6 ms·

Yes, my first impression is that she's very fragile and passive. "Assault" is a too strong word if the guy let her go when she left for a smoke. And why didn't

by hrvbr 13y ago

Yes, my first impression is that she's very fragile and passive. "Assault" is a too strong word if the guy let her go when she left for a smoke. And why didn't she punch the aggressor? Friends can be punched too. Saying "no" isn't enough to claim she resisted. If someone uses his physical force against us, we're not supposed to just say "please stop" as if the guy were respectful enough to obey. And she went back to work for him? The girl doesn't know how to survive in a tough world.

erikpukinskis 13y ago
> And why didn't she punch the aggressor? She was in shock. > Saying "no" isn't enough to claim she resisted. Why does it matter if she resisted? Is it not rape if you don't resist?
- hrvbr 13y ago
  It was totally an aggression. My point is that she hadn't learn to live in a world where aggressions happen (capitalism maintains most of humanity in poverty, how surprising is it that this world is tough?). She shouldn't have been in shock, she should totally have resisted physically (in this context, sometimes resisting is dangerous) and she should have felt nothing but anger afterwards. Instead we had the story of a little bird who went out of her parent's nest for the first time and got hurt. You can't afford to be fragile and passive if you were born in a battlefield. Children shouldn't just be protected from the violence, they should be trained to survive it. Maybe schools should teach martial arts instead of volleyball.
  - wilkie 13y ago
    easy for you to say
- brazzy 13y ago
  > Is it not rape if you don't resist? It's not rape if the other person has no way of telling that you want them to stop.
  - wilkie 13y ago
    This would condone drugging your victim and is obviously and dangerously wrong.
    - brazzy 13y ago
      Yes, obviously that is an important exception, which doesn't change the fact that the statement is generally correct.
      - wilkie 13y ago
        It highlights the fact that you are being far too general about when rape is allowed.
      - brazzy 13y ago
        Or the fact that you are being far too general about what is rape.
        wilkie 13y ago
        Guess which of us that makes more likely to be morally right about this issue. I'll save you the trouble; it's me. If you are wrong about what is not rape, you've raped somebody. It's not hard to get clear consent.
        brazzy 13y ago
        Ah, that's all that matters here, isn't it? that you are morally right and have no doubts about it. It's nice if one can make the world so simple.
        wilkie 13y ago
        Yes, actually, I don't have any doubts about it. I'm removing the capacity for doubt by being responsibly cautious. That's my responsibility. That's our responsibility. It's not even remotely fantasy to consider this.
      - 13y ago
- Dalkore 13y ago
  Regardless of shock or not, it was her responsibility to pull away and not let it go any further. Maybe she was really drunk and it didn't hit her that this was happening. Yes unwanted sexual contact happened but to make her as a pure victim is passing judgement on Joe with even asking him his side or any of the witnesses. Yes bad things happened but it is not this clear cut and one-sided. Sorry to break it to you.
- banister 13y ago
  Why are you talking about rape? I thought rape required penetrative sex, this is a sexual assault isn't it?
michh 13y ago
> Saying "no" isn't enough to claim she resisted. Yes it is. In fact, not saying "yes" is enough.
- brazzy 13y ago
  > not saying "yes" is enough. No, it's not.
  - britta 13y ago
    ...yes, it is. Of course it's not as simple as saying "yes" or "no" in real life, but the point is that if a person is communicating something less than an obvious yes - for example, if a person is unusually quiet, has closed-off body language, isn't reciprocating, is hesitant, or seems uncomfortable - then the other person needs to stop and check in to find out what's going on. The uncomfortable person doesn't need to verbally say "no". This article has a reasonably helpful explanation of consent and "yes" and "no": http://www.doctornerdlove.com/2013/03/enthusiastic-consent/ http://www.doctornerdlove.com/2013/03/enthusiastic-consent/
    - brazzy 13y ago
      That article makes some good points but ultimately describes a fantasy world (that I would like to live in!) in which women are not hesitant to unambiguously initiate romantic relationships and sex and then unilaterally places the burden on men to act as if that were the world we live in and risk being called rapists if they don't. It really a lot like victim blaming.
      - britta 13y ago
        That article's explanation of consent easily supports a world where a lot of women hesitate to unambiguously initiate romantic relationships and sex. For example, the partner can listen to her hints, ask to confirm that his guess is correct, proceed when she gives him a reasonably clear confirmation, and keep his eyes open for signs that he made a mistake. It's about paying attention. And the article explains that the burden isn't unilaterally on men - that men also benefit from partners who care about consent: > Consent is not just about what you aren’t willing to do, it’s about being willing to talk, to communicate openly and without reservation with your partner about how they feel and how you feel. It can be intimidating, especially for guys, to take ownership of their feelings about sex, especially if they don’t want to have it. Many men feel that they have to have sex, even when they’re not comfortable with it, because they’re men and that’s what men do so they have to suck it up. There will be times that men will feel pressured, even coerced, just as women do.
britta 13y ago
I am very sad to read this comment. Instead of writing ten paragraphs, I'll just try to write a little story: Imagine you are in a building that has suddenly started to shake violently - and in slow motion you realize that this is your first earthquake, you are in a place without good building codes, and this area is capable of intensely destructive earthquakes - you may panic, feel a huge wave of paralyzing confusion, feel your brain flood with adrenaline, forget all your rational thoughts and fall down in shock as shattered glass falls on you and hurts you. Then a friend (who was in a stronger part of the building and didn't panic) finds you and helps you out of the shaking building. Later a person asks - why didn't you just duck under the table? Only idiots get hurt in earthquakes. Here is also an article that addresses the long list of problems with "why didn't she punch him": http://adainitiative.org/2013/08/why-dont-you-just-hit-him-the-worst-possible-anti-harassment-advice/ http://adainitiative.org/2013/08/why-dont-you-just-hit-him-t...
makomk 13y ago
If she'd punched her aggressor, people would instead be complaining about how she overreacted, and how their first impressions are that she's very hostile and aggressive, and she should just have said no again more firmly (I can remember this happening before). Female rape and sexual assault victims basically can't win no matter what they do.
- Dalkore 13y ago
  How about a compromise, walk away. Pull away. Or clearly say Stop it or No. All those would of worked just fine. What I am saying is that a victim usually has no alternatives when they are victimized. From her own account, she had the ability to exercise any of the items listed above to remove herself from this situation.
  - gregd 13y ago
    Here's a compromise. Don't sexually assault people.
  - zequel 13y ago
    I'd be ok with that but he was her employer. She's in a really tough position. If it was a co-worker, it'd be a different conversation imo.
Confusion 13y ago
Ideally we'd have a world in which everything happened in the same way up until the moment he french-kissed her. Then she would indeed have punched him and said "you crossed the line". He would say "sorry, my alcohol-infused mind judged the situation wrongly, I should not have done that and will not do it next time". In this ideal world, he'd mean that. Everyone would accept the miscalculation and everyone would get on with their lives, without anyone holding anything against anyone else. You know why the world isn't like that? Because of beliefs and expectations. You are judging this situation in the abstract and in hindsight. That is pointless and leads to callous conclusions that do not do justice to the complexity of these situations. It lacks empathy and respect for the complexity of the situation and differences between people. Try to imagine the scene, the days leading up to it, put yourself in the shoes of a woman, imagine the beliefs she has about how she should behave, how others will behave, about what is expected of her. The situation becomes complex, muddy: so many variables to consider! As someone else said: put yourself in a gay bar, with a score of gay colleagues, including your boss, and this happens to you. What if you worked in a larger company? What if the company was in bad weather and perhaps people need to be let go? So many variables!
glesica 13y ago
> Saying "no" isn't enough to claim she resisted. Actually yes, yes it is enough you sick, perverted fuck. "No means no" isn't just a slogan, and it isn't "No, along with some physical resistance means no".

