Powerful Men, Beautiful Women, and Sex

[Phi for All]

21 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

i wonder what the numbers are for men being harassed in their lifetime. From personal experience, women can be just as base and sexually aggressive as men. Maybe not as often but it's not insignificant.

This seems like whataboutism. The issue is that there is a large percentage of men who assume they have a right to sexual advances on women they don't have sexual relationships with. What you're suggesting seems like saying it's OK to do that since there are not an insignificant number of women who do it too.

Seriously, whatever your experiences, men have been trying to force women into sex against their will, and assume privileges that were never offered since we started writing history. How many of those histories detail a man being forced against his will? Remember, there are no bad words for a man who likes sex, but I don't have time to write down all the awful words we have for lusty women. Sorry about this, but men in general are always going to be the culprits in this, whether by direct action or by tacit inaction.

[CharonY]

2 hours ago, StringJunky said:

i wonder what the numbers are for men being harassed in their lifetime. From personal experience, women can be just as base and sexually aggressive as men. Maybe not as often but it's not insignificant.

Note that you mention harassment while the quote was about sexual assault. In these cases women are ~10 times more frequently victims than men in most statistics. Notably, most males are victims of other males, perhaps for obvious reasons. 

Now harassment is quite a different issue, and the gender difference is lower (women experience it ca. 3x more often). A typical lifetime statistic in the USA shows something like 50% of women experience harassment and about 15% of men. The rate goes up for both genders in male-dominated environments (e.g. according to DOD data 2014 ~79% of women and 35% of men), again pointing to a leading role of men as perpetrators.

I am not sure where you are going with this, though.

[Gees]

There are some very good and thoughtful responses to my OP, so I guess I am going to have to pass out a lot of + votes. Following are a few thoughts that I would like to share regarding some of those responses.

 

Fiveworlds;

On ‎12‎/‎9‎/‎2017 at 9:56 PM, fiveworlds said:

Playing the victim is power in itself. Many men have experienced times when a woman playing the victim is always right regardless of the truth. 

Yes. Being the victim can be very powerful, and this power can be abused. Since I retired from law, (I am not a lawyer, but worked in law offices) I saw many examples of people, men and women, portraying themselves as victims, when they were clearly not victims. This is part of the problem, but I don't think it is a part that we can do much about -- people lie. What I am concerned about is why women think of themselves as victims, as some of them truly do. This can set them up to becoming victims in much the same way that we are told that child predators tend to look for lonely and vulnerable children. Predators choose their victims. Sexual harassment is a many layered complex problem with no easy answers. Do women sometimes unknowingly make themselves accessible to harassment? If so, then this is an area where we might be able to do something.

For example: A young friend of my daughter's, I think she was 16 or 17 at the time, sat at my kitchen table and asked my advice on "boyfriend" problems. She was an incredibly beautiful girl and believed that boys only wanted her for 'one thing' -- she was developing a reputation. She saw herself as a victim; I thought that she was unknowingly contributing to the problem, but could not find a way to explain it to her. I was floundering. My son, who was in his mid-twenties, saw my problem and sat down at the table with us. He looked at her and said, "People smile." Then he smiled at her, and she smiled back. Then he said, "There are different kinds of smiles", and he turned up the wattage, intensified his gaze, and gave her a smile that had her blushing from her nose to her toes. After viewing her reaction, he said, "That is how you smile at men." She squeaked, "Oh!" and the light came on.

Of course, all problems are not this easy, but there is a sexual by-play between men and women of a certain age that is always present or always potentially present. Misreading the cues is a problem, and I think it is a huge problem now because of the rapidly changing relationships between the sexes. I am not trying to excuse bad behavior, or criminal behavior, but thinking that training could at least separate out some of these problems.

 

iNow;

On ‎12‎/‎9‎/‎2017 at 10:53 PM, iNow said:

I think power comes in many forms, and the issues under discussion today are rarely about pretty faces using their beauty to gain it.

Does it happen? Of course. Is that what’s driving this momentum? Hardly.

I certainly did not notice any ugly women in these issues. What do you think is "driving the momentum"?

 

Quote

Instead, what we’re seeing today IMO is women who should, would, and otherwise could’ve been powerful were it not the fact that their genetics went XX instead of XY. 

This statement seems to be more about inequality rather than sexual harassment. 

 

Quote

In so many ways, this is like pushing back agaianst the asinine idea that whites are better than blacks or that homosexuals can’t marry the person they love.

Yep. Inequality.

 

Quote

It’s stupid and misguided, we’re finally waking up to that fact as a society, and soon hopefully equality will include my daughters not having to fear horny older men or a system that disbelieves them by default when bad things happen. 

The problem with equality is that some people think it means 'same' -- it does not. Men and women will never be the same, and life wouldn't be much fun if they were. Viagra is not going to be taken off the market, so horny old men are going to be around. What we need to do is learn to respect men and women for their differences; appreciate them for their strengths and differences, not try to pretend they are the same. Trying to pretend they are the same is going to make matters worse. There is a reason why "50 Shades of Grey" rocketed to the top of the Best Sellers lists and was made into a movie -- this was not an accident or a coincidence. 

 

Swansont;

On ‎12‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 8:34 AM, swansont said:

Sexual harassment is against the law. 

Is it? What law would that be? Federal or State? If it is State law, most likely, then what constitutes sexual harassment in the various States? Is it a Criminal law or a Civil law? Is there a difference? Oh yes.

 

Quote

Sexual assault is a crime. So let's dispense with the fiction that unlawful behavior is not in play here.

Which part of my statement did you miss with regard to crime? Please review the following quote and point out the "fiction".

"I agree that the Weinstein's need to be taken down and that anyone who uses drugs to seduce should wind up in Court, but if there is no actual crime, there should be no allusion to criminal behavior."

