Non-consensual physical contact poll


NeuroTypical
 Share

Your thoughts about grabbin' and gropin' and whatnot  

28 members have voted

  1. 1. How serious, with 1=stop wasting my time, and 5=should be treated as a crime, do you consider the following actions? A person intentionally grabbing, touching, petting, etc another person's rear end, breasts, or genitals without their consent?

    • 1
      1
    • 2
      0
    • 3
      2
    • 4
      4
    • 5
      21
  2. 2. A person in a position of power or influence, intentionally grabbing, touching, petting, etc another person's rear end, breasts, or genitals without their consent?

    • 1
      1
    • 2
      0
    • 3
      0
    • 4
      4
    • 5
      23


Recommended Posts

I'm interested in our answers (anonymous or not) to folks' opinions on this subject.  Taking politics and agendas and all that just completely out of the picture, assuming all humans are created equal and deserve equal protection under the law, how serious do we consider the following?

1=stop wasting my time, and 5=should be treated as a crime, do you consider the following actions?

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it should be considered a crime, regardless of whether the person is in power or not.  It is a big deal when someone touches sacred parts of your body without permission, regardless of what wicked frat-boy culture says.  A really big deal. 

 

Edited by DoctorLemon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with the point I think you're making. Feeling up other people who you're not married to is scummy, but feeling up people who haven't made it clear it's okay with them that you do so is borderline criminal (or in some cases, not borderline at all). If a high school boy lightly pinches a girl's rear end without any sort of permission, I don't think we should slap the cuffs on him. I do think he should be expelled from school. If he keeps repeating such behavior, then I think legal action is reasonable.

At the risk of a thread hijack:

Telling little Sally to give her Grandma a hug: HORRORS!

I disagree strongly with the above sentiment. I see nothing wrong with telling your child to give a relative a hug. If the child strongly resists, I would not push the issue. But I flatly disagree with those who preach "boundaries" to the point that they think it's evil to teach your child to express affection physically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It depends on the age of the victim, in my opinion.  It also depends on the situation and what has been said or agreed upon between the individuals prior to that (meaning it is still non-consent but what led to that prior to that).  For example, with a minor, absolutely should be a crime.  If someone tried it on me, I'd laugh in their face (and be surprised anyone would be doing that to an old man), but wouldn't press charges.  I'd be thinking they were crazy though.

So, it depends on who and to whom for me I suppose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
1 hour ago, DoctorLemon said:

I think it should be considered a crime, regardless of whether the person is in power or not.  It is a big deal when someone touches sacred parts of your body without permission, regardless of what wicked frat-boy culture says.  A really big deal. 

 

Exactly. The fact that we need to tell people this in 2017 who are over the age of 3 makes me deeply depressed. 

Non consensual physical contact of any kind is a bad idea. The key phrase is "non consensual". When I greet my female friends (thinking of two of them, very close friends), I'll give them a brief hug and a kiss on the cheek. No one, absolutely no one has said anything. So there is a different line to cross with everyone.

Edited by MormonGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

If answering 5 to your polls would stop TSA from groping airline passengers I'd answer 10.

My dad has pins in his leg which set off the metal detectors.  One time the person at the gate was female and said something about how she would have to pat him down and asked if that was OK.  He said, "Will it cost extra?" :eek::embarrassed::lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, zil said:

My dad has pins in his leg which set off the metal detectors.  One time the person at the gate was female and said something about how she would have to pat him down and asked if that was OK.  He said, "Will it cost extra?" :eek::embarrassed::lol:

Do you know what the TSA would do if he would have seriously said No, it's not Ok?  I've always imagined he'd get sent to some interrogation room and such.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, anatess2 said:

Do you know what the TSA would do if he would have seriously said No, it's not Ok?  I've always imagined he'd get sent to some interrogation room and such.

