2 more liberal MP's gone.

[cybercoma]

"they understand how not to send the wrong signals"

How disgusting. Nobody signals that they want to be raped.

How many times does it have to be said? Rape is not a consequence.

The cause of rape is rapists. Not drunk women. Not women that wear clothing that you deem too revealing. Not women that take the wrong path home at night. The rapist who thinks it's his right to take something that was not freely given to him is the cause of rape.

It is absolutely sickening that people blame the victims in these situations and then justify a justice system that re-traumatizes victims. Imagine that in any other situation? Imagine someone who was paralyzed in a violent assault going on the stand and being asked to explain why they walked the wrong way home or why they wore the wrong colours in a gang neighbourhood or why they didn't do more to defend themselves. It's patently absurd.

And you know what? It's just as absurd when we grill victims of rape like that too.

[hitops]

"they understand how not to send the wrong signals"

How disgusting. Nobody signals that they want to be raped.

How many times does it have to be said? Rape is not a consequence.

The cause of rape is rapists. Not drunk women. Not women that wear clothing that you deem too revealing. Not women that take the wrong path home at night. The rapist who thinks it's his right to take something that was not freely given to him is the cause of rape.

It is absolutely sickening that people blame the victims in these situations and then justify a justice system that re-traumatizes victims. Imagine that in any other situation? Imagine someone who was paralyzed in a violent assault going on the stand and being asked to explain why they walked the wrong way home or why they wore the wrong colors in a gang neighborhood or why they didn't do more to defend themselves. It's patently absurd.

And you know what? It's just as absurd when we grill victims of rape like that too.

And now returning to reality. Sexual assault, and even rape, have vastly broad definitions and there actually no similarity at all to a violent assault with penetration and somebody making a comment.

Plenty of women want to have fun one night, then regret it the next. Now it was rape. How to prove? Unless you are suggesting a total ban on unmarried men-women interactions, there's no way to solve that. A rapist and someone accusing falsely of rape deserve equal derision.

Just because a guy thinks it's consensual, doesn't mean it is. Just because a women says she was raped, doesn't mean she was. If somebody is truly assaulted, that's virtually always using force and some violence. Not to hard for police or medical staff to find some indication of that. If you don't report, or don't go get examined at that time then it becomes just one person's word against another.

If somebody says they were mistreated, assaulted, raped, abused etc, but then don't mention anything, stay at that company, stay with that same relationship, go out again with the same person, continue to interact with them etc, I have a lot of skepticism about that. Same as if somebody comes to court and says their landlord was harassing them....and then they kept living there for another year anyway. Doesn't make sense.

Edited November 14, 2014 by hitops

[Mighty AC]

It's a lot more complicated than that. We have to live in a society where accusation need to be proven, or at least made. Many women't rights advocates don't want to be part of the process of law and order, they just want accusation = conviction.

That's absolute BS and you know it.

In any case, humans are complicated and both men and women will flirt or interact in ways that gratify their own desires to be wanted, appealing, etc, and then sometimes don't like the consequences of behaving that way around others. There are many ways to avoid getting yourself into bad situations.

You should be careful about the way you behave around others. This is an anonymous message board, but in public a statement like that could lead to your nose being broken. In your mind, is assault really justified because a woman was flirting?! This is the sick behaviour that has to change. Maybe you wouldn't assault a woman because she turned you on, but by defending that action you are part of the problem.

But if you don't want to do that, and would prefer taking the risks, then the very least that's required would be a formal complaint if something happens. And not way after the fact, but at the time.

Unbelievable! Why is assault or rape less of a crime if not reported right away? Women are often in situations where they are not safe, feel helpless, powerless or are simply ashamed of what happened to them. If it takes time or a shift in situation before they fell able to come forward, why should the assault be considered any less of a crime? Would you let murders go free if they managed to avoid detection for 5 years?

I've asked women friends who I respect, who are married if they ever run into this problem. Without exception the answer is no, because they understand how not to send the wrong signals to men.

Why do you accept the fact that men should bot be accountable for their actions? I don't care if some flirty attractive woman caused little hitops to stand at attention. If she says no, it's over!!! That's it, end of story! She doesn't deserve to be assaulted because you're aroused.

