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
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