The whole thing is stupid.  I decline to financially support their stupidity.  I've heard people tell that you can get some sort of security clearance that allows you to bypass all that, but I've never seen anything on any government website about how to get it.  If there were such a thing, and it were basically the same as getting a regular government security clearance, I might go for that and then fly, otherwise, forget it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, zil said:

The whole thing is stupid.  I decline to financially support their stupidity.  I've heard people tell that you can get some sort of security clearance that allows you to bypass all that, but I've never seen anything on any government website about how to get it.  If there were such a thing, and it were basically the same as getting a regular government security clearance, I might go for that and then fly, otherwise, forget it.

It doesn't really bypass all that.  It simply makes it so you don't have to take off your shoes, computer, liquids, etc and you go through a lane with all other security cleared people so the security process is much quicker.  You could still get groped at the checkpoint.  The application process is pretty much the same as applying for a green card.  You file a form (that comes with a $100 fee - there's a cheaper version if you don't intend to cross customs) and you get doc'd.  You're gonna need to show up for an interview with the feds and you get fingerprinted and they run all kinds of background checks.  Your docs with your prints are going to be filed with the FBI.  So you know how in TV shows like CSI, they go run fingerprint searches and they say things like, "well, we can't find him because he doesn't have a criminal record", that won't apply anymore.  They have your prints.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, anatess2 said:

It doesn't really bypass all that.  It simply makes it so you don't have to take off your shoes, computer, liquids, etc and you go through a lane with all other security cleared people so the security process is much quicker.  You could still get groped at the checkpoint.  The application process is pretty much the same as applying for a green card.  You file a form (that comes with a $100 fee - there's a cheaper version if you don't intend to cross customs) and you get doc'd.  You're gonna need to show up for an interview with the feds and you get fingerprinted and they run all kinds of background checks.  Your docs with your prints are going to be filed with the FBI.  So you know how in TV shows like CSI, they go run fingerprint searches and they say things like, "well, we can't find him because he doesn't have a criminal record", that won't apply anymore.  They have your prints.

When I worked in Moscow, I had a top secret clearance.  I was vetted by FBI, CIA, and State Department, so, ya know, they've documented parts of my life that I can't remember anymore - like who all my neighbors were for my whole life.

But if that's all it is, it ain't worth it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, zil said:

When I worked in Moscow, I had a top secret clearance.  I was vetted by FBI, CIA, and State Department, so, ya know, they've documented parts of my life that I can't remember anymore - like who all my neighbors were for my whole life.

But if that's all it is, it ain't worth it.

Yeah, I travel quite frequently so I thought about applying for one just to get an easy day at customs.  But, a friend of mine have the clearance and he still ended up having to open his boxes, empty it out on the table, and figure out a way to put it all back and it all still fit (Filipinos and their balikbayan boxes, I tell ya).  So I figured... that's quite an insult.  They give you a "trusted traveler" piece of paper that you have to pay and get interviewed and doc'd for and still get random checked because they really didn't trust you.  Forgetaboutit.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, DoctorLemon said:

I think it should be considered a crime, regardless of whether the person is in power or not. 

You are asking the law to do something it is not designed to do (even though it does it all the time currently and quite frankly it is morally abhorent and wrong what the law does). You are asking the law to determine innocence or guilt, whether someone spends time in jail or not based upon whether a jury believes a man over the woman or the woman over the men. And in today's society, the woman is always to be believed.

How is that any different than prosecuting a black man in the 1950s b/c a white man says he robbed my store?

There are some morally reprehensible things that the law cannot prosecute with any degree of protection of rights for the accused and the accuser.  That is why for quite a while rape has been a crime while grabbing a woman's rear (while morally reprehensible without consent) has not been.  In a rape case, there is generally physical evidence-this idea that rape victims just "freeze up" is bull; that is why up until 2nd-3rd wave feminism it was taught to fight back with everything!  The Church taught this; it was for two reason. One to protect the victim (the guy might give up) and two to provide physical evidence of an assault so that you can prosecute.

It is also why for generations there were strict broad rules governing male/female relationships.  Males and females didn't mix unless they were together in a group.  Double dating was very, very common; you didn't go on a single date (i.e. pair off) unless you felt really comfortable with each other.  Men didn't work in the same facilities as women . . . b/c it was understood that when you get a male and female together with no others there the likelihood that something bad could happen was high . . .it was to protect women (from these types of behaviors) as much as to protect men (from false accusations).