by hrvbr 13y ago

erikpukinskis 13y ago

> And why didn't she punch the aggressor? She was in shock. > Saying "no" isn't enough to claim she resisted. Why does it matter if she resisted? Is it not rape if you don't resist?

hrvbr 13y ago
It was totally an aggression. My point is that she hadn't learn to live in a world where aggressions happen (capitalism maintains most of humanity in poverty, how surprising is it that this world is tough?). She shouldn't have been in shock, she should totally have resisted physically (in this context, sometimes resisting is dangerous) and she should have felt nothing but anger afterwards. Instead we had the story of a little bird who went out of her parent's nest for the first time and got hurt. You can't afford to be fragile and passive if you were born in a battlefield. Children shouldn't just be protected from the violence, they should be trained to survive it. Maybe schools should teach martial arts instead of volleyball.
- wilkie 13y ago
  easy for you to say
brazzy 13y ago
> Is it not rape if you don't resist? It's not rape if the other person has no way of telling that you want them to stop.
- wilkie 13y ago
  This would condone drugging your victim and is obviously and dangerously wrong.
  - brazzy 13y ago
    Yes, obviously that is an important exception, which doesn't change the fact that the statement is generally correct.
    - wilkie 13y ago
      It highlights the fact that you are being far too general about when rape is allowed.
    - brazzy 13y ago
      Or the fact that you are being far too general about what is rape.
      - wilkie 13y ago
        Guess which of us that makes more likely to be morally right about this issue. I'll save you the trouble; it's me. If you are wrong about what is not rape, you've raped somebody. It's not hard to get clear consent.
      - brazzy 13y ago
        Ah, that's all that matters here, isn't it? that you are morally right and have no doubts about it. It's nice if one can make the world so simple.
        wilkie 13y ago
        Yes, actually, I don't have any doubts about it. I'm removing the capacity for doubt by being responsibly cautious. That's my responsibility. That's our responsibility. It's not even remotely fantasy to consider this.
    - 13y ago
Dalkore 13y ago
Regardless of shock or not, it was her responsibility to pull away and not let it go any further. Maybe she was really drunk and it didn't hit her that this was happening. Yes unwanted sexual contact happened but to make her as a pure victim is passing judgement on Joe with even asking him his side or any of the witnesses. Yes bad things happened but it is not this clear cut and one-sided. Sorry to break it to you.
banister 13y ago
Why are you talking about rape? I thought rape required penetrative sex, this is a sexual assault isn't it?