 

Quote

We've talked to our daughters for generations. Maybe we should be talking to our sons, since they are the ones exhibiting the objectionable behavior. Women get talked to about how to avoid putting themselves in vulnerable situations, but men do not get the same institutional dialogue on not assaulting or harassing women.

 I talked to my son and my step-son when they were teens. I explained the "age of rape", which is generally 14 to 16 years of age for most women. At two years old, little girls start trying to wrap Daddy around their little fingers, and they keep practicing their "feminine wiles" until they reach their teens and their bodies start looking like a woman's body. At that point they start attracting little boys, the problem is that they have no practice in deterring the little boys, so they can handle it pretty badly. One could say that when she smiles and says, "I love you" it does not mean what you think -- she is not ready to jump in bed with you. My husband used to call them "Ladies in Training" at that age.

I talked to my daughters about "date rape" and we discussed various ideas to thwart that problem. My oldest daughter thought that pointing and laughing would deflate the problem quite well, which it might. My youngest said she could stick her finger down her throat because dinner that has come back up for a look/see is not very attractive. We also discussed other more reasonable ideas. We also discussed the intimacy of a sexual relationship, and I explained that afterward, it is much worse than having your best friend betray a secret at school. I talked to all of the children about taking care not to break a tender heart. But I did not talk to them about power brokers or manipulators at work because I did not see the need.

 

Quote

You are painting this with a very broad brush. Have you considered that women who seek out power (in your terms) are not the ones coming forth with harassment claims?

Not sure about that. Ashley Judd came out against Weinstein, and she is very much a power broker. There was another women on one of the talk shows, who was some TV personality. She stated that she had problems with her boss repeatedly and could not get him to drop the harassment even though she was married. I remember wondering why she didn't send her husband in to talk to him. Then there was that starlet who claimed that Dustin Hoffman was groping her and that she had evidence. There was a picture of her and Hoffman with his hand on her breast. The problem is that they were both smiling at the camera, and she admitted that he put his hand there just as the picture was shot. The situation is that they were promoting a movie where she played his mistress, and he was still in make-up -- completely bald. So are we talking lecher, or just an actor, who morphs into character when in front of a camera?

 

Quote

Have you considered that the reason some women might go to some lengths to improve their appearance is because that's the only way they can advance with men in power? Because they have no power to do so on merit alone?

Have you considered that it may not be "men in power"? That it might also be the superficial society that we live in?

Do you really believe that the TV news anchors are the best reporters? Or are they the best reporters that could be had for the money that was offered and that had the correct image for the news broadcast? Let's face it, Jimmy Durante would not have made it in entertainment in this climate -- and what a loss that would have been. Abe Lincoln could never be President now. He may have been brilliant, but he was God awful ugly. He would be lucky to win a seat on a Town Council.

 

Quote

Do you really think men kept their hands to themselves back when "women wore hats"?

Grandma told me that hat pins were a woman's greatest weapon because they were always available. Do you really think that a woman would not use it?

 

Quote

The situations under discussion are not treated the same way as most other crimes. If someone is burgled, the reaction of bystanders is not "Why do you own such fancy stuff? You were asking for it to be taken!" The police generally do not dissuade you from trying to press charges. People don't rush to the defense of the burglar, saying how he's such a nice guy, and why are you trying to ruin his reputation?

This is not a valid comparison. Being burglarized is very much like someone coming into your home and raping you -- a clear crime.

What we are discussing is more like a fool, who gets high and walks in a bad part of town with hundred dollar bills hanging out of his pockets. Yes. The police would take a report, but would they try to prosecute? Not likely.

 

Quote

So this is not so simple as "innocent until proven guilty" and should not be cast as such.

Do you know why we have a Bill of Rights? Because many of the States would not ratify the Constitution because it too easily could become mob rule and individual rights could be disregarded. What is the difference between mob rule and the Court of Public Opinion?

Gee

[swansont]

54 minutes ago, Gees said:

Is it? What law would that be? Federal or State? If it is State law, most likely, then what constitutes sexual harassment in the various States? Is it a Criminal law or a Civil law? Is there a difference? Oh yes.

"Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination that violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964." (applies in the US, obviously)

https://www.aauw.org/what-we-do/legal-resources/know-your-rights-at-work/workplace-sexual-harassment/

Quote

 

Which part of my statement did you miss with regard to crime? Please review the following quote and point out the "fiction".

"I agree that the Weinstein's need to be taken down and that anyone who uses drugs to seduce should wind up in Court, but if there is no actual crime, there should be no allusion to criminal behavior."

 

There was a crime. You even describe it with "uses drugs to seduce" which is rape. So there is no reason for your caveat, and the implications it carries.

 

Quote

I talked to my son and my step-son when they were teens. I explained the "age of rape", which is generally 14 to 16 years of age for most women.

I have no idea what you mean by this. There is no age restriction on rape.

[iNow]

6 hours ago, Gees said:

I certainly did not notice any ugly women in these issues. What do you think is "driving the momentum"?

The fact that women no longer feel alone or isolated in these exchanges. The fact that they're finally being treated seriously and not dismissed or shamed or victim blamed. The fact that people are tired of "ugly" men having all the power, and... to be clear... I'm not referring here to physical traits or indicators of fertility. There are other reasons, but those are some.

6 hours ago, Gees said:

The problem with equality is that some people think it means 'same' -- it does not. Men and women will never be the same, and life wouldn't be much fun if they were. Viagra is not going to be taken off the market, so horny old men are going to be around. What we need to do is learn to respect men and women for their differences; appreciate them for their strengths and differences, not try to pretend they are the same. Trying to pretend they are the same is going to make matters worse.

Completely tangential and irrelevant to the points I actually made, to the point of being an outright strawman.

If my point was unclear, please request I clarify it and I will happily do so. In return, please don't assume that I hold such remedial concepts about the need for equality across the sexes.

