To think this isn't sexual assault...

[harerunner]

I saw a story on the BBC about Jenni Hermoso testifying in a sexual assault case about her kiss with Luis Rubiales. Not having seen the kiss, I decided to look at a video of it, a link of which I've put below.

Firstly, i need to say I think sexual assault is extremely serious, and it's appalling how low the conviction rate is for sexual crimes. Men get away with far too much, and it's sickening.

However, in all honesty, i wouldn't class the kiss here as sexual assault. This is a lengthy full body embrace followed by a very brief peck of a kiss.

If something like this is classed as sexual assault, then it surely makes it impossible to initiate anything physical at all without explicit verbal consent.

Surely there's much more to this... i reckon she hated the guy before this incident and this was a way to get him back for other shitty and belittling treatment from him over the years.

AIBU?

If there's 'no level it has to be above' then somebody could be prosecuted for a ribald wink.

I agree. Taking a zero tolerance absolutist approach will lead to these absurdities if there's no attempt to define assault more precisely.... And we're left with those defending the absolutist line saying "well, obviously that's absurd, but you all know what I really mean"...

The problem then is there's a disconnect between statements about what abuse is, and what actually constitutes abuse... and that's something that abusers can and will exploit.

As I said in my previous message, those promoting a simplistic "there's no nuance or further explanation needed, lack of consent is abuse, full stop." are doing women a massive disservice.

yes it is.

Of course a wink is not a sexual assault. Nor is offering your hand for a handshake on meeting someone for that matter.

It is ridiculous comments like yours that make it harder to get people to accept and understand the issue.

Consent is simple.

If so many men don't understand what consent is and what it looks like and so many women are more interested in protecting men and ensuring they continue to push boundaries in some so called 'grey area' than in ensuring they understand and respect consent then that is the problem. That's what needs changing. We can teach people quantum mechanics but we can't teach them body language and situationally appropriate behaviour? That's worrying.

Oh god it's all so hard, the poor men just don't understand, how can we expect them to, we should just let them kiss and touch us and that's fine, don't make a fuss, it's not a 'real' assault... Mind you, there's a woman on this thread who believes that she wasn't really sexually assaulted when a stranger tried to digitally penetrate her so 🤷.

Have you considered that maybe if we as a society understood that such things as physical restraint followed by a forced kiss are completely unacceptable then we wouldn't have women wondering if what happened to them was 'bad enough' to qualify as a "real assault"?

Sexual assault is inappropriate, unwanted physical behaviour of a sexual or intimate nature.

Holding someone by the head in order to kiss them on the lips at a formal event you are attending in a professional capacity is exactly that.

Is the problem that he did it on stage in front of everyone? If he'd waited until after then got her in a corner of the room, grabbed her head and forced a kiss on her lips, would that have looked more like sexual assault to you?

Or is it your view that it is never sexual assault to physically restrain someone in order to kiss them when they have not indicated in any way that they want that to happen?

Thanks... a good video. It's a good example of how we do need to be open to expanding, clarifying and improving some of the often accepted definitions of consent.

@IncompleteSenten

Of course a wink is not a sexual assault. Nor is offering your hand for a handshake on meeting someone for that matter.

Actually, in particular circumstances, I'd argue a wink could be viewed as sexual assault if accompanied by other extenuating factors. If a woman is in a lift with a man who is both her boss and physically stronger than her, and he looks at her in an obviously sexual way and that's accompanied by a slow suggestive wink that's designed to make a woman uncomfortable, that to me would be sexual assault, though it might be one where you'd struggle to get a conviction!

Sexual assault is defined as an act of physical, psychological and emotional violation in the form of a sexual act, inflicted on someone without their consent.
so it's not just physical.

@IncompleteSenten

And that's why we need to have a proper debate about what actually constitutes sexual abuse, and recognise that defining sexual abuse isn't always simple or easy (however much we wish it was).

@IncompleteSenten

We can teach people quantum mechanics but we can't teach them body language and situationally appropriate behaviour? That's worrying.

We can and absolutely should be teaching this, but in the same way that quantum mechanics isn't simple, consent sometimes isn't simple either, and we don't do men and women any services by pretending it's so simple that it can be encapsulated in a couple of aphorisms and a YouTube short.

It's needs proper consideration of all the nuances and "grey areas". That gives us the best chance of society accepting that what Rubiales did was wrong and does constitute sexual assault.

I'd argue your example was sexual harassment

@CatamaranViper

I'd argue your example was sexual harassment

Yes, I think you're right. My point still stands though that a wink isn't necessarily an innocuous gesture that woman should overlook because "it's only a wink".

No one said it should be "overlooked"

You seem very determined to start a debate on what is and isn't sexual assault as if somehow a MN thread is going to have an impact

Many of us are not interested in the debate because we already know what constitutes sexual asaault and consent.

You are acting like until there is some big symposim where every possible action is defined as sexual assault or not then no one will know something is sexual assault. We do know.

In fact your posts and the way you are trying to direct this conversation would only help the people doing the assaulting at this point which makes your motives questionable.

If you struggle this much to understand consent may I suggest you don't have any sexual contact with anyone until you yourself have done the learning to understand it. We are not here to do your mental work for you.

@JustanotherMNSlapperTwat

You seem very determined to start a debate on what is and isn't sexual assault as if somehow a MN thread is going to have an impact Many of us are not interested in the debate because we already know what constitutes sexual asaault and consent.

The problem is it doesn't really matter what you think if that's then lost in a fog of uncertainty and lack of clarity, because what constitutes sexual assault isn't well enough defined. And I don't see how that helps women at all, on the contrary.