Our wives, mothers, daughters, sisters, etc. have to live in fear of men and you are an accomplice. Your attitude about the situation is sick, but what's worse is the problem is so pervasive, you actually feel comfortable expressing your nauseating views. You need to change...or die off.

[hitops]

That's absolute BS and you know it.

Not at all, just look at the professors in Quebec who had their doors pasted with stickers implying they were guilty. No need for process or even complaints.

You should be careful about the way you behave around others. This is an anonymous message board, but in public a statement like that could lead to your nose being broken. In your mind, is assault really justified because a woman was flirting?! This is the sick behaviour that has to change. Maybe you wouldn't assault a woman because she turned you on, but by defending that action you are part of the problem.

The mere fact that you suggest an 'action' took place without a shred of proof beyond somebody's claim, is the problem.

Unbelievable! Why is assault or rape less of a crime if not reported right away? Women are often in situations where they are not safe, feel helpless, powerless or are simply ashamed of what happened to them. If it takes time or a shift in situation before they fell able to come forward, why should the assault be considered any less of a crime? Would you let murders go free if they managed to avoid detection for 5 years?

That analogy doesn't make sense. We've not talking about a rapist being undetected. Obviously if you had no idea who they were for 5 years, there would be no accusation, duh. We're talking about knowing who they are, but not accusing for 5 years. Your bad analogy proves the point - almost nobody would delay contacting police about a suspected murdered for 5 years if they believed they knew who he/she was. However it seems tons of women who feel they were assaulted do exactly that. This leads to skepticism.

If somebody is in a bad situation, they should leave that situation. If somebody's boss kills that person's family member, they don't hesitate to press charges because there is a 'power imbalance'. If you believe something happened, it's your responsibility to act on it. We have a highly liberal sexual culture, but also a one that says you must be right at all times and your pride is of the highest importance. Obviously those values will collide.

Why do you accept the fact that men should bot be accountable for their actions? I don't care if some flirty attractive woman caused little hitops to stand at attention. If she says no, it's over!!! That's it, end of story! She doesn't deserve to be assaulted because you're aroused.

Sigh....this is the whole point. I don't get into those situations. I don't even drive women in my car (other than wife) if it will be only the two of us. I don't close my office door if it's me and a woman in there. I don't even leave the possibility of a misunderstanding. However other people don't feel quite the same about fidelity, we know from surveys that a huge number of people admit to affairs in the workplace. When the culture is like that and you don't guard against it, it's easy to see how people will run into problems. If I were at a conference and a lady colleague invited me to her room and we drank and got into it, and then latter I said she raped me, she would just say it seemed consensual because I agreed to go there, agreed to drink, start kissing etc. We could both fully believe we are right. So I just avoid it.

Our wives, mothers, daughters, sisters, etc. have to live in fear of men and you are an accomplice.

Ummm no, mine don't. Nor do those of my friends. My mom has never had to deal with that situation, according to her, and she was a nurse at a time where all the higher ups and docs were men. We just apply basic common sense and our interactions with people don't get ourselves into those situations.

The greater point however is that accusations have to be proven. We have a legal process and the rule of law, thank goodness. If you don't report something, then I guess it didn't matter that much. Right now I'm having to sue a contractor who I paid and didn't do any work. But if I come to court in 5 years, the judge will have a hard time understanding if it was so bad, why was I not there when it happened? Understandably so.

Men are going to lie about sex sexual assault, and so will women. Welcome to human nature, people lie for their own advantage. I know, shocking. In an imperfect society, we need to rely on rule of law, not just the assumption of guilt.

Edited November 14, 2014 by hitops

[jacee]

And now returning to reality. Sexual assault, and even rape, have vastly broad definitions and there actually no similarity at all to a violent assault with penetration and somebody making a comment.

That would be the difference between sexual assault and sexual harassment.

Plenty of women want to have fun one night, then regret it the next.

That's a disgusting comment.

Prove it!! At least provide a cite.

Now it was rape. How to prove? Unless you are suggesting a total ban on unmarried men-women interactions, there's no way to solve that. A rapist and someone accusing falsely of rape deserve equal derision.