I have absolutely 0 sympathy for a woman who is alone with a man and then makes an accusation of sexual harassment.  You want all the "freedom" that comes with being like a man then this is the result.  A man and a woman are alone in an office and the woman makes an accusation that he tried to cop a feel . . .how are you ever going to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt?  He tried to rape me . . .okay yeah I see the ripped clothes, I see the rape kit that documents physical bruises. . . .got it no problem; send him to jail.  I don't like making things a crime that can't be proven except by a he said, she said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Grunt said:

This.  I'm big on judging intent.  If your intent isn't sketchy, I don't get offended.

This.  Especially in certain circumstances.

For example, in martial arts, I've ended up getting my sternum bounced off my spine a couple of times because I was too busy being careful about how I attacked rather than giving a woman a realistic (within the bounds of safety) attack.  Trying not to grab a handful of breast in the process of simulating a potential rapist's initial attack isn't realistic, and leaves the woman with effective options she may not have in a real situation where that's exactly where the attacker wants to put his hands.  The same happens in trying to do a takedown without my face ending up in her cleavage, or intentionally missing the crotch and butt when going for a secure hold.  (Granted, we do generally try to avoid grabbing anyone by the crotch in class, regardless of gender, but reaching between the legs on a pickup is a common method that's still a bit awkward when used on a woman even though it's the inside of my forearm or elbow that's making the contact that would be inappropriate in other situations.)

Now, when working with a completely new partner, I do try to make it clear that if she wants to know what to do about a guy who's determined to grope her, I'm going to have to be determined to make/continue contact, and give her options like holding a focus pad there as my target or putting on a padded chest protector.  Some do, some don't but if anything, I think I'm more likely to develop even more of a permanent aversion to handling any woman's body ungently regardless of consent, because it nearly always results in a painful wrist lock and/or throw.  Frankly, even the ones that want me to make it a real challenge (i.e. simulate an attacker with some actual martial arts skills rather than turn all that off and brute force it like a drunk frat boy, or just grab like a punk who expects zero resistance) can still cause me a lot of pain even if I technically "win."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JoCa said:

You are asking the law to do something it is not designed to do (even though it does it all the time currently and quite frankly it is morally abhorent and wrong what the law does). You are asking the law to determine innocence or guilt, whether someone spends time in jail or not based upon whether a jury believes a man over the woman or the woman over the men. And in today's society, the woman is always to be believed.

How is that any different than prosecuting a black man in the 1950s b/c a white man says he robbed my store?

There are some morally reprehensible things that the law cannot prosecute with any degree of protection of rights for the accused and the accuser.  That is why for quite a while rape has been a crime while grabbing a woman's rear (while morally reprehensible without consent) has not been.  In a rape case, there is generally physical evidence-this idea that rape victims just "freeze up" is bull; that is why up until 2nd-3rd wave feminism it was taught to fight back with everything!  The Church taught this; it was for two reason. One to protect the victim (the guy might give up) and two to provide physical evidence of an assault so that you can prosecute.

It is also why for generations there were strict broad rules governing male/female relationships.  Males and females didn't mix unless they were together in a group.  Double dating was very, very common; you didn't go on a single date (i.e. pair off) unless you felt really comfortable with each other.  Men didn't work in the same facilities as women . . . b/c it was understood that when you get a male and female together with no others there the likelihood that something bad could happen was high . . .it was to protect women (from these types of behaviors) as much as to protect men (from false accusations).

I have absolutely 0 sympathy for a woman who is alone with a man and then makes an accusation of sexual harassment.  You want all the "freedom" that comes with being like a man then this is the result.  A man and a woman are alone in an office and the woman makes an accusation that he tried to cop a feel . . .how are you ever going to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt?  He tried to rape me . . .okay yeah I see the ripped clothes, I see the rape kit that documents physical bruises. . . .got it no problem; send him to jail.  I don't like making things a crime that can't be proven except by a he said, she said.