It sometimes seems that some posters just want to get angry about these things, and simply remain in that anger, rather than really trying to improve things and engage with the issues. Shouting "men need to stop assaulting women. It's simple!" and leaving it at that, and refusing to engage further because they're clear what they mean, isn't going to do anything, and isn't going to be effective at stopping abusive behaviour.

As for it having an impact... well, by that argument nothing on MN is going to have an impact and "change the world", so MN may as well shut down?!

@JustanotherMNSlapperTwat

If you struggle this much to understand consent may I suggest you don't have any sexual contact with anyone until you yourself have done the learning to understand it. We are not here to do your mental work for you.

I am clear, and outlined my understanding in what I posted in my post last night at 20:01.

The problem js that many people who say they understand what consent is - including those who are the most vociferous defenders of women's rights - don't really seem to understand it well enough to give a good explanation that withstands any real scrutiny, and rely on one-liners and trite statements that may be ok at a superficial level, but lack any substance beneath them. Look at how quickly those who have advocated the "explicit verbal consent" position on this thread have backtracked and re-positioned when it's challenged.

Like the consent apps that might seem great on the surface, they don't cut it when jt comes to real life applications

www.independent.co.uk/life-style/consent-apps-problems-dating-uconsent-sexual-assault-legal-court-a8332706.html

Nope not sexual assault.

I think she was leant on by anti misogynistic movements however and he was a" dead man walking" from the moment he puckered up. He should have been given a right royal bollocking, but that didn't fit the agenda.

Gender politics in football will do nothing to promote the womens game. A shame as some of the technical aspects of play are so much better then the mens.

Some of us will remember certain televised post match celebrations, Random passionate, but not sexual, kisses to the mouth, cheeks and top of head ,larking abound...and worse. To my knowledge no outrage has ever come of that.

As for it having an impact... well, by that argument nothing on MN is going to have an impact and "change the world", so MN may as well shut down?!

Since when was MN here to have an impact and change the world? Its social media not the UN!

What a wierd view you have that some social media forum has to shut down if it doesn't change the world.

If you think sexual assault isn't well enough defined then look to parliament and the law not social media and forums.

@JustanotherMNSlapperTwat

Since when was MN here to have an impact and change the world? It's social media not the UN!

Exactly, that was my point! Obviously it's not! You seem to be determined to interpret my posts in the most negative light possible, even trying to make out I've said the opposite of what I've said! Why so angry?

Why are you reading emotions into facts? thats such a mysoginistic viewpoint to accuse a woman of being "emotional" or "angry" when they say something you don't like and as a mixed race woman it might be something I'm used to but the angry woman/angry black woman trope is so boring by now.

You didn't make your point clearly if you think I was deliberately trying to make out you said the opposite of what you did. I was answering you in good faith based on what I understood you to be saying. You should try the same

However I'm out. I know someone trying to make a simple concept more difficult in order to make it harder to say "it's sexual assault" when I see it. You seem like the kind of poster who likes the last word so go for it. I think it's better this thread die a death now so it doesn't keep feeding your obfuscation so I won't be feeding it.

@JustanotherMNSlapperTwat

If you think sexual assault isn't well enough defined then look to parliament and the law not social media and forums.

The issue isn't the law as such, but how it should be interpreted. I'm not sure why you're so keen to shut down discussion on the subject of consent given how important it is. It almost feels like you don't want things to improve for women, but simply remain angry at those parts of society that don't have precisely the same perspective as you.

@JustanotherMNSlapperTwat

However I'm out. I know someone trying to make a simple concept more difficult in order to make it harder to say "it's sexual assault" when I see it. You seem like the kind of poster who likes the last word so go for it. I think it's better this thread die a death now so it doesn't keep feeding your obfuscation so I won't be feeding it.

Your attitude, and determination to preach rather than discuss, is why so many women are disengaging from feminism.

My aim is the opposite of obfuscation, but to try and make clear what sexual assault is and isn't. You won't get anywhere by simply repeating the slogans more and more loudly!

@JustanotherMNSlapperTwat

Why are you reading emotions into facts? thats such a mysoginistic viewpoint to accuse a woman of being "emotional" or "angry" when they say something you don't like and as a mixed race woman it might be something I'm used to but the angry woman/angry black woman trope is so boring by now

So you're not angry in any way?!

I think she was leant on by anti misogynistic movements

No, I think she got properly pissed off and decided to tell the truth; when he lied about it being planned & consensual (when he was challenged about it). She'd said nothing before then.

I think before you try and define sexual assault for us all on MN, I would suggest you do some actual research e.g., section 3 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 might be a good starting point.

To be honest I don't think this was sexual assault. That doesn't make it acceptable, but it wasn't sexually motivated and he didn't do anything to any private parts.

I think it's over the top that he might come out of this labelled a sex offender. In the long run it makes the general public take sexual assault less seriously.

It seems like there ought to be some other less serious crime for situations like this, like "manhandling" or something that doesn't class the invasive behaviour specifically as a sexual violation.

@jacks90

* My understanding is that: Section 3 makes it an offence for a person (A) intentionally to touch sexually another person (B) without that person's consent, if he does not reasonably believe that B consents.*

In which case, what I've tried to do is consider how this can reasonably be understood and applied in the context of a physical interaction between two people, recognising that people don't operate robotically giving explicit verbal consent every time they change an action.

I'm mystified why you and various others seem so determined to shut down and suppress a discussion on the practicalities of consent? Who does that benefit other than abusers?

Having considered this, I'm not sure I agree, but I can see your point.

But for some, there can be no discussion or debate... Either you unquestioningly accept the "feminist orthodoxy" or you're othered as some kind of misogynist (even if you're a woman!). It's ironic that the element of society that is becoming less and less liberal and intolerant isn't the "right", it's the "left"!

<yawn>