Agreed. But every sexual predator is going to claim that the victim is falsely accusing them. That's a given. That's why, in my opinion, it's good for victims to speak out publicly so others may come forward. It's much more difficult to believe a perp's 'false accusation' blather when there are multiple accusations.

Just because a guy thinks it's consensual, doesn't mean it is. Just because a women says she was raped, doesn't mean she was. If somebody is truly assaulted, that's virtually always using force and some violence.

Horsesh!t. Threats of violence, firing, etc are enough to make women 'submit' to rape. With threats of violence, in particular, victims will 'submit' to try to get out of there alive.

You have very ancient and ridiculous views of sexual assault, hitops, vile imo: As long as I don't physically injure her, it isn't rape?

Disgusting ... and a view that could very well land a man in trouble ... where they would no doubt claim loudly that they've been falsely accused. :/

That's a 'perp' mentality you are portraying and defending.

.

Edited November 14, 2014 by jacee

[Hal 9000]

I think one of the failings of the legal system is their inability to properly categorize the definitions of sexual harassment, sexual assault and rape. In their effort to tell us that it's all equally bad, they've inadvertently convoluted the meanings. Look at cybercoma, we are discussing a possible (from every account minor) sexual harassment issue and she is shouting "rape is not a consequence" every chance she gets.

Rape is bad - we all get it! Sexual harassment, however, can be as little as calling someone a bitch or suggesting out loud that some woman is dressed like a slut today...or saying she looks hot. It's not all the same. Telling a woman she looks hot or has a nice butt, is a long way from rape.

Another thing, sexual harassment does not just come from guys who want to bed you, sometimes it's from guys who don't care for the way a women might carry herself and the sexual harassment could be an insult. In other words; many women still go to work and use their sexuality for advancement or simply to be cutsey and have guys help them or even do their work for them. If they get called out by a male co-worker for doing that, that is another case of sexual harassment.

P.s - I know i'll get called out for implying "women asked for it" or something stupid like that, but if you disagree that some women still use sexuality in the workplace - you're truly naive.

[Hal 9000]

Winerip notes that between 2005 and 2010, "more than 60 percent of claims involving sexual violence handled by United Educators"--an insurance company owned by member schools--"involved young women who were so drunk they had no clear memory of the assault." We know from Sgt. Cournoyer that the accused young men typically are drinking to excess, too. What is called the problem of "sexual assault" on campus is in large part a problem of reckless alcohol consumption, by men and women alike. (Based on our reporting, the same is true in the military, at least in the enlisted and company-grade officer ranks.)

Which points to a limitation of the drunk-driving analogy. If two drunk drivers are in a collision, one doesn't determine fault on the basis of demographic details such as each driver's sex. But when two drunken college students "collide," the male one is almost always presumed to be at fault. His diminished capacity owing to alcohol is not a mitigating factor, but her diminished capacity is an aggravating factor for him.

As the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education notes, at some campuses the accuser's having had one drink is sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt:

Stanford's definition of consent to sex imposes a concept that is foreign to most people's idea of adult consent and inconsistent with California state law. Stanford policy states that sexual assault occurs "when a person is incapable of giving consent. A person is legally incapable of giving consent . . . if intoxicated by drugs and/or alcohol." In other words, any sexual activity while intoxicated to any degree constitutes sexual assault. This is true even if the activity was explicitly agreed to by a person capable of making rational, reasoned decisions, and even if the partners are in an ongoing relationship or marriage.

In theory that means, as FIRE notes, that "if both parties are intoxicated during sex, they are both technically guilty of sexually assaulting each other." In practice it means that women, but not men, are absolved of responsibility by virtue of having consumed alcohol.

[Argus]

Cite ? I posted on the Ghomeshi thread, I think, the basis for the process. I believe that the Crown decides on laying charges based on evidence.

I was speaking about an allegation by he wife of spousal violence. In that event the man is immediately evicted from his house. No trial is required.

http://www.lawtimesnews.com/201206042026/headline-news/lawyers-alarmed-at-criminal-charges-in-family-cases

Right, so I guess you're saying the system is biased against men then ?

No, I'm saying it's biased in favour of women in terms of any allegations of violence, with or without sexual allegations included.

