I think we have to respect this both the direct aggressive general actions as well as the indirect ones. While you are right that some women like this behavior, for the ones it hurts universally from many sources adds up to strong abuse. That is, one can be abused by the cumulative effects of even less apparently harmless direct acts when it occurs everywhere nearly ubiquitous.vegetariantaxidermy wrote:The women didn't exactly seem to mind very much. They certainly weren't 'traumatised'. That's beside the point here anyway. The point is that the case was NOT proven BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT! No one gives a crap what you think. It's irrelevant in a courtroom, or should be.Kayla wrote:the men you worked with grabbed women sexually without worrying about things like whether this was wantedvegetariantaxidermy wrote:I'm saying that I don't see where the 'crime' is, except that he might have been a groper back in the day. If that's the case then nearly every man I worked with in the 80s was a criminal by today's standards.
so now they are criminals
cry me a river
However, agreeing to Kayla here, I also expect that this goes both ways. Where men more often are penalized clearly for their direct violations, women do this more often in the indirect forms of abuse in the similar way where the cumulative effect by many women doing this in subtle indirect harmful ways towards men can traumatize them similarly. It appears that in both cases, women still often 'benefit' more often in this discrepancy since it is only more men being actually punished for such crimes with extreme direct force (like prison for instance).
The problem though is partially understandable in that we all as humans cannot penalize what is hard to prove in the different kinds of abuses that get 'hidden' by both sexes upon the other. This is an area I think we should now try to resolve socially.