Non-consensual physical contact poll

[Jane_Doe]

13 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!  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.

As someone who's actually been raped, this comment here is both extremely false and offensive.

[NeuroTypical]

JoCa has many valid points about how people use the topic for political reasons.  JoCa has also been taught and believes some damnable lies about the impact of such things on most women.

Edited November 18, 2017 by NeuroTypical

[Just_A_Guy]

Not to pile on, but I would add that @JoCa’s suggestions about how unwanted touching incidences can’t be addressed by our legal system because they are fundamentally unprovable via physical evidence and boil down to the word of one witness against another—that argument was fundamentally true about rape as well, up until the introduction of DNA evidence twenty or thirty years ago.  But we didn’t legalize rape, even though it was very hard to prove.

It’s problematic to prove, to be sure.  And certainly there were social remedies available fifty or a hundred years ago that aren’t really available now (stigmatization of perpetrators, physical retribution by outraged fathers/husbands/brothers, etc).  But we criminalize bad behavior because it is socially destructive; not because we think it’s a good way to goose a prosecutor’s conviction count.

[zil]

I didn't see @NeuroTypical's poll as asking us how we establish the facts of the case or navigate the difficulties of the legal system, media, or modern culture. I saw it as asking our reaction to an actual event - something which really happened.

(Computer down. Mobile browser handles tagging names differently. Can't get NT's name to show in the list for selection. )

Edited November 19, 2017 by zil
fixed link

[zil]

Computer back.  Thanks, @mirkwood!

[askandanswer]

23 minutes ago, zil said:

Computer back.  

Sigh

[zil]

13 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

Sigh

[askandanswer]

I'm all in favour of fountain pens and inks that have a vanishing point. Hopefully we will reach that point next Tuesday. 

[zil]

26 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

I'm all in favour of fountain pens and inks that have a vanishing point. Hopefully we will reach that point next Tuesday. 

Har, har.  Vanishing Point:

 

[NightSG]

So, I'm sitting in McDonalds (free refills, WiFi and I don't have to turn up the heat at home if I wait until a few minutes before bedtime to go home) with a fountain pen (Hero 266 loaded with Noodler's Antietam - thought I might take some notes on a magic routine or two.) in my pocket, practicing one-handed cuts with a deck of cards (scissor cut has been tricky since I jammed my finger but it's getting the flexibility back) while watching YouTube videos.  How's that for an odd hobby?

[Anddenex]

I am a 5, but I would exclude "rear end", partly due to my involvement in sports. I would argue there is a big different between "breast" and "genitals" than butts. Now if you take the swim suit, don't touch where the swim suit covers -- g-strings -- place butts no longer in that phrase.

Edited November 20, 2017 by Anddenex

[Guest MormonGator]

On 11/18/2017 at 12:29 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

Not to pile on,

Actually if more men "piled on" to those with outdated and truly horrific views on sexual assault perhaps sexual assault would decrease.

[Jane_Doe]

1 hour ago, Anddenex said:

I am a 5, but I would exclude "rear end", partly due to my involvement in sports. I would argue there is a big different between "breast" and "genitals" than butts. Now if you take the swim suit, don't touch where the swim suit covers -- g-strings -- place butts no longer in that phrase.

For me, that plays into context/consent.  If someone signs up for tackle football, they're consenting to have their hips/buttocks to be grabbed while playing football.  That's different than someone randomly grabbing your buttocks in the hallway.  

Edited November 20, 2017 by Jane_Doe

[Anddenex]

2 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

For me, that plays into context/consent.  If someone signs up for tackle football, they're connecting to have their hips/buttocks to be grabbed while playing football.  That's different than someone randomly grabbing your buttocks in the hallway.  

