Home for Wayward Sluts: Sex and the Law: Sexual Harassment and Unwanted Contact http://kinkunveiled.blogspot.ca/?zx=8dcd321b700cd6d8

Thursday, 12 December 2013

Sex and the Law: Sexual Harassment and Unwanted Contact

This is a series of controversial topics involving sex and the law.  This one is on sexual harassment and unwanted contact. This series may challenge your system of values. If you disagree with me...let me know why and tell me if there is something I completely missed -- maybe I'll reverse my opinion when this new bit of insight comes to light.

Also note: I am arguing from the perspective of devil's advocate. I recognize that the things I am saying challenge societal norms and I because I am putting the ideas forward does not mean I practice nor wish to practice the things discussed.  So if I argue in favor of bestiality, don't take it as me expressing an urge to sex with goats: I'm just looking at things from a different angle.

So let's look at sexual harassment and unwanted contact. Specifically, I want to discuss unwanted contact means contact of a sexual nature as it relates to the law with both consent and meaning.   Human sexuality is a complex beast and it is also evolving over time and cultural norms.  And our current culture (in North America) is extremely uptight about any and all things sexual. It has gotten so extreme that brushing up against someone in the subway, if perceived in a sexual way, can get you arrested and thrown in jail for months if not years.   And the net result of this?  Even more repression and general awkwardness.

Let's look at what unwanted sexual advances and contact actually is -- and I will try to strip it of the culturally loaded connotations to get to the meat of the action.   First off, I'm not talking about taking someone and penetrating them by force (aka rape.) I'm talking about a guy (usually) who is attempting to get it on with a girl -- and it failing.  Perhaps he touches her in the process, or makes sexual remarks to make his intentions clear.

Well, now we've entered into a legal realm of sexual assault. Yes, touching someone without their
express permission can and is considered assault. And it's sexual assault if it's done with a sexual intent.  Well fuck.  That means you can be charged with sexual assault for literally rubbing up against someone on an elevator and her taking it the wrong way.

But let's look at the meaning we have given this: unwanted touching is apparently one of the worst crimes a person can commit --wait, if I just randomly punch people I get the same kinds of sentences??  Huh?  We have, as a culture, accepted the meaning that touching someone is 'really wrong'.   I will give a specific example of a girl that I went to a concert with.  As we went through the crowds, some unseen guy grabbed her ass.  Well, the touch took about 1 second.  It did no damage whatsoever. If her bf touched her ass in a similar way, she'd forget about it instantly.  But because it was a stranger, she had a fucking meltdown. She actually cried at the concert and made my whole experience miserable.  She turned it into meaning one of the worst things ever...by her own mind and drama.  The meaning she assigned the act determined her emotional response to it.  She actually had to see therapy for this 'violation.'  In contrast, I've walked through clubs and had a guy grab my ass...and was like, "No. You can't touch there." And that was the end of it.  Not emotional scarring. Nothing.

Another girl I actually dated commented at a concert that some guy grabbed her boob 'awhile back there' and she was like, 'what a clueless dude. He must be so high or something."  Her reaction was part of the reason I was dating her. No drama.  But the fact of the matter is, small touches ARE harmless.  Before you throw a shit-fit: I mean it from the definition of harm. If I go through the situation and my body is fully intact and unscathed...I am unharmed. 

But under societal rules and the law...I could have thrown the guy who touched my ass in jail for a very long time and had him labelled as a sex offender! That's nuts.  But it's all based on the collective illusion we have that this type of touching is 'really really bad' and we accept this meaning without question.



Well, surely there are safeguards to protect people from false claims? Actually, no. Often the only bit of 'evidence' required for a conviction is the statement from the victim.  That's all.  Which is all well and good in a perfect world...but if we were in a perfect world then there wouldn't be rape and real sexual assault.  My point here can best be summed up by the phrase, "Bitches be crazy." (I'm not saying that all women are crazy....very far from it.  But I'm also not saying that there are not some seriously crazy bitches out there. There are.)  So having some completely vindictive and evil woman deciding to target you and use the legal system as a weapon...well, you're in for a very rough ride. Even if you're found to be completely innocent --again, remember that the only required evidence is her testimony. So if you're dating a convincing actress...lookout.

Now before I go any further into the territory of sounding like a total boar...I do recognize that some
situations very much need attention and women do need to be defended in some situations. Men can
and do take advantage of them... just as they take advantage of *anyone* who is weaker than them. But there is a need for balance.  If we label pressing up against someone as sexual assault, then what do we call forcing a girl to have sex at knifepoint?  If a man brutishly grabs a girl, pulls her by the hair into a stairwell and forcibly fucks here...is this really the same as an unwanted touch??  I am arguing that we are watering down the latter and blowing the first completely out of proportion.  If a woman is beaten, punched, stripped and raped...the guy is charged with the same crime as a guy brushing up against a girl in an elevator and her freaking out. These are very very different...but as far as the law (in Canada) goes...it's the same damn thing.

Women can and do take advantage of the laws that are clearly in their favour...though from most I've read it seems that the perspective is: not enough is being done to punish 'these types of behavior in men.'

Well, I'm saying this: This  idea that if a man touches a woman's arm it's a some kind of massive and unforgivable crime is ridiculous.  Why? Because it all boils down to two elements: consent and meaning.

Let's give an example of going for coffee with someone. You think they are enjoying having coffee with you...but they're not.  You read them wrong but they don't specifically say, "You know, I don't want to have coffee with you."   If this happens, it's unfortunate.  But if there's sexual touching involved...it's a massive crime worth up to 10 years in jail!! 10 years!!

Now let's look a consent. According to Canadian law, she doesn't actually have to say, 'no.'  I'm not talking about her being passed out. I'm saying, if the guy makes a move and she doesn't say no and he progresses and they have sex...it can be considered sexual assault.  What the fuck??  Yes, the legal test is, 'the guy must take "reasonable steps" to ensure the sexual activity is consented to." But there's no definition of reasonable steps! That's not reasonable!

Now from the best sexual encounters I've had...the steamiest seductions...they were passionate and I was aggressive.  The girls fucking loved it too! (Seriously...that's a great way to date a girl for awhile...make her first time mind-blowing.)  But under the law we want to neuter the nature of men so everyone behaves like 'respectable' little pussies.  You know who suffers from that? Girls! They get limp dicks asking them, "Is it alright if I kiss you now?"  and we start to expect younger guys to write a note asking for written permission to touch her elbow.  That's not hot.

So if we tell our young men that acting on their impulses and pursing the things they want will have them labelled as a sex offender and sent to jail for years...guess what?  We're sending a strong message to them to suck at seduction.

So I think we should clean the laws up a bit and remove the ambiguity.  Instead of removing the word 'rape' and making 'sexual assault' span from unwelcome flirting to hardcore rape...we gotta do something.  Equating crossed signals and thinking she was consenting with rape is wrong.  Also, if the girl regrets the sex afterwards...she can testify and based solely on her testimony we can put the guy away for YEARS.  This is wrong.  And convicting a real rapist under the same laws is equally wrong as it waters down the entire meaning of his conviction.

Perhaps making a law which is more a misdemeanor -- a small fine  that says, 'Hey! Smarten up! You crossed a line and didn't respect someone."  These small misdemeanors if they build up...a guy gets 20 tickets and then someone accuses him of rape...well, it then shows a clear history.

But the values we currently have where any touching (and god-forbid genital or breast touching!) someone permanently damages someone...is just stupid.  I've had lots of people touch me gently without and marks or damage...I don't see why we've made it such a big deal.

No comments:

Post a Comment