[jacee]

I think one of the failings of the legal system is their inability to properly categorize the definitions of sexual harassment, sexual assault and rape. In their effort to tell us that it's all equally bad, they've inadvertently convoluted the meanings. Look at cybercoma, we are discussing a possible (from every account minor) sexual harassment issue and she is shouting "rape is not a consequence" every chance she gets.

Rape is bad - we all get it! Sexual harassment, however, can be as little as calling someone a bitch or suggesting out loud that some woman is dressed like a slut today...or saying she looks hot. It's not all the same. Telling a woman she looks hot or has a nice butt, is a long way from rape.

Another thing, sexual harassment does not just come from guys who want to bed you, sometimes it's from guys who don't care for the way a women might carry herself and the sexual harassment could be an insult. In other words; many women still go to work and use their sexuality for advancement or simply to be cutsey and have guys help them or even do their work for them. If they get called out by a male co-worker for doing that, that is another case of sexual harassment.

P.s - I know i'll get called out for implying "women asked for it" or something stupid like that, but if you disagree that some women still use sexuality in the workplace - you're truly naive.

If you paid attention to the context, you'd understand cyber's comments.

It's not all as murky and confusing as some pretend.

Perps like to throw up such smokescreens to justify themselves and suck others into doing so too.

No doubt perps promote their vileness on discussion boards too, so caution is warranted.

Those who don't want to be perps or to get sucked into associating themselves with perps should make a really good effort to protect themselves by informing themselves. Here's a start:

Criminal offences: Sexual Assault, Aggravated Sexual Assault

http://www.sexassault.ca/criminalprocess.htm

Human Rights Violation: Sexual Harassment

http://www.womensweb.ca/violence/

[jacee]

Winerip notes that between 2005 and 2010, "more than 60 percent of claims involving sexual violence handled by United Educators"--an insurance company owned by member schools--"involved young women who were so drunk they had no clear memory of the assault." We know from Sgt. Cournoyer that the accused young men typically are drinking to excess, too. What is called the problem of "sexual assault" on campus is in large part a problem of reckless alcohol consumption, by men and women alike. (Based on our reporting, the same is true in the military, at least in the enlisted and company-grade officer ranks.)

Which points to a limitation of the drunk-driving analogy. If two drunk drivers are in a collision, one doesn't determine fault on the basis of demographic details such as each driver's sex. But when two drunken college students "collide," the male one is almost always presumed to be at fault. His diminished capacity owing to alcohol is not a mitigating factor, but her diminished capacity is an aggravating factor for him.

As the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education notes, at some campuses the accuser's having had one drink is sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt:

Stanford's definition of consent to sex imposes a concept that is foreign to most people's idea of adult consent and inconsistent with California state law. Stanford policy states that sexual assault occurs "when a person is incapable of giving consent. A person is legally incapable of giving consent . . . if intoxicated by drugs and/or alcohol." In other words, any sexual activity while intoxicated to any degree constitutes sexual assault. This is true even if the activity was explicitly agreed to by a person capable of making rational, reasoned decisions, and even if the partners are in an ongoing relationship or marriage.

In theory that means, as FIRE notes, that "if both parties are intoxicated during sex, they are both technically guilty of sexually assaulting each other." In practice it means that women, but not men, are absolved of responsibility by virtue of having consumed alcohol.

I suggest we stick to Canadian law and context, to have a productive discussion, since that is the thread topic.

Those who conduct their sex lives close to the line of sexual assault should inform themselves before venturing into other jurisdictions.

But that's not the topic here.

.

.

Edited November 14, 2014 by jacee

[hitops]

That would be the difference between sexual assault and sexual harassment.

It's not a difference in the public debate. Somebody kidnapped in a 2am home invasion, stowed in a remote cabin and systematically assaulted for months, and somebody who had their shoulders massaged in a creepy way will both described 'sexual assault' in the dialogue.

Agreed. But every sexual predator is going to claim that the victim is falsely accusing them.

Any many non-predators as well, since for them that would be true. Likewise, every accuser is going to say it was, whether it was or was not. That's why we have a process and not just a mob hunt.