THIS.  As Camille Paglia would say... if you want the same freedoms as a man, then defend yourself like a man.  Well, except she adds about 5 okays in each sentence.  :D

And just to remind everyone:

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/women-cpr-bystanders-study-suggests-51100552

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JoCa said:

this idea that rape victims just "freeze up" is bull

Not entirely; almost anyone put into a new/scary situation will freeze to some extent while the OODA loop resets.  Some are good enough at adapting that it's imperceptible, while others can take up to several minutes to recover and do anything useful, especially if the situation continues to go in unexpected directions.  I had a friend that we referred to as the real-life no-shoot target because every time something went wrong she would freeze completely, making her effectively that one "innocent victim" target in every large scenario that is still just standing right in the middle of the range for no reason.

That's the best reason for realistic training; the closer the unexpected situation is to an already-experienced training session, the quicker and more effectively most people will recover and react in accordance with their training.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, JoCa said:

In a rape case, there is generally physical evidence-this idea that rape victims just "freeze up" is bull; that is why up until 2nd-3rd wave feminism it was taught to fight back with everything! 

I have absolutely 0 sympathy for a woman who is alone with a man and then makes an accusation of sexual harassment.  You want all the "freedom" that comes with being like a man then this is the result.  A man and a woman are alone in an office and the woman makes an accusation that he tried to cop a feel . . .how are you ever going to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt?  He tried to rape me . . .okay yeah I see the ripped clothes, I see the rape kit that documents physical bruises. . . .got it no problem; send him to jail.  I don't like making things a crime that can't be proven except by a he said, she said.

I disagree with these statements.

First, if you have "evidence" that is LEGIT, I'd like to see it.  From what I've read and heard, it is actually quite common for victims to freeze up.  Yes, people are taught to fight back, but I understand a majority in that situation actually DO freeze.

In addition, there is NO excuse, ever, for a man to harass any women in that manner, especially physically.  To have no sympathy at all?  What happens if what she says actually happened.  It was wrong, there is no excuse for what he did.  We can mitigate things and show what actually happened to a degree with cameras, but that does NOT alleviate responsible behavior.  It does not matter if you are alone or not, or how she is dressed even, every individual should act responsibly and that includes controlling your impulses, animal urges, and any other basic behavior that may lead to you touching or even physically abusing someone inappropriately.

It is a problem that there are those that make false accusations, and we should be wary of such things.  It is another reason to have cameras in the work environment, however, when a woman (or a man, we cannot ignore this also happens to men) have been accosted in such a manner inappropriately, I argue sympathy AND MORE should be requisite in our behavior to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that all else being equal in the above scenarios, the person in power who does these things should receive a greater penalty than the person not in power simply because more people are likely notice, or become aware of, the sentence given to the person in power, and it is therefore more likely to have a stultifying effect on those who might otherwise be tempted to behave in such a way. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually @JoCa people freezing up when they are in danger is a very common reaction. Here is an article about it if you are interested http://www.stressstop.com/stress-tips/articles/fight-flight-or-freeze-response-to-stress.php

As a historian, I can tell you that there are countless stories of soldiers freezing in combat, especially new soldiers, even though that reaction would be considered deadly in that situation. Rape victims frequently have this response, and everyone won't be able to fight back. There are people with medical degrees who can explain this more thourougly than I can, but the freeze reaction is so well documented that I know it exists. There are plenty of women who will show no physical signs of being raped when they have been because of this reaction. Are there false accusations of rape? Undoubtedly, but you can't just dismiss an accusation due to lack of physical evidence because of this. Fear is a powerful and real emotion. 

Edited by Midwest LDS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm grateful for the people in this conversation.  I'm thankful that one person voted 1 and 1, because it is proof that there's always more work to do.

Someone I love was felt up, froze up, and didn't say anything for a decade.  Until she learned dood was off seeking other victims.  Then she filed a police report and participated in the DA's case against the new victim.

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share