[Raider5678]

On 12/9/2017 at 10:53 PM, iNow said:

or a system that disbelieves them by default when bad things happen. 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDwFCoj-0js

 

Click this first^

 

https://www.law.umich.edu/newsandinfo/features/Pages/starr_gender_disparities.aspx

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/11/men-women-prison-sentence-length-gender-gap_n_1874742.html

https://journalistsresource.org/studies/government/criminal-justice/courts-lenient-sentencing-bond-women

 

 

Good god man, that is far, far, FAR from even being remotely close to the truth.

 

 

On 12/9/2017 at 9:39 PM, Gees said:

Because I was not born and raised on a farm like Grandma, I have changed my Grandmother's words to something that reflects the same truth, but is a little more palatable: "Power attracts power. It has always been that way. It will always be that way." So what we are talking about is power and it's abuse. But power can come in many forms. I remember a story in the news about a child, who fell into a well. It took about 24 hours to get the baby out, and the news covered it for the whole time. The world stopped and held it's breath while people worked to get the child out and letters to the family came from all over the world. I remember stating, "That is power." When asked why I said so, I responded that if a man had fallen into a well, the first question would have been, "Was he drunk?", and it may not have even made the news. So innocence can be very powerful, but so can beauty as was recently evidenced by the purchase of a painting for almost half a billion dollars.

If you have ever been in a room with a bunch of power brokers, the movers and shakers of the world, you will know that you can almost smell the testosterone. It is almost like a locker room after a game or a soldier after a war -- without the sweat. The battle is different, but the power is the same. Do the women in the room respond to all of that testosterone? Of course, it is unavoidable as pheromones don't choose their receivers. So wouldn't that make the women's faces glow a little more, their eyes sparkle a little brighter, they hips sway a little more? Do they know they are doing this, or do they just think that they are enjoying themselves? Some of them probably know, many do not. This could cause a lot of mixed signals between body language and intent. Do we teach our daughters about this? I don't think so, but it occurs to me that women, who come from families of movers and shakers probably know.

Let's be honest. Power brokers like the ones in government, Hollywood, and big business acquire their power and maintain their power using manipulation, charm, seduction, domination, intimidation, etc. This is how one gets power and how one holds power. To expect anything different is naïve. I agree that the Weinstein's need to be taken down and that anyone who uses drugs to seduce should wind up in Court, but if there is no actual crime, there should be no allusion to criminal behavior. I think that education and training would benefit both the males and females in this situation, but we really need to talk to our daughters.

So do these women use their beauty as a power? Between the hair dying, plucking and waxing, make-up, dieting and exercising, dental repairing and occasional plastic surgery, and the stylish and seductive clothing, I would say, yes they do. So if they are also brokering their power, why are they painted as victims? Why do they think of themselves as victims? These are the questions that I think will help us to find reasonable answers. It occurs to me that after the 1960's women stopped wearing hats, so they no longer needed hat pins. Do you think that a three inch hat pin helped men to keep their hands to themselves? Maybe.

Thoughts?

Gee

2

Well, then I must be one very Naive person.

ANyways, SOME beautiful women use their beauty. Not all. 

Also, for that thing about women being in a room with powerful men and testosterone, refer to the previous youtube link I gave to inow.

My thoughts are that women and men have different tools at their disposal, depending on their situation.

Most of the time, their tools are the same. Although, it's more likely for women to seduce a man, and him to be weak enough to fall for it, then the other way around.

But that's not even a majority or even a large minority.

Women think of themselves as victims because often they are the victims. And even when they aren't, society will readily accept it if they say they were the victims. It's a power move, just like any other. And while women can usually pull off the victim scheme much easier than men, it doesn't mean that all women do so. Nor does it even mean that men don't have their own schemes.

 

 

[swansont]

7 hours ago, Gees said:

 Not sure about that. Ashley Judd came out against Weinstein, and she is very much a power broker. There was another women on one of the talk shows, who was some TV personality. She stated that she had problems with her boss repeatedly and could not get him to drop the harassment even though she was married. I remember wondering why she didn't send her husband in to talk to him.

"Problems with her boss" is a clear example of a man in power, so I don't see how this rebuts what I said. Sending in her husband doesn't really change the dynamic if she fears getting fired or ostracized by complaining.

Without details it's impossible to intelligently comment on any of these examples.

7 hours ago, Gees said:

 Have you considered that it may not be "men in power"? That it might also be the superficial society that we live in?

Are any of the men in question not men in positions of power and prestige?

If a man harassed his boss, you don't think he would fear for his job? The power structure is there, and it is (and has been) dominated by men.

7 hours ago, Gees said:

Do you really believe that the TV news anchors are the best reporters? Or are they the best reporters that could be had for the money that was offered and that had the correct image for the news broadcast? Let's face it, Jimmy Durante would not have made it in entertainment in this climate -- and what a loss that would have been. Abe Lincoln could never be President now. He may have been brilliant, but he was God awful ugly. He would be lucky to win a seat on a Town Council.

I don't see the relevance. I think less-than-attractive men get jobs because they are good at what they do, but women have an additional hurdle of needing to look good (among other things) to be considered for the ones you describe.

7 hours ago, Gees said:

Grandma told me that hat pins were a woman's greatest weapon because they were always available. Do you really think that a woman would not use it?

And? Did hat pins so away with harassment and rape? I think the answer is no.

7 hours ago, Gees said:

This is not a valid comparison. Being burglarized is very much like someone coming into your home and raping you -- a clear crime.

You miss the point. A victim of rape is often questioned for her choices of where she was and what she was wearing, if she was "asking for it" etc., which does not happen to burglury victims.

7 hours ago, Gees said:

What we are discussing is more like a fool, who gets high and walks in a bad part of town with hundred dollar bills hanging out of his pockets. Yes. The police would take a report, but would they try to prosecute? Not likely.

I'm sorry, are you painting rape victims as "asking for it"? Or is this just really awkwardly worded, because you missed the point.