True, context/consent, are important, and that is part of sports. I was more thinking of "attaboys" from teammates and coaches

If the buttocks were involved, then no matter who it came from it would have to be the same. For example, hottie (male) at school in hall pinches buttocks of girl. Shocked at the first pinch she looks behind sees the hottie and smiles and then continues walking. Scenario 2: Same girl walking hall, shocked by the pinch of her left buttocks looks back and sees "creepy" guy who smiles giving evidence he pinched her left buttocks. She presses charges.

Then again, maybe I am biased and impartial to the rear end because in my high school slapping buttocks and pinching buttocks was a very common thing. For a time, my buttocks was pinched enough times that after a while it was like, "Eh, someone pinched my buttocks again." And I kept walking without looking back to see who it was this time. (now it would be unfair for me to not admit, probably 100% of the time it was a girl a knew).

[Grunt]

1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

Actually if more men "piled on" to those with outdated and truly horrific views on sexual assault perhaps sexual assault would decrease.

I heard a great talk today about how the way people act around you is representative of what you accept or condone.  

[Guest MormonGator]

Just now, Grunt said:

I heard a great talk today about how the way people act around you is representative of what you accept or condone.  

You are known by the company you keep my friend. If you hang out with scumbags and men who act like pigs, guess what you'll start acting like? 

(I don't mean "you" as in @Grunt) 

[Grunt]

Just now, MormonGator said:

You are known by the company you keep my friend. If you hang out with scumbags and men who act like pigs, guess what you'll start acting like? 

(I don't mean "you" as in @Grunt) 

"oink"?

[Just_A_Guy]

One of the things that’s irking me about the way this conversation (I mean the “national” conversation, not the one here on the forum—I’m thinking primarily of a recent Megan McCardle column) is how many people are starting to say about some of these older incidents “well, that was twenty years ago; and it was a different time, and what was OK then isn’t OK now, so we need to cut this guy a break.”

That assertion just isn’t true.  Good men have known for centuries thay you don’t speak or act crudely in front of a woman, and you don’t touch her anyplace a swimsuit covers.  And baseball players’ propensities to grab each other’s posteriors has been . . . forgive me . . . the “butt” of many a sports joke ever since my childhood.  

Outside of highly particularized circumstances that were virtually always recognized as deviations from a broader norm, this stuff has never been socially acceptable—left-wing revisionism notwithstanding.  It isn’t that the boundaries didn’t exist; it’s just that folks of a certain caliber got their kicks and giggles being iconoclasts generally, and they didn’t see why sexual boundaries should remain intact when they were so gleefully breaking every other kind of boundary imaginable.

[Vort]

I think that such actions did not used to be acceptable, but rather tolerated. Today they are not tolerated, or at least less so than in the past. It's a much easier argument to say, "Hey, this didn't used to be considered 'wrong'; that's presentism in action!" (think 30+-year-old men marrying teenage wives) than to try to argue, "Look, twenty years ago I would have gotten away with this, so cut me some slack!" The former has some validity, while the latter really doesn't.

[Guest MormonGator]

5 minutes ago, Vort said:

I think that such actions did not used to be acceptable, but rather tolerated. Today they are not tolerated, or at least less so than in the past. It's a much easier argument to say, "Hey, this didn't used to be considered 'wrong'; that's presentism in action!" (think 30+-year-old men marrying teenage wives) than to try to argue, "Look, twenty years ago I would have gotten away with this, so cut me some slack!" The former has some validity, while the latter really doesn't.

Neither argument has merit. Like it or not, society has changed/is changing. You can stomp your feet, jump up and down, complain about how things were-but if you are a pervert who likes to treat women with disrespect, you better be prepared for some serious backlash. 

Not talking about "you" as in Vort. I can't imagine you doing anything like what's been talked about in this thread. 

[Anddenex]

3 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Good men have known for centuries thay you don’t speak or act crudely in front of a woman, and you don’t touch her anyplace a swimsuit covers.  (emphasis added)

So the "buttocks" (butt) is free in this case if the man or woman is wearing a thong? Gotcha, just wanted to clear the air.

