sexual advances - the big question

[BramshawHill]

BBC the big question is currently discussing whether sexual advances should be accepted as a part of life.

The first speaker has said it weakens men and women if women complain about it every time, and that it IS a part of life.

Anyone else watching? Thoughts?

First time posting, hello btw!

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).

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?

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.

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.

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?

"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.

What curryeater said, and at "she did not want to deliberately cause offence" - someone is harassing her and she did not want to cause offence!? Can someone explain how that sort of situation can come about if it is not due to this power hierarchy? And "he did not imply any reward or threaten any consequence were she to rebuff him"!? I think the answer is "He was a bigwig in the Libdems and she was his junior". And following her around not taking a hint? OMG WTAF and all that.

Xpost with Prom Queen. I type too bloody slowly because my fingers are frozen carefully so as to not deliberately give offence.

"It would be OK if he'd done the things he's accused of if he were attractive, wouldn't it? Then all those women would have been flattered."

So, why all the references to his obesity and appearance in the press and from those making the accusations?

"Curry I was about to make exactly the same observation about her career, and also you made the point about 'computers' diminishing women much more articulately than I would have as it makes me so angry (I have been known to splutter incoherently at anyone who points out that it's just "tradition" that nobody calls anybody anything that makes reference to a time when some people were legally allowed to be slaves, even though some names used to be derived in such a way as I understand)."

I think there is a huge difference between when addressing a woman as Miss/Ms/Mrs husband's name is used. In professional life, it is clearly not on as it is diminishing someone's status as an individual, ditto in any dealing which is not social. If it is inviting someone to an "at home", for instance, I think that could be defended as traditional. And if it is merely on an envelope of junk mail, I cannot see why it would be any more offensive than addressing me as "miss" which regularly happens.

"So, why all the references to his obesity and appearance in the press" Sorry can't get too excited about that. Happens to women all the time. I wonder why too every time that happens.

Promqueen,

If you were to actually analyse my posts, I probably agree with 90% of what you and the majority on here write and disagree with 10%. However, the strength of feeling against my small reservations mean that you feel I am arguing passionately against you. I am not and I am listening to what you say.

On the other hand, I do feel that sometimes these boards are eerily reminiscent of animal farm in wanting to replace a flawed society with an equally flawed society, merely changing those who gain unfair advantage. Whenever a woman speaks out against the perceived feminist viewpoint on these boards she is portrayed as brainwashed or a tool of the patriarchy. Whenever a man has any opinion at all, it is a waste of the women's intellectual energy to engage.

Four legs good, two legs bad.

Prom,

How can you be "monstrously" offended by being invited to a wedding (for instance) as MRS DH name. I can see that you could be irked or irritated but "monstrously" offended? Even when you know that the offence is unintended and the sender only feels that they are following tradition and has no personal view that you are in any way lesser?

Promqueen,

I agree with 99% of your last post but it in no way represents the majority of views of people on MN or the feminist boards. I do think that there are areas of life where men and women should be allowed to behave subtly differently but still be perceived as equal. I am not sure most women want absolutely identical roles in society as men, especially in areas such as childcare. In any event, I certainly agree with you that people should have free choice to take any role they want (but should not be pressurised into it, such as a lot of feminists insisting that women are traitors should they choose a role such as SAHM).

For those on this thread that think there is a 'grey area' of sexual assault - there is not.

Definition: Sexual assault covers any sort of sexual contact and behaviour that is unwanted, ranging from touching to any other activity if it is sexual.

There is no grey area, Larry. The word 'unwanted' is the major clue here. If it involves sexual contact, or sexual behaviour and is unwanted, then it is sexual assault.

And if a man isn't sure whether his sexual advances are wanted or not, he shouldn't be making them.

Running,

I don't think that is a realistic definition and not one that really flies. If two people are flirting then someone, at some point, has to take it further. If either person misreads the signals and puts a tentative hand on a knee or tries a gentle kiss, are you really telling me that is sexual assault? Does it also apply to women with men?

I just don't buy the idea (I know some do) of asking verbal permission for everything ("may I kiss you please"). It is funny the way you choose to say "a man" rather than "a person" in the last line. In many social situations, women are not shy at making a pass on a man.

There has to be room for misunderstanding without it becoming assault (clearly at a very low level). I suspect that if every unwanted attempt at a kiss or a hand on an arm/knee were taken to be sexual assault, 90% of the population (male and female) would be behind bars.

Larry "If you were to actually analyse my posts, I probably agree with 90% of what you and the majority on here write and disagree with 10%. "

I don't think I agree with you 90%, unless you count the trivially obvious like "sexual assault is wrong" and "grass is green" (although if I said that, you would probably say that your mother, sister and most of your wide circle of female friends find that grass is a yellowy brown at this time of the year).

The main thing that I think we disagree on, and I think it is very important, is that, although you won't actually come out and state your position, you think that things are pretty much ok. You are alright with the status quo. I'm not. It's unequal. Women are paid less, women get beaten up in relationships more, women do more housework whether or not they WOHM, so, more work overall, and get less financial or other recognition for it. Women are still conventionally required to say whether they are married, and if so, addressed as if they belong to their husbands. Women are less likely to speak in mixed groups, women are subject to social control in the form of sexual power play which can be described as "advances" or "assault", depending on your position at any given moment. Women are controlled by the threat of rape, and many of them are, also, actually raped. Women are constantly patronised and belittled by men who make out that what they are doing is somehow affectionate or caring whereas it is deliberately humiliating. All this is happening right now in this country to women who are otherwise, relatively, globally, privileged. This is not alright by me. the status quo is not ok.

For example,

"I suspect that if every unwanted attempt at a kiss or a hand on an arm/knee were taken to be sexual assault, 90% of the population (male and female) would be behind bars. "

1. I disagree that women make as many physical sexual advances as men (they are socialised to hint that they are willing to enter into something, rather than physically make a move)
2. I do however agree that many men who actually will never be, could be done for sexual assault. And this is one of the things that is not ok, in my view - that society condones something that is by any thought-out definition sexual assault.