7 hours ago, Gees said:

Do you know why we have a Bill of Rights? Because many of the States would not ratify the Constitution because it too easily could become mob rule and individual rights could be disregarded. What is the difference between mob rule and the Court of Public Opinion?

Eliminating court of public opinion would be wonderful, because then women would not be systematically dismissed when they raised the issue of harassment and assault. People would not rush in to defend the perpetrators based on things that had nothing to do with the behavior.

[iNow]

1 hour ago, Raider5678 said:

Click this first^

Please summarize what's it in the video. Depending on your description, I will consider viewing it and offering comment, but not until.

Edited December 13, 2017 by iNow

[fiveworlds]

Quote

but thinking that training could at least separate out some of these problems.

That's the nature vs nurture dilemma all over again. But I certainly think it is harder for men to find women, most of the time they have to ask many women out and never ever get asked out and that leads to women getting a lot of unwanted attention and an inflated ego.

[Gees]

Apparently I am limited in the number of + votes that I can give out daily, so some of you will have to wait. But I would like to take this opportunity to thank everyone who took the time to read this thread and then post a response. Even if I do not always agree with you, your input is valued.

 

Fiveworlds;

On ‎12‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 5:59 PM, fiveworlds said:

Obviously not. I'm reminded of a case I read online not so long ago about Amherst college. 

Amherst had no evidence the girl hadn't provided consent other than her word yet the boy was expelled because they believed her. It turned out that the guy in question was raped from what I read the girl took advantage of him after drugging him and taking him back to his girlfriend's bedroom then told everyone he raped her. http://reason.com/blog/2015/06/11/amherst-student-was-expelled-for-rape-bu

The guy in question still hasn't a degree his entire career has suffered as a result of how Amherst handled the case.

You make a very good point. There are two reasons why I find this evidence disturbing. The first is that the general public sees women as being "good" and men as being "bad", but business often sees men as being "good" and women as being "bad". The second reason is that when there are problems or misunderstandings, the Courts that handle these problems are Civil Courts -- not criminal Courts. 

Civil Courts are courts of equity -- fairness. Criminal Courts are courts of law for judging and punishing criminals. Civil and criminal laws have different standards, written right into the laws, for judging the cases. Everyone knows about, "beyond a reasonable doubt", which is the standard in murder cases in criminal law, and it means 95+ percent sure. But there is also "clear and convincing evidence", which is also used in some criminal cases, and it means 75 percent sure. But in Civil law, the standard is almost always "a preponderance of evidence", which means more likely than not, or 50+ percent sure.

I pulled the following quote from the Amherst link that you provided: "Since AS [the female] said she withdrew consent at some point during the sexual act, and since Doe couldn’t challenge that recollection, the panel was at least 50.01 percent inclined to believe the accuser’s tale." So even though the article called it "rape", clearly the panel that judged this matter was using the Civil Court's standard for judging this case. Why wasn't it prosecuted as a crime? Was it actually rape, or was it sexual assault? I don't know, as the media does not always make distinctions, or maybe even understand the distinctions. This case makes no sense. If it was an actual crime, it should have been passed off to a prosecutor. Actually, Doe should have AS arrested, now that the evidence is out, and then sue her little butt for messing up his career. (chuckle)

Back to my point, in Civil cases there is often little or no physical evidence, just testimony, so it becomes a matter of: Who do you believe? That makes these matters a liar's paradise. Because of their biases, the general public will believe her and the business world will believe him. Hence the problem.

 

Strange;

On ‎12‎/‎11‎/‎2017 at 6:30 AM, Strange said:

These things may be changing now, with the publicity generated by Weinstein and others. And there is, of course, a danger of it swinging too far the other way, where there accused is assumed to be guilty. I'm not sure that is too big a problem (once the hysteria of the scummier end of journalism has died down).

But, anyway, wouldn't that bring it in to line with most other crimes? I think most people assume that if someone is accused, arrested, brought to court, etc, that they are guilty. It is often thought to be some sort of miscarriage of justice if they are acquitted.

Wouldn't that change, "innocent until proven guilty" to "innocent until accused"?

I knew a man who had trouble with police all of his life. It did not matter what the circumstances were, they were sure that he was at fault. One day, when he was in his early 50's, a police officer called him a "deserter". He said, "What do you mean 'deserter'? I have never been in the military." It was at that point that he learned why the police seemed to have it in for him. His record said that he was a deserter, which they did not take kindly to. 

The truth is that at 17 years of age, he was arrested for desertion. They told him that he was being arrested because he deserted right after basic training. He laughed and said he was never in the service and asked how they thought he had regrown his hair, which was half-way down his back. They arrested him anyway and held him for two days until the MP's came from the local base, took one look at him, and had him released. Apparently an old friend had used his ID to join the service, just in case he wanted to back out. It was a frustrating and humiliating experience, but he thought it was over. He had no idea that he had to "expunge" his record and thought it would just not be there because he was innocent.

You have to pay an attorney to expunge your record, at least in Michigan, and many attorneys will not do it. In this day of computers, the record is downloaded and diversified so fast that it is almost impossible to get all of it removed. Unless you have it done almost immediately, there is little point. So only wealthy people, who have attorneys available, have clean records -- or people who have never been accused.

 

Swansont;

On ‎12‎/‎11‎/‎2017 at 10:14 AM, swansont said:

For harassment, probably yes. AFAIK these issues are handled locally and do not involve the authorities. (e.g. in lots of cases it would be reported to human resources. They still report to the higher-ups)

For assault, you still have the institutional and social pressures even when a criminal act has taken place and could be investigated by police, so until those are removed, such crimes will probably be vastly under-reported.

Do you think it would be helpful if Human Resources were required to pass the complaints on to a neutral party that could keep statistical records? Much like hospitals are required to keep statistics on patient falls, needle pokes, tuberculosis, etc. Then if a trend is discovered, it might be able to instigate an investigation? Or do you think it would just discourage complaints altogether?