That's a given. That's why, in my opinion, it's good for victims to speak out publicly so others may come forward. It's much more difficult to believe a perp's 'false accusation' blather when there are multiple accusations.

Of course, if a guy keeps having the same problem, something real is more likely than a vast conspiracy against him. Likewise, if the 'victim' keeps having the same problem, the issue is likely with them and not a vast conspiracy where every other person they meet is assaulting them.

Horsesh!t. Threats of violence, firing, etc are enough to make women 'submit' to rape. With threats of violence, in particular, victims will 'submit' to try to get out of there alive.

I've never heard a single person say they submitted to a workplace sexual harassment to 'get out of their alive'. What a ridiculous hyperbole. Perhaps you're mistaking the Canadian workplace with rural DR Congo. Yes, when you accuse anyone of anything you run the risk of discomfort or consequence. That's why it's important to think long and hard about it. But if it's serious, obviously the right choice is to leave. If you don't because you like money or employment status more than your dignity, that's your choice to make. But it also makes you less credible. Yes it was so terrible.....so terrible that I did not think it was bad enough to apply for another job down the street.

You have very ancient and ridiculous views of sexual assault, hitops, vile imo: As long as I don't physically injure her, it isn't rape?

Much as lefties dislike it, we live fortunately in a country with law and order. If there's no accusation, and no steps made to document or prove anything, then obviously no conviction will occur. Perhaps you have preferred to live in post-revolutionary France, where anybody accused to oppressing the people or even wearing nice clothes, just goes straight to the national razor.

Disgusting ... and a view that could very well land a man in trouble ... where they would no doubt claim loudly that they've been falsely accused. :/

That's a 'perp' mentality you are portraying and defending.

No the difference is I don't live by a double standard. If somebody accuses someone of something, the burden of proof is on them. If you don't want to mitigate your risk in society, of if you don't want to take any steps whatsoever to document or record anything, that's your choice. If you want, you could live your entire life with google glass turned on, then you never have to wonder if anyone will believe you.

See I know many women who live in, apparently, a completely different world than you. But then again then also hold different values. The ideas behind putting yourself at risk and how certain women seem to run into trouble and others don't, come from them, not ideas I made up. It's funny how they don't experience a vast barrage of sexual misconduct. Funny, I wonder how that happens.....

Edited November 14, 2014 by hitops

[Hal 9000]

If you paid attention to the context, you'd understand cyber's comments.

It's not all as murky and confusing as some pretend.

Perps like to throw up such smokescreens to justify themselves and suck others into doing so too.

No doubt perps promote their vileness on discussion boards too, so caution is warranted.

Those who don't want to be perps or to get sucked into associating themselves with perps should make a really good effort to protect themselves by informing themselves. Here's a start:

Criminal offences: Sexual Assault, Aggravated Sexual Assault

http://www.sexassault.ca/criminalprocess.htm

Human Rights Violation: Sexual Harassment

http://www.womensweb.ca/violence/

Yes, it's just as I said. It's other posters who are bringing the rape allegations into a sexual harassment thread.

I'll report your thinly veiled comment about me being a "perp"!

[Hal 9000]

I suggest we stick to Canadian law and context, to have a productive discussion, since that is the thread topic.

Those who conduct their sex lives close to the line of sexual assault should inform themselves before venturing into other jurisdictions.

But that's not the topic here.

.

.

Hitops made comment that you called disgusting, i'm just providing a cite that you asked for.

[cybercoma]

Look at cybercoma, we are discussing a possible (from every account minor) sexual harassment issue and she is shouting "rape is not a consequence" every chance she gets.

First of all, he. And more importantly, I only say "rape is not a consequence" when the painfully idiotic argument that women are asking for it comes up. Stop acting like rape is the consequence of victims' actions and not the act of a rapist and I won't have to say it over and over again.

[eyeball]

People should start wearing personal recording devices to protect themselves. Words alone are clearly insufficient to describe events.

[Hal 9000]

First of all, he. And more importantly, I only say "rape is not a consequence" when the painfully idiotic argument that women are asking for it comes up. Stop acting like rape is the consequence of victims' actions and not the act of a rapist and I won't have to say it over and over again.

