3 ms·

> If there was no violence "Violence is...compelling action against one's will on pain of being hurt." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence http://en.wikiped

> If there was no violence "Violence is...compelling action against one's will on pain of being hurt." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence) "I tried to push him off, and told him I wasn’t interested ... He responded by jamming his hand into my underwear and fumbling." (from the article) To me that sounds like "against one's will" and ergo an act of violence.

mkramlich 16y ago
Interesting! I've never heard violence defined like that. When I was a kid and first learning words like that, "violence" meant physical harm and attack. A punch. A gunshot. A bomb explosion. That was violence. I think this other definition you cited is a rather newer and more "lawyer-y" definition. That said. Even if that's the definition we're going to use, then, by that definition, this case still did not involve violence. The alleged evildoer in this case did not do anything against another's will "on pain of being hurt." Sounded like he was waaaaaaay too forward, I'd agree. :) But by her admission there was no threat, no pain and no use of "old-fashioned" violence (no attack or physical harm). I'm going to go read up on the latest arbitrary definition du jour of "rape" and "sexual assault" tonight. What I expect to see is that especially the latter will be defined so loosely that if a guy merely touches a women's arm after she has drunk a glass of alcohol, then he could possibly be charged with the crime of sexual assault. That's how ridiculously overreaching this area of our laws seem to be.
- follower 16y ago
  In case it's not intentional, I'd just like to point out that many of your responses in this thread come across as very "troll-like" in nature. This may be because I disagree with your content but--if it's not the impression you're intending to give--you might want to reconsider how you present your view.
  - mkramlich 16y ago
    Thanks for letting me know. I am not intending to troll. I do realize that the position I'm arguing from risks being un-PC, especially with certain HN demographics, and if it's reacted to in a way that doesn't account for the subtle specifics of what I'm saying. But sometimes it's important to stick up for what you believe in, and say what you think is true and right, even if it's not popular with everyone. On the whole, it seems that what I'm saying is resonating with some of the readers here, which is good. I'd hate to live in a society where much or even all of sexuality becomes considered evil or a crime, and in a society where we're unable to make subtle distinctions, and we go after non-violent "crimes" more than massively violent non-crimes (war, invasions, government-ordered bombing or missile strikes, etc., for example).
- KT 16y ago
  Um. No pain? If someone forces their hands into your underwear, it is disgusting. Who knows where that hand has been, and now it's in your private area? This is not about touching an arm. I'll agree with the other commenter that much of your posts does seem troll-like, especially when trying to say that shoving your hand into someone's underwear is no worse than touching someone's arm. FWIW, however, I'm not sure that this necessarily needs to be a "throw in jail" kind of crime. Public humiliation on the Internet, however, seems like the best way to handle a crime of this nature. Some men simply do not understand that it is not acceptable to put their hands in strange ladies' underwear. This is not a phenomenon that is limited to tech conferences. http://www.frumforum.com/the-prowl-getting-groped-in-the-district http://www.frumforum.com/the-prowl-getting-groped-in-the-dis... Public awareness of this problem is a far better solution than sweeping it under the rug. Most men don't do this. It'd be nice if in addition to being the great human beings that they are, if they'd step in when they see a woman being accosted in this way. It'd be nice if in addition to being the great human beings they are if they wouldn't try to excuse piss poor behavior on other men's parts.

mkramlich 16y ago

Interesting! I've never heard violence defined like that. When I was a kid and first learning words like that, "violence" meant physical harm and attack. A punch. A gunshot. A bomb explosion. That was violence. I think this other definition you cited is a rather newer and more "lawyer-y" definition. That said. Even if that's the definition we're going to use, then, by that definition, this case still did not involve violence. The alleged evildoer in this case did not do anything against another's will "on pain of being hurt." Sounded like he was waaaaaaay too forward, I'd agree. :) But by her admission there was no threat, no pain and no use of "old-fashioned" violence (no attack or physical harm). I'm going to go read up on the latest arbitrary definition du jour of "rape" and "sexual assault" tonight. What I expect to see is that especially the latter will be defined so loosely that if a guy merely touches a women's arm after she has drunk a glass of alcohol, then he could possibly be charged with the crime of sexual assault. That's how ridiculously overreaching this area of our laws seem to be.

follower 16y ago
In case it's not intentional, I'd just like to point out that many of your responses in this thread come across as very "troll-like" in nature. This may be because I disagree with your content but--if it's not the impression you're intending to give--you might want to reconsider how you present your view.
- mkramlich 16y ago
  Thanks for letting me know. I am not intending to troll. I do realize that the position I'm arguing from risks being un-PC, especially with certain HN demographics, and if it's reacted to in a way that doesn't account for the subtle specifics of what I'm saying. But sometimes it's important to stick up for what you believe in, and say what you think is true and right, even if it's not popular with everyone. On the whole, it seems that what I'm saying is resonating with some of the readers here, which is good. I'd hate to live in a society where much or even all of sexuality becomes considered evil or a crime, and in a society where we're unable to make subtle distinctions, and we go after non-violent "crimes" more than massively violent non-crimes (war, invasions, government-ordered bombing or missile strikes, etc., for example).
KT 16y ago
Um. No pain? If someone forces their hands into your underwear, it is disgusting. Who knows where that hand has been, and now it's in your private area? This is not about touching an arm. I'll agree with the other commenter that much of your posts does seem troll-like, especially when trying to say that shoving your hand into someone's underwear is no worse than touching someone's arm. FWIW, however, I'm not sure that this necessarily needs to be a "throw in jail" kind of crime. Public humiliation on the Internet, however, seems like the best way to handle a crime of this nature. Some men simply do not understand that it is not acceptable to put their hands in strange ladies' underwear. This is not a phenomenon that is limited to tech conferences. http://www.frumforum.com/the-prowl-getting-groped-in-the-district http://www.frumforum.com/the-prowl-getting-groped-in-the-dis... Public awareness of this problem is a far better solution than sweeping it under the rug. Most men don't do this. It'd be nice if in addition to being the great human beings that they are, if they'd step in when they see a woman being accosted in this way. It'd be nice if in addition to being the great human beings they are if they wouldn't try to excuse piss poor behavior on other men's parts.