sexual advances - the big question

"She is now a lecturer at Oxford University, so clearly her career was not destroyed by the incident."
I love the double standard - when a woman is successful, it means that she has had no ostacles in her way. No doubt were her career stagnating in the doldrums, it would mean that she was never up to much and is now complaining because of sour grapes.

Have to say I am a bit at all these lib dem related things coming to light all at the same time. Wouldn't have anything to do with a general election in a couple of years' time would it?

Duchesse,

He was a bigwig in the Libdems and she was his junior. Not sure whether it was a paid position but, on the other hand, she did not want to deliberately cause offence. He was definitely treading on very dangerous ground but, on the other hand, he did not imply any reward or threaten any consequence were she to rebuff him. Of course, she might have felt it was implicit.

She is now a lecturer at Oxford University, so clearly her career was not destroyed by the incident. Her "reason" for bringing it up 10 years later is that he is now involved in training again. The fact that it was on the eve of a by election was, apparently, entirely coincidental. She has also subsequently claimed that it was much more than a touch on the knee, although that was how she first described it to the media. I don't think any of us will ever know the truth but his career will never recover now, even though he has strongly denied all the allegations against him, and the media seems to think the fact that he is fat and ugly is all the proof required (check out every picture of him they have chosen to use and the overly physical descriptions of him). I am no fan of his and suspect that he well overstepped the mark. OTOH, I do think that allegations coming up 10 years after events and at a politically expedient time should not be allowed to destroy someone, especially not without proper investigation first.

Larry, I am not one of the people who wanted to call you Lazzer. Messing about with someone's name to make it into a derogatory diminutive is not my style. However I note that you are acutely conscious of the power relations inherent in this where it applies to you, and resist being diminished; however, when it is something that is systemically applied to women, it is trivial, and "just a computer" (no it isn't just computers that do this, but if it were, computers are programmed by people and are part of how institutions treat women).

The blurring of the boundaries between sexual advances and sexual assault is a deliberate thing done by those who like to do the latter but can then pretend if necessary that it was "only" the former. It is not something invented by people on this thread. This thread is important because it is making this problem explicit. If you are listening. You are not.

Lord Rennard apparently sat uncomfortably close to that woman all evening after a conference, and when she tried to retire to bed to get away from him he suggested going with her, at which point she said that she was going to the loo first, expecting he'd get the message. When she came out of the loo, he was there waiting for her.

I feel that if she'd said "no, I'm going alone" when he suggested going with her he might have been more likely to get the message sooner but for some reason the woman in question didn't feel able to say that. I think her career depended on him in some way, didn't it?

Promqueen,

Yes it is. However, I don't think any of the experiences described recently on this thread, such as grabbing someone's body with no invitation, or grinding an erection against an unwilling woman are in this grey area at all. They are clearly harrassment/assault.

The original thread was inspired by the BBC programme, which was in turn inspired by the Libdem scandal which was about a touch on the knee during a dinner party and inviting someone back to one's hotel room (AFAIK).

This thread has gradually morphed from being about sexual advances to sexual assault. We then get the "I believe you" and "I'm so sorry" from one internet stranger to another. I guess if it comforts it serves a purpose but it is not really the discussion intended by the OP. I don't think you will find a single person on MN who will condone sexual assault. And if they do, they will be banned.

The original discussion was quite interesting.

Curryeater,

I have never been on a name thread although I do think it is petty being resentful about a computer generated address on an envelope. I am frequently (erroneously) referred to as Miss or Mrs on arbitrary junk mail. I really can't get too excited about a computer. If you want to call me Lazzer, fine, I don't mind at all, as long as I can call you Cuzzer or something similar.

I agree SGB - at least I hope so!

I've been groped at a gig where there was a mosh pit. Everyone so close together that I couldn't even turn around to see who did it. Yuck. I've never been particularly traumatised by the incident but it bothers me a bit looking back - I was 16. I thought it was my fault for wearing a short skirt, and it put me off the mosh pit experience which was a shame because I actually really enjoy the whole experience of it, minus the groping part, and it's much cooler to wear skirts because it's like an oven in there.

How ironic that as woman, you would have to go to a super special sexual beat each other club if you want to be safe from groping.

Erm, judging by the responses on that link, this was something dreamed up by some inadequate teenage boy and probably never actually done.

Mind you, I have found in the past that the one place you can be pretty sure a groper will be thrown out of is a BDSM club.

It's fucking horrendous on so many levels. I would expect people "playing" it to be kicked out of any establishment but I bet they don't. It is sexual harassment, not just the harmless fun it's painted to be by some.

I hadn't heard of that either.

How vile

WTAF?!

erm sorry to be so terribly not with-it (adjusts lorgnette) but what is fat girl rodeo?

I wish men who groped and harassed women were usually kicked out of pubs and parties. That would be logical. They're insulting the other guest(s) and they ruin the mood, not the woman who complain about it. The guy started the negativity with his behaviour. Wouldn't it be in the interest of most fun social gatherings to have people who do not harass and physically assualt others?
It's not fun to go out if you're supposed to tolerate any sort of crap and have no one to complain to or support you is it?

The question is, why don't they? If everyone did, they'd soon stop. My guess is that their self-esteem will not permit it. Because these bastards on overweight women, they are also preying on their insecurities in a world that permits no deviation from perfect for women. There is so much wrong with this, it is so abusive on so many levels, that the blokes involved ought to suffer for doing it.

Did it occur to anybody that this new "Fat girl rodeo" craze gives the victim a golden opportunity to kick the bastards in the nuts really hard?

Ha Ha prom you made me literally lol. I think you will find that everything you suggest is true, and that also, some women like having strange men's hands all over them at a bar, so it would actually be unsisterly of me to suggest that men not do this, because the effect would be that the CERTAINLY EQUALLY NUMEROUS IF NOT MORE NUMEROUS WOMEN WHO DEFINITELY LIKE IT, would be missing out.