 

Phi for All;

On ‎12‎/‎11‎/‎2017 at 2:39 PM, Phi for All said:

And there is also the persistent and contrary myth that men just can't help themselves. I blame the biblical story of Sampson and Delilah for a lot of it. The man/hero is so strong and virile and powerful, except when it comes to women, then he can't help himself and is undone. If the story had ended with him being killed for his weakness and stupidity, we probably wouldn't have so many Christians going along with the idea of a strong, famous man who can't keep his pants on. But the writers have Sampson regain his strength and defeat his enemies in the end, so we're left with an image of heroic virility tinged by a weakness even God will forgive eventually. Women are portrayed as openly conniving and treacherous in this story, while Sampson is a justifiable idiot who got the girl and became an icon of strength instead of gullibility.

This made me laugh!! But seriously, have you considered the story of Lot? Lot was the guy, who was fleeing Sodom and Gomorrah. His wife looked back because she missed her evil ways and turned into a pillar of salt, but he made it out with his two virginal daughters. When he found his people, his daughters were both pregnant. He explained this by stating that his daughters loved him so much that they got him drunk and seduced him so as to carry on his line. Bullshit. Whatever the true story is, what struck me was that he had no problem stating that he had had sex with his daughters.

This bothered me, so I looked in the Books of Law, Leviticus and Deuteronomy. There are whole lists of women that a man can not have sex with; such as, a sister, a mother, a brother's wife, a mother's sister, etc., it even states what is required if you have sex with a slave and that slave becomes pregnant. But it does not state that you can not have sex with your daughter. It says to "not make a whore of her", but does not forbid sex. So what does that mean? You can have her, but not pass her around? Then you must find someone to marry her?

My point is that there seems to be a long history of men being allowed to have a female that is under their domain or control. This is not new and was part of the problem that brought down Freud. His study of women's psychotic episodes and depression brought out the information that many of them had been sexually abused at an early age -- mostly be family members. Publishing his work almost stopped his career, but it exposed the problem and brought out a lot of information that we are using now.

Gee

 

[swansont]

6 hours ago, Gees said:

 Do you think it would be helpful if Human Resources were required to pass the complaints on to a neutral party that could keep statistical records? Much like hospitals are required to keep statistics on patient falls, needle pokes, tuberculosis, etc. Then if a trend is discovered, it might be able to instigate an investigation? Or do you think it would just discourage complaints altogether?

Possibly — it would be harder to cover up — but you would need to set up this neutral 3rd party. And this doesn't solve the issue of retaliation.

I know the government/military has set up their system so that the people responsible for investigation are not in (or do not report via) the chain of command, which makes it harder to quash investigations.

[Raider5678]

19 hours ago, iNow said:

Please summarize what's it in the video. Depending on your description, I will consider viewing it and offering comment, but not until.

Summarization:

It is a 2 second video(exactly, not an exageration) of a man going "Hahahahahahahaha"

It's awesome, and a laugh I wish I could reproduce on my own.

[swansont]

21 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

 

https://www.law.umich.edu/newsandinfo/features/Pages/starr_gender_disparities.aspx

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/11/men-women-prison-sentence-length-gender-gap_n_1874742.html

https://journalistsresource.org/studies/government/criminal-justice/courts-lenient-sentencing-bond-women

 

 

Good god man, that is far, far, FAR from even being remotely close to the truth.

How is the length of prison sentences for women who have been convicted of crimes relevant to this discussion on sexual harassment and assault aimed at women?

[Raider5678]

20 hours ago, swansont said:

 

3 minutes ago, swansont said:

How is the length of prison sentences for women who have been convicted of crimes relevant to this discussion on sexual harassment and assault aimed at women?

You completely took that out of context. It was, in fact, in response to inow's statement. Where, it makes complete sense and is relevant to the discussion.

[swansont]

13 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

You completely took that out of context. It was, in fact, in response to inow's statement. Where, it makes complete sense and is relevant to the discussion.

"daughters not having to fear horny older men or a system that disbelieves them by default when bad things happen" is in the context of sexual assault. Your response ignores that context.

[Raider5678]

5 minutes ago, swansont said:

"daughters not having to fear horny older men or a system that disbelieves them by default when bad things happen" is in the context of sexual assault. Your response ignores that context.

My response was in the context of a system that disbelieves them by default. The statistics I provided included sexual harrassment.

[swansont]

13 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

My response was in the context of a system that disbelieves them by default.

But that removes the context of iNow's statement.

13 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

The statistics I provided included sexual harrassment.

The three articles do not contain "sexual" in the body of the text. All three titles indicate they are about criminal trial sentences, i.e. the woman has been convicted of something. I saw no sexual harassment/assault statistics.

[Raider5678]

2 hours ago, swansont said:

The three articles do not contain "sexual" in the body of the text. All three titles indicate they are about criminal trial sentences, i.e. the woman has been convicted of something. I saw no sexual harassment/assault statistics.

 

It also included how often men are convicted when accused, and how often women are.

The system usually believes the women, whether they are accusing or defending. Hence, not a system that is automatically bent on disbelieving women. Sexual in nature or not.

[iNow]

Thanks for sharing, Raider.

In order to be context relevant, however, we should instead be looking at the metrics relating to how often women are believed when speaking up about sexual harassment and assault versus how often men are believed when denying it (ideally against a backdrop of numbers clarifying times when it actually happened and times when it was a false accusation, but that's a statistic that's obviously quite impossible to find).

Given this, we need to look at motives, and is SO many (most?) of these cases there's simply no good reason for the female to lie (there are exceptions, but I'm referring to the majority), and practically EVERY reason for the male to lie.

[CharonY]

Also, conviction differences tells us nothing about  the likelihood of persecution. In cases of sexual assault and rape there are two major elements. First,is the low rate of actual reports, which is roughly comparable  between males and females (<10%). Regular assault has a reporting rate of ~40% in North America. Second, even after reporting cases, conviction rates are very low for a number of reasons, including lack of evidence and high attrition rates (again, <10%). In other words, victims have a hard time to have perpetrators convicted.

