boss says to the employee, I will give you a raise if you sleep with me, that is sexual harassment, due to the imbalance of power, even if the employee consents. If both parties agree to have a sexual relationship, and it does not affect what happens in the workplace, well, that is not harassment, but it is stupid behavior among both parties.
This, completely. There’s a huge difference between a consensual transaction and sexual assault. You can not agree with it all you’d like but as long as both parties involved agree with it then that’s all that matters. The problem is when one person assumes that the other is willing to make the transaction, they aren’t, and the person does it anyway.
Of course it isn't - what you asked was is theft, theft. Is there any possibility of any answer but "no" to that?
As to the rest, I cannot agree. You're saying that if a boss politely makes an offer, and it is not accepted, he has harassed the employee. But if it is accepted suddenly the harassment has not happened, which makes no sense to me. What is it called between the offer and the acceptance or denial? A null set or a misdemeanor? And you completely left out the opposite action; a proposal by the employee - IMO you cannot determine a crime is by who does it. If an employee makes such a proposal it is as guilty as an employer, notwithstanding the balance of power.
"As to the rest, I cannot agree. You're saying that if a boss politely makes an offer, and it is not accepted, he has harassed the employee. But if it is accepted suddenly the harassment has not happened, which makes no sense to me."
Please re-read. I think you might have misunderstood. Here is what I said: "Mutually consensual bargaining is not sexual assault. If, however, the boss says to the employee, I will give you a raise if you sleep with me, that is sexual harassment, due to the imbalance of power, even if the employee consents." Here, the boss is offering money in exchange for sexual favors. That is clearly harassment. I then went on to say: "If both parties agree to have a sexual relationship, and it does not affect what happens in the workplace, well, that is not harassment, but it is stupid behavior among both parties." Do you see the difference? One involves a favor, the other doesn't.
"And you completely left out the opposite action; a proposal by the employee - IMO you cannot determine a crime is by who does it. If an employee makes such a proposal it is as guilty as an employer, notwithstanding the balance of power." If an employee makes the proposal, and the boss accepts, it is still harassment in the eyes of the law. However, one would assume that if the employee receives a raise in exchange for sexual favors, and it was the employee's idea, then the employee would be unlikely to complain. However, if the employee does complain, the boss is guilty of basing a raise upon sexual favors. In other words, he is unfairly rewarding an employee for sexual favors, which leaves the honest employees unfairly working for less money. Get it?
"Mutually consensual bargaining is not sexual assault."
"Here, the boss is offering money in exchange for sexual favors. "
But, PP, how does "bargaining" come about without an opening gambit? That was kind of my point - that making an offer is not harassment, and by your own words. Now, that offer is absolutely limited to one (ONE!) verbal offer - it is absolutely harassment if it goes beyond that (assuming the denial was plain and unambiguous). You can't have it both ways, or so I see it.
At the same time, I'm not sure I agree with you, for ANY offer, employee or employer, one time or more, with or without agreement and cooperation, is wrong. Plain and simple (to me!), it is wrong.
But it happens, and more frequently (employee making the offer) than we would like to admit to. It is that which was the root of my first comment that is raising the ire here. Until we treat both parties the same, eliminating the possibility that it might be OK if accepted, we're going to continue to see offers from employers. IMO, this is more a matter of psychology and social attitudes than law - as long as there is hope it will be done, and hope springs eternal when we have so many employees willing to take the bait to the point that they offer it themselves.
"But, PP, how does "bargaining" come about without an opening gambit? That was kind of my point - that making an offer is not harassment, and by your own words. Now, that offer is absolutely limited to one (ONE!) verbal offer - it is absolutely harassment if it goes beyond that (assuming the denial was plain and unambiguous). You can't have it both ways, or so I see it."
Perhaps it is the word "bargaining" that is throwing you off. If either the employee or boss makes an overture, without any strings attached, and it is rejected and that is the last of it, then I would say that does not rise to the level of harassment. It is ill-advised, though, because any future interaction between employee and boss could be forever tainted by that request, even if no consequences occur or are intended. If, however, the overture comes with strings attached, such as a raise or other gain, then it is harassment, even if it consensual. That is all I am trying to say. A boss who gives extra gain to an employee in exchange for sexual favors, even if it was the employee's idea, is engaging in sexual harassment, because the employee is being over-valued in exchange for the sexual favors, to the detriment of other employees.
The question was, do you stand against sexual assault, period? Or, are you going to give political cover to the perpetrators?
Simply put, do you base your assessment of innocence, or your assessment of the victims' believability, upon political party? Or, do you base it upon the individual circumstances of each incident?