[mordorbund]

17 hours ago, MormonGator said:

Neither argument has merit. Like it or not, society has changed/is changing. You can stomp your feet, jump up and down, complain about how things were-but if you are a pervert who likes to treat women with disrespect, you better be prepared for some serious backlash. 

Not talking about "you" as in Vort. I can't imagine you doing anything like what's been talked about in this thread. 

If true, the "acceptable" argument does have merit. If it does not, then that means your behavior must do MORE than comply with societal norms - it must also meet future societal norms! If your statement is correct, that the context of the times is irrelevant, then you must conclude that: the first season of Sesame Street is irresponsible and reckless since it depicts children riding bicycles without a helmet; The Twilight Zone is an awful, awful show since it normalizes smoking; and man today who spends any amount of time alone with woman who is not his wife is an absolute scoundrel because, although it is still acceptable today, in 10 years time it will be scandalous.

[Guest MormonGator]

2 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

If true, the "acceptable" argument does have merit. If it does not, then that means your behavior must do MORE than comply with societal norms - it must also meet future societal norms! If your statement is correct, that the context of the times is irrelevant, then you must conclude that: the first season of Sesame Street is irresponsible and reckless since it depicts children riding bicycles without a helmet; The Twilight Zone is an awful, awful show since it normalizes smoking; and man today who spends any amount of time alone with woman who is not his wife is an absolute scoundrel because, although it is still acceptable today, in 10 years time it will be scandalous.

Look at racial terminology. Sixty years ago certain terms were considered less offensive than they are now. If you want you can still use slurs and tell racist jokes in 2017. You don't have to change with the culture. And when you ruin your life and lose your job because you grab a female on the butt or tell a really offensive racist joke-just tell everyone that "Back in my day these terms/actions were more acceptable, so I don't see the fuss." Tell me how that works for you. 

We agree, sometimes the changes like you mentioned in the Twilight Zone or Sesame Street are incredibly silly. But sometimes the changes society makes in regards to how we treat women and minorities is progress. 

[Guest]

Been sort of semi-following this thread, and thinking about what I think about criminalizing the touching of rear ends without consent (as opposed to genitals).  I have arrived at the conclusion that I think it should be a low-end crime (especially in repeat offender situations) - not rape, but certainly a type of simple assault.

The fact of the matter is, touching a girl's rear end without consent is not about flirting or showing affection.  It is not like holding hands, hugging, etc.  It is arguably worse than coming up and kissing a girl without her permission (also arguably assault).  It is widely seen as a greasy, low-down thing to do.  I think it is sort of like catcalling, but much worse - it is an expression of control of women, and I think if I was a woman and some guy grabbed my rear end without permission, I would be both offended and frightened.

While it may seem like a trivial thing, I think there should be at least some consequences for grabbing a rear end without permission.  Letting this go creates the sort of rape culture that is prominent in many universities.

As for playful slapping on the rear end, I remember meeting an old mission companion several years ago for dinner.  He actually snuck up and did slap me on the rear end.  I didn't tell him, but I was a little uncomfortable with the whole thing.  I think it is probably best to leave such playful activities between spouses.

Edited November 21, 2017 by DoctorLemon

[NightSG]

11 minutes ago, DoctorLemon said:

The fact of the matter is, touching a girl's rear end without consent is not about flirting or showing affection.  It is not like holding hands, hugging, etc.  It is arguably worse than coming up and kissing a girl without her permission (also arguably assault).  It is widely seen as a greasy, low-down thing to do.  I think it is sort of like catcalling, but much worse - it is an expression of control of women, and I think if I was a woman and some guy grabbed my rear end without permission, I would be both offended and frightened.

So what is the inverse?  I've been grabbed there by women I didn't know on two occasions I can remember.  

Generally, I just take it as confirmation that all the cycling is doing some good.  Now if I could get the same type of action toward my abdomen, rather than people patting it for good luck...