When we look at when charges are actually filed rather than final convictions, we find that (again using Canadian and US statistics) ~20-30% of all reports result in charges (again, not convictions). Interestingly though ~20% of cases are dismissed as unfounded. That is interesting, as depending on study, the estimated rate of false accusations is somewhere between 2-8%. Moreover, the rate of dismissals is higher than e.g. for non-sexual assault (~10%). In other words, sexual assaults allegations, once reported, are dismissed at a higher rate than other crimes.

There are studies looking into these aspects and one (forgot the author) indicate that the characteristics of the victim, more than the circumstances determine whether police starts investigations. This includes judgement of the "moral" character of the victim, rather than, surprisingly, witnesses or injuries. I think the study was limited to a specific region and may not be universal, but it is interesting, nonetheless.

Edited December 14, 2017 by CharonY

[Gees]

Evgenia;

 

On ‎12‎/‎11‎/‎2017 at 4:07 PM, Evgenia said:

Worldwide, 76 % of women are targeted for physical and sexual violence in their life time,at least once. Up to 50% of sexual assaults are committed against girls under 16. In USA 83% of girls aged 12-16 experienced sexual harrasment in schools, in Europe 50% of women experienced unwanted advances or sexual harrasment at work.

No need to be a genius to realise that all the men seem as powerful for a 16 years old girl who just started this life long fight for her rights, body and safety. Even he is not rich and she is not a glamorous beauty. Just normal people living next door to yours. Cause in 2 out of 3 cases these men are familiar to that girls.

It is a men's world. 76% of women suffered = 76% of men caused it, at least once.

And yes, i experienced all of the things am talking about. And yes, statistically proved some of the men registered at this site harmed women and/or made a harassment

That figure "76%" seems a little high to me. I could see 76% for some kinds of sexual harassment along with other forms of violent sexual assault, but am having a little trouble believing that three out of four women I know have been physically and violently assaulted. Where did you get your statistics?

 

StringJunky;

On ‎12‎/‎11‎/‎2017 at 4:22 PM, StringJunky said:

i wonder what the numbers are for men being harassed in their lifetime. From personal experience, women can be just as base and sexually aggressive as men. Maybe not as often but it's not insignificant.

In threads like this, people tend to formulate their opinions based on their personal experience. So I just gotta ask, were you are real hottie in your youth? (chuckle) Or maybe rich? Or maybe in a band? Any of these situations could expose you to unwanted female aggression. I remember being about 14 years old and reading about a girl, who actually mailed herself to the Beatles. I thought it was a pretty bright idea at the time.

Did you report being harassed? Somehow I don't think so, which would be why the "numbers" are not reflective of reality. Men don't tend to think of themselves as victims until a comparison comes up which victimizes them for being men, then they say, "Me too."

 

Swansont;

On ‎12‎/‎13‎/‎2017 at 7:41 AM, swansont said:

"Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination that violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964." (applies in the US, obviously)

https://www.aauw.org/what-we-do/legal-resources/know-your-rights-at-work/workplace-sexual-harassment/

This is Federal law and only relevant to "workplace" situations. It is also a Civil law, so it is a "he said, she said" problem, which is damned difficult to judge. There is a whole array of sexual issues that would be legislated at the State level and would include rape, sexual assault, child molesting, stalking, and other forms of harassment. Some of them would be criminal, some of them would be civil, depending on the laws as written.

In Michigan, we have a law that is referred to as the Statutory Rape law. It states that if anyone has sexual relations with a person under the age of 16, it is rape, per the Statute of Law -- consent is irrelevant. After sending a lot of 17, 18, and 19 year old boys to prison for many years, we have revised that law to make allowances for teens, who have consensual sexual relations when the girl is less than 16. Most of the boys were sent to prison because the girl's parents did not like the match. Laws like this also skew the statistics, because some of this is not actual rape -- some is.

I know that all States do not have the same limitations, because my husband's niece wanted to marry at a young age, but couldn't in Michigan even with her parent's permission. So they went south to marry, maybe Georgia, where she was allowed to marry at her age. They have been together almost 35 years now.

Quote

There was a crime. You even describe it with "uses drugs to seduce" which is rape. So there is no reason for your caveat, and the implications it carries.

There are lots of crimes, but what we were both referring to is the Bill Cosby case. That is Hollywood, not the Senate. I also specifically stated in my OP that: "And now I am watching it again;  Senators are toppling one after the other."

Although sexual harassment is an issue, it is an old issue that has been around for tens of thousands of years, probably going back to cavemen grabbing potential spouses by the hair and pulling them into their caves. I have no hope of being able to resolve this problem and can only suggest ideas that may make it less problematic. 

When I stated that Senators were toppling one after the other, I was thinking about the balance of power. Trump tried to kill Obamacare, but did not succeed. He needed it dead so that he could put through his tax cuts for the rich and famous. He only missed it by . . . one vote? Now it looks like he is going to put through the tax cut anyway, which will nibble away at Obamacare, because we will not be able to afford it. So, I am wondering how much of this media glitz on sexual harassment is coincidental, and how much of it is a distraction, like a magician, who says look at this hand, while the other hand is doing the magic. Has there been a power change in the Legislature? Does he now have the votes he wants?

I know that Moore, a Republican, did not step down. John Conyers, a very powerful Democrat, did step down -- he was on a lot of Boards and Commissions. Some guy in Arizona stepped down because he asked co-workers to surrogate his and his wife's baby, which is not illegal or immoral. But I do wonder how he got the five million dollars that he promised the woman to be a surrogate -- I didn't think the Senate paid that well. If Senators can be toppled this easily, then it would not take much to get the others in line just by hinting at impropriety. This is what I am worried about. Of course, after this is over, Democrats may well take over the House and Senate, but will Trump really care? Doubt it.