Yes, I keep forgetting...my bad!

Anyway, no one (although I could be wrong) is suggesting that women are asking to to be raped, certainly not me. This thread is not even about rape. It's about an apparent sexual assault - of unknown nature, and how we recognize sexual assault and proceed with accusations.

Just because I believe in accountability and process of law, does not make me unsympathetic to sexual assault cases.

[jacee]

It's not a difference in the public debate. Somebody kidnapped in a 2am home invasion, stowed in a remote cabin and systematically assaulted for months, and somebody who had their shoulders massaged in a creepy way will both described 'sexual assault' in the dialogue.

As I said, inform yourself!.

That's the difference between 1 count of sexual assault, and multiple counts of aggravated sexual assault, along with kidnapping, forcible confinement, etc.

Very different sentences for those offences.

The law knows what it's doing.

You don't ... because you haven't bothered to inform yourself.

Any many non-predators as well, since for them that would be true.

Some predators may consider themselves to be non-predators because they intentionally haven't informed themselves of the law. [/b]

Likewise, every accuser is going to say it was, whether it was or was not. That's why we have a process and not just a mob hunt.

A legal process ... but anybody has a right to speak or tweet publicly about their own experiences. The police can decide whether to investigate, the alleged perp can decide whether to sue for defamation, but you can't shut down people's right to free speech.

Of course, if a guy keeps having the same problem, something real is more likely than a vast conspiracy against him. Likewise, if the 'victim' keeps having the same problem, the issue is likely with them and not a vast conspiracy where every other person they meet is assaulting them.

Agreed, which is why free speech plays a significant role here ... though prior incidents may not in court.

I've never heard a single person say they submitted to a workplace sexual harassment to 'get out of their alive'. What a ridiculous hyperbole. Perhaps you're mistaking the Canadian workplace with rural DR Congo. Yes, when you accuse anyone of anything you run the risk of discomfort or consequence. That's why it's important to think long and hard about it. But if it's serious, obviously the right choice is to leave. If you don't because you like money or employment status more than your dignity, that's your choice to make. But it also makes you less credible. Yes it was so terrible.....so terrible that I did not think it was bad enough to apply for another job down the street.

Why are you obfuscating here?

We weren't talking about harassment.

You claimed it wasn't sexual assault if there wasn't violence. Now you are backpedalling, throwing up a huge smokescreen to cover your tracks ... why?

But your tracks are still there.

Hitops said:

If somebody is truly assaulted, that's virtually always using force and some violence.

To which I replied "Horsesh!t"

Much as lefties dislike it, we live fortunately in a country with law and order. If there's no accusation, and no steps made to document or prove anything, then obviously no conviction will occur. Perhaps you have preferred to live in post-revolutionary France, where anybody accused to oppressing the people or even wearing nice clothes, just goes straight to the national razor.

Obfuscating.

No the difference is I don't live by a double standard. If somebody accuses someone of something, the burden of proof is on them. If you don't want to mitigate your risk in society, of if you don't want to take any steps whatsoever to document or record anything, that's your choice. If you want, you could live your entire life with google glass turned on, then you never have to wonder if anyone will believe you.

See I know many women who live in, apparently, a completely different world than you. But then again then also hold different values. The ideas behind putting yourself at risk and how certain women seem to run into trouble and others don't, come from them, not ideas I made up. It's funny how they don't experience a vast barrage of sexual misconduct. Funny, I wonder how that happens.....

Obfuscating ... and blaming the victims instead of the perps.

Ah yes ... if women didn't work outside the home, they wouldn't be sexually harassed in the workplace.

If women didn't go out on the street, they wouldn't be sexually harassed on the street.

If women didn't date, they wouldn't be date-raped.

If women didn't drink, they wouldn't be drunk raped.

Ancient blather ... blaming victims.

Are you saying that all men are violent rapists and women should avoid them all, except in chaperoned courting or somesuch... !

We've evolved a lot since then.

.

Edited November 14, 2014 by jacee

[jacee]

Yes, it's just as I said. It's other posters who are bringing the rape allegations into a sexual harassment thread.

I'll report your thinly veiled comment about me being a "perp"!

