3 ms·

Certainly it introduces a new complexity to the case, no? I'd go as far to say significantly more complexity, especially if their break up was anything like the

Certainly it introduces a new complexity to the case, no? I'd go as far to say significantly more complexity, especially if their break up was anything like the average break up today and the ensuing drama--where depending on the time of the day, each partner could be found guilty of harassment if they chose to pursue. On the larger topic of sexual harassment, I often wonder if there should be a word for sexual harassment just as we have one for rape(where stop means stop). With sexual harassment, seemingly normal conversation could be construed as criminal. Alas, don't shit where you eat.

aplusbi 14y ago
It does make the situation more complex, but sexual harassment isn't black and white. There is a huge difference between investigating a harassment claim and determining that no harassment took place and completely ignoring it.
- badclient 14y ago
  I am curious if she pursued this criminally. And if she did, I think it is important to take into account the view of the DA/cops. If she is not bringing up the criminal angle, chances are she never pursued it or the DA passed on the case. That is not great news for her case. Typically you do the civil case after the conclusion of the criminal one, especially if you are confident he will be found guilty.
  - NoPiece 14y ago
    Sexual harassment is against the law, but it isn't a crime (at least in California). A DA wouldn't be involved unless it went well past sexual harassment into assault or stalking.
  - starwed 14y ago
    To be blunt, you have no idea what you're talking about here.
larrys 14y ago
"Certainly it introduces a new complexity to the case, no?" Was thinking the same thing. Also a psychological component, intermittent reinforcement. She had rebuffed him and then agreed to have sex 2 or 3 times. Who knows over what period that happened and whether there was any rebuff in between the sexual events. After all, he persisted and to away with it at least one time after being rejected. (Not agreeing his behavior was proper obviously just pointing this out.)
brudgers 14y ago
"Certainly it introduces a new complexity to the case, no?" No. Which means, no.
- _debug_ 14y ago
  Except it meant yes, for a while. When she first said no, and he persisted, and then she acceded, she trained him into believing that persistence pays off. So when she says no again, it seems to me that it is almost mathematically predictable that he will re-double his persistent efforts to win her back. 'no means no' does not apply when it sometimes means yes. With added flakiness, 'no means no' means : 'no means yes once in a while, and no means no when I feel like it, and you're a rapist and I'm still an angel if you cannot figure it out'.

aplusbi 14y ago

It does make the situation more complex, but sexual harassment isn't black and white. There is a huge difference between investigating a harassment claim and determining that no harassment took place and completely ignoring it.

badclient 14y ago
I am curious if she pursued this criminally. And if she did, I think it is important to take into account the view of the DA/cops. If she is not bringing up the criminal angle, chances are she never pursued it or the DA passed on the case. That is not great news for her case. Typically you do the civil case after the conclusion of the criminal one, especially if you are confident he will be found guilty.
- NoPiece 14y ago
  Sexual harassment is against the law, but it isn't a crime (at least in California). A DA wouldn't be involved unless it went well past sexual harassment into assault or stalking.
- starwed 14y ago
  To be blunt, you have no idea what you're talking about here.

larrys 14y ago

"Certainly it introduces a new complexity to the case, no?" Was thinking the same thing. Also a psychological component, intermittent reinforcement. She had rebuffed him and then agreed to have sex 2 or 3 times. Who knows over what period that happened and whether there was any rebuff in between the sexual events. After all, he persisted and to away with it at least one time after being rejected. (Not agreeing his behavior was proper obviously just pointing this out.)

brudgers 14y ago

"Certainly it introduces a new complexity to the case, no?" No. Which means, no.

_debug_ 14y ago
Except it meant yes, for a while. When she first said no, and he persisted, and then she acceded, she trained him into believing that persistence pays off. So when she says no again, it seems to me that it is almost mathematically predictable that he will re-double his persistent efforts to win her back. 'no means no' does not apply when it sometimes means yes. With added flakiness, 'no means no' means : 'no means yes once in a while, and no means no when I feel like it, and you're a rapist and I'm still an angel if you cannot figure it out'.