So my thoughts are, who is running the country? The Russians and the Me Too media glitz, or "We the people"?

 

Quote

I have no idea what you mean by this. There is no age restriction on rape.

The "age of rape" is not a restriction, it is more of a warning. Statistics showed that girls turning into women are most susceptible to rape. Why? Because they have spent all of their time and experience trying to learn how to attract a male, and have had no practice in handling him once attracted. It is like when driving a car, you have to learn to use the accelerator before you can learn to use the brake. This is why laws and cultures generally protect young women -- or Ladies in Training.

 

iNow;

On ‎12‎/‎13‎/‎2017 at 12:56 PM, iNow said:

The fact that women no longer feel alone or isolated in these exchanges. The fact that they're finally being treated seriously and not dismissed or shamed or victim blamed. The fact that people are tired of "ugly" men having all the power, and... to be clear... I'm not referring here to physical traits or indicators of fertility. There are other reasons, but those are some.

Completely tangential and irrelevant to the points I actually made, to the point of being an outright strawman.

If my point was unclear, please request I clarify it and I will happily do so. In return, please don't assume that I hold such remedial concepts about the need for equality across the sexes.

Women still feel alone and isolated, because that is the nature of women. You can not "blame" a "victim" unless you are sure it is a "victim" -- that is the problem. You can not assume that the female is the victim, just because she is the female.

Men divide up the world and women organize the pieces. Which part of "It has always been that way. It will always be that way." did you miss?

Maybe your point was not clear. You spent time talking about the black v white issue, about homosexuals, and about the men v women issue. I took that to mean you were talking about inequality. Please clarify.

 

CharonY;

On ‎12‎/‎14‎/‎2017 at 5:08 PM, CharonY said:

Also, conviction differences tells us nothing about  the likelihood of persecution. In cases of sexual assault and rape there are two major elements. First,is the low rate of actual reports, which is roughly comparable  between males and females (<10%). Regular assault has a reporting rate of ~40% in North America. Second, even after reporting cases, conviction rates are very low for a number of reasons, including lack of evidence and high attrition rates (again, <10%). In other words, victims have a hard time to have perpetrators convicted.

When we look at when charges are actually filed rather than final convictions, we find that (again using Canadian and US statistics) ~20-30% of all reports result in charges (again, not convictions). Interestingly though ~20% of cases are dismissed as unfounded. That is interesting, as depending on study, the estimated rate of false accusations is somewhere between 2-8%. Moreover, the rate of dismissals is higher than e.g. for non-sexual assault (~10%). In other words, sexual assaults allegations, once reported, are dismissed at a higher rate than other crimes.

There are studies looking into these aspects and one (forgot the author) indicate that the characteristics of the victim, more than the circumstances determine whether police starts investigations. This includes judgement of the "moral" character of the victim, rather than, surprisingly, witnesses or injuries. I think the study was limited to a specific region and may not be universal, but it is interesting, nonetheless.

I suspect that it is universal. Even rape kits, if they are processed, don't always help, as they only show that an exchange of fluids has happened and maybe give evidence of "rough" sex. But was it rough consensual sex, or was it rape? People will say, of course it was rape as no one would want that done to them. But then we must consider things like, "50 Shades of Grey". That book, movie, is about an extremely wealthy, very handsome, narcissistic man, who likes to abuse and beat little, brown-haired, blue-eyed women. And there are women in the book who like to participate. You could say that it is only fiction and not a reflection of real life, but I would counter that a lot of women bought that book. Sales skyrocketed, so whether or not women would want that done to them, they certainly liked reading about it.

Arguments like this make it very difficult to prosecute a case, so I suspect that is why many are dismissed. If the female were under age, or elderly, or a nun, we would have no problem getting a conviction. If the woman were a prostitute or a lonely woman, who spends too much time in bars, it would be almost impossible to prosecute. Knowing the woman's moral values, or even her relationship to the assailant can sometimes help, but it is still difficult.

Prevention has always been the most successful in stopping this problem; Daddies with shotguns and a moral society, but morality took a hit when religion took a hit. Prevention can also put women into little pigeon holes where they are safe, but not necessarily happy. With women joining the work force and going into occupations where they never were before, there are going to be problems. We will have to find a way to work them out.

Gee

[swansont]

5 hours ago, Gees said:

Swansont;

This is Federal law and only relevant to "workplace" situations. It is also a Civil law, so it is a "he said, she said" problem, which is damned difficult to judge. There is a whole array of sexual issues that would be legislated at the State level and would include rape, sexual assault, child molesting, stalking, and other forms of harassment. Some of them would be criminal, some of them would be civil, depending on the laws as written.

You asked "what constitutes sexual harassment" and I gave the definition/description. The difficulty of judgement depends on the case. But patterns emerge, because a lot of harassment is from serial harassers. It's a federal law, so it can be enforced everywhere. And yes, it's workplace. It's not harassment (legally speaking) in other situations, which is why the various objections that pop up about asking people out on dates is moot. 

There are state laws agains various forms of sexual assault. There is no "would be". The laws already exist.

Quote

In Michigan, we have a law that is referred to as the Statutory Rape law. It states that if anyone has sexual relations with a person under the age of 16, it is rape, per the Statute of Law -- consent is irrelevant. After sending a lot of 17, 18, and 19 year old boys to prison for many years, we have revised that law to make allowances for teens, who have consensual sexual relations when the girl is less than 16. Most of the boys were sent to prison because the girl's parents did not like the match. Laws like this also skew the statistics, because some of this is not actual rape -- some is.

And the point of this is? The events that precipitated this discussion do not involve a 16 yo boy with a 15 yo girlfriend.

Quote

 There are lots of crimes, but what we were both referring to is the Bill Cosby case. That is Hollywood, not the Senate. I also specifically stated in my OP that: "And now I am watching it again;  Senators are toppling one after the other."

You said "if there was no actual crime" and then give Cosby as an example. That was a crime.