michh 13y ago

> Saying "no" isn't enough to claim she resisted. Yes it is. In fact, not saying "yes" is enough.

brazzy 13y ago
> not saying "yes" is enough. No, it's not.
- britta 13y ago
  ...yes, it is. Of course it's not as simple as saying "yes" or "no" in real life, but the point is that if a person is communicating something less than an obvious yes - for example, if a person is unusually quiet, has closed-off body language, isn't reciprocating, is hesitant, or seems uncomfortable - then the other person needs to stop and check in to find out what's going on. The uncomfortable person doesn't need to verbally say "no". This article has a reasonably helpful explanation of consent and "yes" and "no": http://www.doctornerdlove.com/2013/03/enthusiastic-consent/ http://www.doctornerdlove.com/2013/03/enthusiastic-consent/
  - brazzy 13y ago
    That article makes some good points but ultimately describes a fantasy world (that I would like to live in!) in which women are not hesitant to unambiguously initiate romantic relationships and sex and then unilaterally places the burden on men to act as if that were the world we live in and risk being called rapists if they don't. It really a lot like victim blaming.
    - britta 13y ago
      That article's explanation of consent easily supports a world where a lot of women hesitate to unambiguously initiate romantic relationships and sex. For example, the partner can listen to her hints, ask to confirm that his guess is correct, proceed when she gives him a reasonably clear confirmation, and keep his eyes open for signs that he made a mistake. It's about paying attention. And the article explains that the burden isn't unilaterally on men - that men also benefit from partners who care about consent: > Consent is not just about what you aren’t willing to do, it’s about being willing to talk, to communicate openly and without reservation with your partner about how they feel and how you feel. It can be intimidating, especially for guys, to take ownership of their feelings about sex, especially if they don’t want to have it. Many men feel that they have to have sex, even when they’re not comfortable with it, because they’re men and that’s what men do so they have to suck it up. There will be times that men will feel pressured, even coerced, just as women do.

britta 13y ago

I am very sad to read this comment. Instead of writing ten paragraphs, I'll just try to write a little story: Imagine you are in a building that has suddenly started to shake violently - and in slow motion you realize that this is your first earthquake, you are in a place without good building codes, and this area is capable of intensely destructive earthquakes - you may panic, feel a huge wave of paralyzing confusion, feel your brain flood with adrenaline, forget all your rational thoughts and fall down in shock as shattered glass falls on you and hurts you. Then a friend (who was in a stronger part of the building and didn't panic) finds you and helps you out of the shaking building. Later a person asks - why didn't you just duck under the table? Only idiots get hurt in earthquakes. Here is also an article that addresses the long list of problems with "why didn't she punch him": http://adainitiative.org/2013/08/why-dont-you-just-hit-him-the-worst-possible-anti-harassment-advice/ http://adainitiative.org/2013/08/why-dont-you-just-hit-him-t...

makomk 13y ago

If she'd punched her aggressor, people would instead be complaining about how she overreacted, and how their first impressions are that she's very hostile and aggressive, and she should just have said no again more firmly (I can remember this happening before). Female rape and sexual assault victims basically can't win no matter what they do.

Dalkore 13y ago
How about a compromise, walk away. Pull away. Or clearly say Stop it or No. All those would of worked just fine. What I am saying is that a victim usually has no alternatives when they are victimized. From her own account, she had the ability to exercise any of the items listed above to remove herself from this situation.
- gregd 13y ago
  Here's a compromise. Don't sexually assault people.
- zequel 13y ago
  I'd be ok with that but he was her employer. She's in a really tough position. If it was a co-worker, it'd be a different conversation imo.

Confusion 13y ago

Ideally we'd have a world in which everything happened in the same way up until the moment he french-kissed her. Then she would indeed have punched him and said "you crossed the line". He would say "sorry, my alcohol-infused mind judged the situation wrongly, I should not have done that and will not do it next time". In this ideal world, he'd mean that. Everyone would accept the miscalculation and everyone would get on with their lives, without anyone holding anything against anyone else. You know why the world isn't like that? Because of beliefs and expectations. You are judging this situation in the abstract and in hindsight. That is pointless and leads to callous conclusions that do not do justice to the complexity of these situations. It lacks empathy and respect for the complexity of the situation and differences between people. Try to imagine the scene, the days leading up to it, put yourself in the shoes of a woman, imagine the beliefs she has about how she should behave, how others will behave, about what is expected of her. The situation becomes complex, muddy: so many variables to consider! As someone else said: put yourself in a gay bar, with a score of gay colleagues, including your boss, and this happens to you. What if you worked in a larger company? What if the company was in bad weather and perhaps people need to be let go? So many variables!

glesica 13y ago

> Saying "no" isn't enough to claim she resisted. Actually yes, yes it is enough you sick, perverted fuck. "No means no" isn't just a slogan, and it isn't "No, along with some physical resistance means no".