Let's take a real life situation. I once punched a one-time friend and now-cordial-ish-acquaintance of mine in the face.
He is a person who many, many people want to punch in the face on a regular basis. He is a person unpopular enough that when people - even pacifistic people - hear that I once punched him in the face, they laugh first and look shocked after. I found out recently that the story of when I punched him in the face is one that people are told about me even nearly eight years after the fact.
On top of that, I punched him in the face because after goading me and teasing me all evening, he then pulled a chair out from beneath me as I was sitting down, causing me to go topping to the ground on solid stone flagstones.
On top of that, because I find it extremely hard to hit out in anger even when I dearly want to, I actually pulled that punch, and even an observer could tell that it was very, very 'wussy' indeed and barely made contact at all.
D'you know what? It was still assault. I consider myself to have committed an assault, I consider it to be far from my proudest moment, and although I simultaneously find it very funny along with everyone else, I am ashamed of it, and wish that I hadn't done it.
And that is the level on which I would view Amy's actions. Provoked (to her mind), the result of a long-standing 'issue', the work of a thoughtless moment, something that it's maybe even okay to laugh about later. But still assault.
Morally... he hurt you - and put you at risk - because he thought he could get away with it. You hurt him back. Gain five monkey points.
Regarding Amy's actions.
Are we really arguing because I'm defining assault morally, and you're defining it technically?
Am I right that our response to low-grade non-persistant invasive sexual importuning is very similar: stern talking to, possible social ostracism, but not a call to the police?
Am I right that our response to low-grade non-persistant invasive sexual importuning is very similar: stern talking to, possible social ostracism, but not a call to the police?
I'm pretty sure I said that in my very first comment to you. But no, I don't think that you're defining assault morally and me technically - if anything it's the other way around. You said "She didn't touch his genitals" - I said "She made him feel uncomfortable."
I think it's fair to say that I don't consider it merely 'crass' to push your affections on someone who's trying to fight you off, but no, I don't consider it evil either.
Yes, but we've rather unpacked each other's viewpoint. I think I now really do get what you're saying. Don't agree with it. But get it, which I think is useful.
Perhaps you've 'unpacked' my viewpoint. I, however, understood yours to start with, I thought you were wrong then, I think you're still wrong now, and if you haven't come to agree with me I'd consider the exchange pretty unproductive in every respect - it neither interests me nor edifies me that you've managed to grasp my argument.
I'm glad that you got something out of the exchange but I'm afraid all I gained was a backlog of editing work and an irritation at my own inability to avoid going down pointless cul-de-sacs with people who're incapable of making a distinction between silly semantic asides and serious questions about personal responsibility, consent, the nature of sexual agency and the role of the active participant in any physical context.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
andrewducker) wrote2010-05-25 01:04 pm
no subject
He is a person who many, many people want to punch in the face on a regular basis. He is a person unpopular enough that when people - even pacifistic people - hear that I once punched him in the face, they laugh first and look shocked after. I found out recently that the story of when I punched him in the face is one that people are told about me even nearly eight years after the fact.
On top of that, I punched him in the face because after goading me and teasing me all evening, he then pulled a chair out from beneath me as I was sitting down, causing me to go topping to the ground on solid stone flagstones.
On top of that, because I find it extremely hard to hit out in anger even when I dearly want to, I actually pulled that punch, and even an observer could tell that it was very, very 'wussy' indeed and barely made contact at all.
D'you know what? It was still assault. I consider myself to have committed an assault, I consider it to be far from my proudest moment, and although I simultaneously find it very funny along with everyone else, I am ashamed of it, and wish that I hadn't done it.
And that is the level on which I would view Amy's actions. Provoked (to her mind), the result of a long-standing 'issue', the work of a thoughtless moment, something that it's maybe even okay to laugh about later. But still assault.
no subject
Morally... he hurt you - and put you at risk - because he thought he could get away with it. You hurt him back. Gain five monkey points.
Regarding Amy's actions.
Are we really arguing because I'm defining assault morally, and you're defining it technically?
Am I right that our response to low-grade non-persistant invasive sexual importuning is very similar: stern talking to, possible social ostracism, but not a call to the police?
no subject
I'm pretty sure I said that in my very first comment to you. But no, I don't think that you're defining assault morally and me technically - if anything it's the other way around. You said "She didn't touch his genitals" - I said "She made him feel uncomfortable."
no subject
We seem to agree that a continuum exists, but I want to draw a line between crass and evil, and call the latter "assault".
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
I'm glad that you got something out of the exchange but I'm afraid all I gained was a backlog of editing work and an irritation at my own inability to avoid going down pointless cul-de-sacs with people who're incapable of making a distinction between silly semantic asides and serious questions about personal responsibility, consent, the nature of sexual agency and the role of the active participant in any physical context.
In short, don't patronise me.
no subject
The downside of electronic communication is that it is free of non-verbal cues and verbal intonation. Mine at the moment would be very respectful.
no subject
no subject
Take care
Z