If you're going to be an apologist for this, you need better examples.

Quote

Although sexual harassment is an issue, it is an old issue that has been around for tens of thousands of years, probably going back to cavemen grabbing potential spouses by the hair and pulling them into their caves. I have no hope of being able to resolve this problem and can only suggest ideas that may make it less problematic. 

So has murder. Being an old issue in no way condones it.

Quote

When I stated that Senators were toppling one after the other, I was thinking about the balance of power. Trump tried to kill Obamacare, but did not succeed. He needed it dead so that he could put through his tax cuts for the rich and famous. He only missed it by . . . one vote? Now it looks like he is going to put through the tax cut anyway, which will nibble away at Obamacare, because we will not be able to afford it. So, I am wondering how much of this media glitz on sexual harassment is coincidental, and how much of it is a distraction, like a magician, who says look at this hand, while the other hand is doing the magic. Has there been a power change in the Legislature? Does he now have the votes he wants?

I think politics has very little to do with this. Women are seeing that they are not alone, and will have support, so some are coming forward. The Weinstein case has shown this. One of the reasons women tend not to come forward is they think they are the only victim, and the tendency for them to be attacked for making an accusation. Realizing that they aren't alone gives them some more courage. Plus, when a serial harasser denies ever harassing anyone, they tends to anger the victims. They often step forward when that happens.

Quote

Some guy in Arizona stepped down because he asked co-workers to surrogate his and his wife's baby, which is not illegal or immoral.

It was inappropriate behavior. Not immoral? He wanted them to conceive the "old-fashioned" way! (i.e. he wanted to have sex with someone who wasn't his wife).   

Quote

 The "age of rape" is not a restriction, it is more of a warning. Statistics showed that girls turning into women are most susceptible to rape. Why? Because they have spent all of their time and experience trying to learn how to attract a male, and have had no practice in handling him once attracted. It is like when driving a car, you have to learn to use the accelerator before you can learn to use the brake. This is why laws and cultures generally protect young women -- or Ladies in Training.

How is this the girls' fault? It shouldn't be an issue if the boys are taught about consent. But that's not the message that society sends.

(ignoring the rather dated, sexist view you present)

 

 

[iNow]

9 hours ago, Gees said:

Which part of "It has always been that way. It will always be that way." did you miss?

I missed nothing, though realize perhaps you're missing a part... The part where we have the power to change things for the better, much like we did for civil rights and suffrage and child labor.

[CharonY]

10 hours ago, Gees said:

Arguments like this make it very difficult to prosecute a case, so I suspect that is why many are dismissed. If the female were under age, or elderly, or a nun, we would have no problem getting a conviction. If the woman were a prostitute or a lonely woman, who spends too much time in bars, it would be almost impossible to prosecute. Knowing the woman's moral values, or even her relationship to the assailant can sometimes help, but it is still difficult.

First, that is a horrible stance implying that only certain people are worthy of protection. Second, it is not even true that those groups you listed are better protected. Just taking an example of Arapaio's office again (as this one was one of few that had a thorough investigation) we find there was a pattern of ignoring victims of sexual abuse, including minors.

Quote

On August 23, 2006, for example, Francisca Vasquez called El Mirage police to report that her 26-year-old cousin had impregnated her 13-year-old daughter. [...]

The routine at that time, because of the MCSO contract, was to turn over such a case to Arpaio's Special Victims Unit, also called the sex-crimes unit. You'd think such a case would be easily solved with a paternity test. But the case wasn't worked by Arpaio's officers and was returned to El Mirage after the town ended its contract with the MCSO in October 2007.

Quote

On March 1, 2007, an 11-year-old girl at El Mirage Elementary School told friends that her grandmother's live-in boyfriend had sexually assaulted her two years earlier, when she was 9. [...]

The case was assigned to the MCSO sex-crimes unit, where it languished. It was put on permanent hold by El Mirage in 2008 after police couldn't find the family. Had the numerous leads been followed quickly, the assailant might well be behind bars now.

Quote

Such cases aren't always clear-cut. Victims sometimes don't tell the truth. But serious allegations of violent crimes must be investigated, for the safety of the community. And under Joe Arpaio's watch, that seldom was the case with sex crimes.

Levalya Beyart, a social worker and single mother who wanted her name used in this article, remembers the horror she felt when she opened the front door of her modest home in a gated community in El Mirage on July 11, 2007. Her mentally challenged 13-year-old daughter, who had been home alone, was "walking around in a daze," she told New Times. The girl was naked from the waist down, and her body was scratched and bruised. The living room was "torn up," says Beyart. "You could tell there had been some kind of struggle." [...]

Records show that it quickly was assigned to detectives from the MCSO sex-crimes unit — who never even bothered to interview Beyart's daughter.

Police should never decide whether to follow up an investigation based on their (no doubt biased) opinion of the victims. As it stands, it is obvious that if you are from a low social group and/or are perceived not morally pristine (whatever that may mean) you are denied the protection that you are entitled to. I would think that it would be trivial to agree that the system has to change but apparently there are folks out there who still put the blame on the victims.

 

Quote

Prevention has always been the most successful in stopping this problem; Daddies with shotguns and a moral society, but morality took a hit when religion took a hit. Prevention can also put women into little pigeon holes where they are safe, but not necessarily happy. With women joining the work force and going into occupations where they never were before, there are going to be problems. We will have to find a way to work them out.

That is beyond silly. The rate of rape has dropped to about a third to the rate in the 70s. Religiosity offers no protection whatsoever, especially considering that serious abuse has happened in religious institutions. And also let me be clear: if you look at historic rates we see that rape and sexual abuse rates have, at best, an inverse relationship with female participation in the workforce.  Again, you are trying to shift blame to victim's choices.

 

[John Cuthber]

12 hours ago, Gees said:

morality took a hit when religion took a hit.

Meanwhile, back in reality...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_cases

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglican_Communion_sexual_abuse_cases

and so on.