I was making a public awareness statement that there are perps who try to con people into taking their side, so "caution is warranted" and gullible innocents like yourself should protect themselves from that by properly informing themselves.

.

Edited November 14, 2014 by jacee

[hitops]

As I said, inform yourself!.

That's the difference between 1 count of sexual assault, and multiple counts of aggravated sexual assault, along with kidnapping, forcible confinement, etc.

Very different sentences for those offences.

The law knows what it's doing.

That's why I mentioned the public debate, not the law. You've never been one for careful reading.

But regardless, you're also wrong on the legal part, which you can verify by looking at Hal's links.

A legal process ... but anybody has a right to speak or tweet publicly about their own experiences. The police can decide whether to investigate, the alleged perp can decide whether to sue for defamation, but you can't shut down people's right to free speech.

Of maybe it's just an exercise in self-indulgence and careless self-expression regardless of the effects on others.

You claimed it wasn't sexual assault if there wasn't violence.

No, you claimed that I claimed that. Again, the reading.

Hitops said:

If somebody is truly assaulted, that's virtually always using force and some violence.

To which I replied "Horsesh!t"

What I was responding to specifically mentioned violence, such as fear of violence etc.

Ah yes ... if women didn't work outside the home, they wouldn't be sexually harassed in the workplace.

If women didn't go out on the street, they wouldn't be sexually harassed on the street.

If women didn't date, they wouldn't be date-raped.

If women didn't drink, they wouldn't be drunk raped.

But it's not about that, and you know it. It's about making choices and then not liking the results. For example you get loaded and bring somebody home and start romping around, then the next day can't remember your own name. Feel like a moron so.....it was rape! If you don't think this happens, I would question whether you have been outside your house in the past decade.

Are you saying that all men are violent rapists and women should avoid them all, except in chaperoned courting or somesuch... !

I'm saying it's really easy to avoid, and my family and friends don't run into those problems. We also don't miss out on anything or limit our lives in any meaningful way. No women I'm related to or know well complain about this kind of thing, and they are very active in the community and probably the most caring people I know. It doesn't mean it can never happen, but the fact that some women will repeatedly have issues, and others never will, tells you that it's not some kind of universal experience that just 'happens' and there's nothing you can do about it.

It's kind of like drinking - do you blame a drunk when he runs into problems? It doesn't mean drinking itself is wrong, but my police friend always tells me if not for alcohol, 95% of his day would be having coffee at Tim's. There are things that associate with certain types of problems, and you have to use your brain. If I walked into a Hell's Angels bar at 2am and said all bikers are pathetic, stupid and gay....it's still wrong for them to attack me. Yet I would still truly be a moron to do so.

Edited November 14, 2014 by hitops

[Hal 9000]

I'm saying there are differences jacee, I'm also saying that as a society sexual harassment is looked at the same way that sexual assault is. Sexual harassment is anything from saying "let a man do it" to "I can see your snatch in that dress" or inappropriate touching. Even sexual assault ranges from stealing a kiss or touching a leg to dragged in the bushes rape. Maybe you're missing something!

To prove my point, we don't know if one of these woman was called a bitch, touched her, mixed up his signals or whatever, but that doesn't stop you people from ranting about "aggravated sexual assault", "rape", "predators" and "perps" because it's you people who refuse to think in any any other terms than "men are all rapists".

If things like "you look hot or sexy" and "It's better done by a woman/man" is sexual harassment (and maybe it is), then I guarantee you we've all been victims. If stealing a kiss, getting groped, having an uggo hit on you or waking up with an undesirable is sexual assault, then most of us are victims of that too.

If we're talking about rape or violent crimes, then I'm all on board and would hope...expect women /children to come forward.

[jacee]

First of all, he. And more importantly, I only say "rape is not a consequence" when the painfully idiotic argument that women are asking for it comes up. Stop acting like rape is the consequence of victims' actions and not the act of a rapist and I won't have to say it over and over again.

You can if you want, but it won't get through.

[Big Guy]

The whole idea of a dialogue is the expression of different points of view. Everyone with an opinion has expressed his/her point of view and we are all better for the experience. To allow this discussion to deteriorate into yet another abyss of personal insults takes away from the issues discussed and the time spent by posters creating and sharing their views.

