I really suggest this episode from the Owls at Dawn postcast: http://www.owlsatdawn.com/episodes-2/2018/6/25/me-too-ism-wheidi-matthews-owls-at-dawn-episode-52

I really suggest this episode from the Owls at Dawn postcast: http://www.owlsatdawn.com/episodes-2/2018/6/25/me-too-ism-wheidi-matthews-owls-at-dawn-episode-52 http://www.owlsatdawn.com/episodes-2/2018/6/25/me-too-ism-wh... In it, Heidi Matthews, a law professor, goes into all the legal implications of the me too movement. The trouble with the whole movement is the way that many people in it seek legal guards in our framework, but which simply don't work in the really complex and nuanced ways our social relationships work. It's a really good and in-dept legal analysis that I highly recommend. So let's take a step back: professors who marry students. My graduate adviser married one of his students (she was a grad student when he was a professor when they met). Where do wanted/unwanted advances being and end? In this specific case, it looks like the professor kept going after this guy after he was clearly not interested. She should have stopped, right? Yes. Should this be a legal thing? Hmm... now we get into gray areas right? Let's take a big step back to the 1990s and the TV show Family Matters. Steve Urkel was a creep. Go to YouTube and watch some old videos. He does a lot of really questionable stuff, his infatuation is stalker-ish and the show is written to sympathize the audience with his unrequited love. I don't think this show would be made today, but we are talking about people in different age groups, different generations and totally different ideas of what is or isn't acceptable. Louis CK asked for consent in many of the cases (there are two questionable reports, one where he stood in front of the exit and another where he didn't ask consent when he was on the phone with a woman; both of those are not OK of course). This consent doesn't matter because he was in a position of authority over them, or so the argument goes. But they're adults right? So when is consent not consent? When is a Yes not good enough? I think there are a lot of complexities here that may not have legal solutions. Sex and sexuality are weird things, which is why we classify things as "fetishes". Most of the animal kingdom (cats, dolphins, fruit flys, ducks) all participate in non-consensual sexual activities (if animals had the ability to consent; also in most animals, sex last less than 1 minute, except for Bonobos, Dolphins and possibly a few others). There is an inherent violence that is a part of the core human psyche that goes with sexuality and we have to be willing to acknowledge and address that and the awkward way that doesn't fit into our legal frameworks. There is a lot of complexity here and I think everyone should think really carefully and critically before taking any stances. It will affect the way people pursue relationships and how we think of ourselves (as sexual men/women/whatever). There are already A LOT of lonely people out there. I don't want to move to a world where people are even more afraid to connect than they already are.