I believe you said that you'd call him an assailant, that you had no problem with his being identified as such, even if that did seem "harsh". Am I wrong about what you said?
But [his advances] were still unwanted, and that is important to recognize.
No, it's impossible to recognize, literally impossible for anyone who's not inside that girl's head.
When two people are guilty of miscommunication--which is the base of the problem here, and quite often in Real Life, I believe--that's always a two-way street, and I can't see any justice or usefulness in pointing a finger at just one of them.
If she didn't say no, either at all or in any way that she recognized, then how can what he did possibly be considered assault by any reasonable person? Whether or not she "felt pressured" can't have any bearing on the situation unless someone (other than herself) was actually putting pressure on her.
I'm not trying to point a finger at just one person. I do believe that the less powerful person should endeavor to do things that will help them increase their confidence in situations like these, and that they should be given opportunities to learn how to express themselves and their opinions, because it is by doing so that bad situations can be (hopefully) avoided.
However, I think it is a fine line to expect people who cannot do these things (for one reason or another) to take all the responsibility for their personal safety and well-being. If she were to stand up a year later and say "I was assaulted" then her story should be listened to and given weight. I'm not saying that the hypothetical man should be jailed, or exposed to ridicule, or fined, or any other such punishment, but I do think he should realize that he was a participant in a sexual encounter that may have not been entirely wanted.
You realize that, after she'd sent out all the right signals and spoken all the right words, for her to announce later that she didn't really mean it, the lesson that he would most likely take home from this scenario is that "that chick is totally batshit crazy and you can't trust her", right?
I pretty explicitly don't want him to know that she'd retroactively rescinded the permission she gave. The fact that this hypothetical* chick is, in this arena at least, a completely non-functional person shouldn't have to hurt the people that she interacts with.
(* I'm continuing to use the hypothetical because it seems like an excellent one to me, that I've seen in day-to-day encounters frequently. I know a woman who divorced her husband and then three years after the divorce announced to the world at large that she now "realized" that he'd raped her ten years ago. Since it was the first he'd heard of it too I--unlike you, I imagine--am not inclined to give much weight to the declaration. I can specifically name other situations that largely map onto this hypothetical. )
By announcing that "he could have not kissed her" even though she was clearly sending signals that she was open to being kissed, you are setting up a paternalistic world which I, for one, would be unable to tolerate.
This is not hyperbole: I would rather be raped than have everyone I ever came onto second guessing my motives, honesty, integrity, and ability to say what I mean. And yes, I've been raped, so I do know exactly what I'm talking about. I am willing to do people the courtesy of assuming they mean what they say, and I would prefer they do the same for me, and the people who routinely lie, even if it's only about certain subjects, should be distrusted, not catered to.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
andrewducker) wrote2010-05-25 01:04 pm
Re: Flesh and Stone
No, it's impossible to recognize, literally impossible for anyone who's not inside that girl's head.
When two people are guilty of miscommunication--which is the base of the problem here, and quite often in Real Life, I believe--that's always a two-way street, and I can't see any justice or usefulness in pointing a finger at just one of them.
If she didn't say no, either at all or in any way that she recognized, then how can what he did possibly be considered assault by any reasonable person? Whether or not she "felt pressured" can't have any bearing on the situation unless someone (other than herself) was actually putting pressure on her.
Re: Flesh and Stone
I'm not trying to point a finger at just one person. I do believe that the less powerful person should endeavor to do things that will help them increase their confidence in situations like these, and that they should be given opportunities to learn how to express themselves and their opinions, because it is by doing so that bad situations can be (hopefully) avoided.
However, I think it is a fine line to expect people who cannot do these things (for one reason or another) to take all the responsibility for their personal safety and well-being. If she were to stand up a year later and say "I was assaulted" then her story should be listened to and given weight. I'm not saying that the hypothetical man should be jailed, or exposed to ridicule, or fined, or any other such punishment, but I do think he should realize that he was a participant in a sexual encounter that may have not been entirely wanted.
Re: Flesh and Stone
I pretty explicitly don't want him to know that she'd retroactively rescinded the permission she gave. The fact that this hypothetical* chick is, in this arena at least, a completely non-functional person shouldn't have to hurt the people that she interacts with.
(* I'm continuing to use the hypothetical because it seems like an excellent one to me, that I've seen in day-to-day encounters frequently. I know a woman who divorced her husband and then three years after the divorce announced to the world at large that she now "realized" that he'd raped her ten years ago. Since it was the first he'd heard of it too I--unlike you, I imagine--am not inclined to give much weight to the declaration. I can specifically name other situations that largely map onto this hypothetical. )
By announcing that "he could have not kissed her" even though she was clearly sending signals that she was open to being kissed, you are setting up a paternalistic world which I, for one, would be unable to tolerate.
This is not hyperbole: I would rather be raped than have everyone I ever came onto second guessing my motives, honesty, integrity, and ability to say what I mean. And yes, I've been raped, so I do know exactly what I'm talking about. I am willing to do people the courtesy of assuming they mean what they say, and I would prefer they do the same for me, and the people who routinely lie, even if it's only about certain subjects, should be distrusted, not catered to.