I appreciate reading the views of those who disagree with me and now have a better understanding of their position. I may still disagree with them but appreciate them taking the time to share their views.

[Keepitsimple]

The whole idea of a dialogue is the expression of different points of view. Everyone with an opinion has expressed his/her point of view and we are all better for the experience. To allow this discussion to deteriorate into yet another abyss of personal insults takes away from the issues discussed and the time spent by posters creating and sharing their views.

I appreciate reading the views of those who disagree with me and now have a better understanding of their position. I may still disagree with them but appreciate them taking the time to share their views.

Big Guy - I think you have an inflated opinion of your status on this forum. To be clear - you're just another poster......it matters very little who agrees with you - or disagrees with you. If you don't like the consequences and responses to your posts, try moving on to another thread. Indignation doesn't play well. Buck up!

[Big Guy]

To Keepitsimple - Thank you for the advice. Getting personal and bypassing the issue is really a waste of time. It makes you appear egotistical, a self appointed spokesman for other posters, and a cheap shot artist. Giving unsolicited advice on a personal level does make one look a bit artificially superior and does nothing to add to the progress of a thread.

That is why when there are posts that have nothing to do with the topic I tend to ignore them.

I will take your advice in the spirit and congeniality it was intended and give it the appropriate thought.

It is always an experience reading your posts.

[Mighty AC]

If I were at a conference and a lady colleague invited me to her room and we drank and got into it, and then latter I said she raped me, she would just say it seemed consensual because I agreed to go there, agreed to drink, start kissing etc. We could both fully believe we are right. So I just avoid it.

Males are rarely victims because in general we have the physical advantage. In my various professional roles and as coach I am around many teens and children. I also avoid being alone with them for safety and reasons of pragmatism; however, there is no fear on my part.

I can and have had dinner and drinks with female clients and colleagues at conferences without fear for my own safety. I have been propositioned by tipsy women in these situations and when I politely say no, I don't have to worry that I may be taken by force. That's not the case for most women is it? That's a problem we have to fix.

I can work late at the office and not even think about what other staff members are in the building. I can enter a secluded parking garage by myself without worry. I can be friendly with women in a social situation and know that I will not be sexually assaulted. Women cannot do this. They have to live with a certain amount of fear. That has to change. The fact that you place the onus on the vulnerable is a problem that also has to change.

My mom has never had to deal with that situation, according to her, and she was a nurse at a time where all the higher ups and docs were men. We just apply basic common sense and our interactions with people don't get ourselves into those situations.

I will answer your 'women should just avoid questionable situations' comment with this great response from Jacee...

Obfuscating ... and blaming the victims instead of the perps.

Ah yes ... if women didn't work outside the home, they wouldn't be sexually harassed in the workplace.

If women didn't go out on the street, they wouldn't be sexually harassed on the street.

If women didn't date, they wouldn't be date-raped.

If women didn't drink, they wouldn't be drunk raped.

Ancient blather ... blaming victims.

She has you here sir!

The greater point however is that accusations have to be proven. We have a legal process and the rule of law, thank goodness. If you don't report something, then I guess it didn't matter that much. Right now I'm having to sue a contractor who I paid and didn't do any work. But if I come to court in 5 years, the judge will have a hard time understanding if it was so bad, why was I not there when it happened? Understandably so.

You equate this to the violence women face?! Wow. You are a piece of work.

Do you face the threat of physical violence, sexual assault, uncomfortable power situations, or rape from this contractor? When seeking justice from this contractor will you have to discuss your entire sexual history, the fact that you had on online dating profile or frequently buy contraception? NO? Then it's not the EFFN same is it?

Women face sexual aggression from workplace superiors all the time. When a woman is assaulted by a coworker she has to balance the shame and possibility of losing her job by coming forward with the chance of obtaining justice. The aggressors rarely attack in situations where witnesses are present, so it's very hard to come forward with clear evidence. So if a woman takes 3 months or 3 years to change jobs so they are no longer financially vulnerable when they accuse an assaulter, are their claims any less valid? Stop blaming the victims you low life!!! False accusations are a tiny fraction of the fear and problems women face.