I'd like to keep the question of whether a woman is responsible for her own assault out of this thread, if at all possible. That is a whole other question for discussion. If you want to continue it, maybe you could start another thread on the subject?
Oh, I fully agree that sexual assault is completely, 100% out of line. It doesn't depend on which party the perp belongs to, what color they are, which sex they are or how old they are. I might (might) give some leeway to mental illness or decreased capacity, but not very darn much.
How about you? Do you limit it to men assaulting women, giving female predators a free pass because of their sex, or recognize that it can and does go both ways? Everything you've said here indicates that you do, but it doesn't fit very well with the "persona" I assign to you.
I believe women can also sexually harass or assault men, sure. I personally witnessed it in the workplace many years ago. She was reprimanded by the boss, and to my knowledge, the behavior ceased.
Is that what you mean?
It is. I've witnessed it too. In one case the foreman was firing a female crackhead - he was scared to death of a harassment claim to the point he fired her openly and publicly rather than take her aside to talk to her. A good thing, too, as she was all over him and far beyond just a "touch", but with everyone watching it was impossible to file any reasonable claim. All her, and without any doubt at all. I've also seen it with co-workers without any possibility of "reward", just lust operating.
I think everyone can agree that sexual power moves can come from either gender. What we must be careful of, though, is responding to women's allegations about men with the "but women do it, too" response. Sure, you can find instances where men have been harassed by women, and they are equally bad. In our culture, though, it is more accepted for men to harass women.
......'Fraid someone will have to point out a man sexually harassed on the job , I mean one real case . I'm not talking about a phony sexual accusation but an actual harassment case .
When I was a kid of seven or eight in the early sixties there was a huge woman up stairs in our apartment building 300 -ibs who used to beat up her tiny husband 110-ibs.and once through him down the appt. house stairs ........:-]
Now he was definitely harassed.
There IS absolutely no excuse for the rampant sexual assault and /or domination by anyone . Man or woman . Republican or Democrat ..................Its against the law , as you well know there are two sides to these " assaults " especially mixing them in the office of a political leader. Liberals love to defend Bill in the sexual power struggle that went on between Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky ........defending Clinton only because of his ideology , yet the same possibility with Roy Moore quickly becomes a "the poor woman " scenario and has Moore judged , prosecuted and impeached .The same allegations against Clinton and adult victims , all boiled down to the woman's fault.
I say this , The hypocrisy between republican or democratic leaders and their followers in dealing with the fine lines between sexual assaults and sexual manipulation is the bigger issue . You want equality , act equal . You want fairness , act fairly . You want equal women's rights ,act equally and not hypocritically .
The greater hypocritical views are always projected from the left's political ideology , if you will defend the woman rights always against the man's , no matter the situation , you're wrong . If you will use sexuality to attain wealth , power or position , you are still wrong . There is however no excuse for adults to wait years to file allegations.
Sexual assault is against the law , sexual manipulation probably should be and yet , never will be .
The left really needs to bone up on the definition of hypocrite .
Pretty panther , so you know my answer , are you afraid to answer for the power of a woman's sexual endeavors ? Wilderness is a pretty conscientious debater are you then in denial of his opinions ?
Wilderness: Of all the outrageous comments you have made on this site, this one is the worst.
by ga anderson 13 months ago
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 HerPhoto credit: NBCNews.comI suppose...
by Susan Reid 6 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 Obama/Biden stand on the issue.Say what you want about Joe and his gaffes... he's a...
by T 2 years ago
So, is Donald Trump right about Hillary Clinton's record on the defense of women? Watch this video.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1J466k8fulk Do you think if Trump is the Republican candidate Bill Clinton will address (as he said he will in the video) his record of sexual assault on women and how...
by crankalicious 2 months ago
So, Brett Kavanaugh has been accused of a sexual assault and the accuser has come forward. I'm pretty sure no conservative in these forums would even consider dismissing his nomination, but let's try and have a serious discussion about the allegation.1. Do you believe the accuser? She's come...
by Peeples 5 years ago
Why do people have an issue with others stating there are varying levels of R.ape?In the forums, on facebook, everywhere it seems there is debate over this after recent news. My question is why are people offended by others stating that there are varying levels of R.ape?
by SportsBetter 6 years ago
Are Democrats and Republicans the same party?If you look at the facts, you can see many similarities between Republicans and Democrats. One is they both get funding from Goldman Sachs. Why would the same people fund both parties? Both parties agree with The Federal Reserve printing money, going...
Copyright © 2018 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.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|