Was this sexual assault? What's the appropriate response?

[Rhea]

I think so much depends on the individuals. One of my aunts would just grab us and wrap us up in her arms and say Gimme some sugaras she kissed us on the lips. It never occurred to me that it was creepy or inappropriate.

That’s not universal, though, and in my family would be deeply creepy. So if one of your aunts married into my family, the recipient’s reaction would be that they had been assaulted. It would be waaaay out of line.

Moreover, Katy Perry was not that guy’s Aunt, and the conversation preceding it made it clear that it would not be welcome.

 

[laughing dog]

In the case of the OP and the case of the Katy Perry example, the victim is right to feel violated and NO ONE is entitled to touch them, especially on the mouth.

No one to my knowledge made any claims about what someone is entitled to do. I simply disagree that Ms Perry’s actions are obviously sexual assault.

By entitled, I mean allowed to do that with no consequences.
We do disagree - as someone who has had exactly that happen to me (co-worker surprising me with a kiss on the mouth), it was sexual and it was unwanted. It is so far out of line to me that it deserves attention. Kissing people on the mouth without their consent - and publicly like that! is not okay.

I did not say it was ok. I disagreed that Ms Perry's actions were obviously sexual assault. In my view and experience, kisses may convey sexual intent, affection or reassurance. I am not denying that such actions cannot be sexual assault. Nor do I condone her actions.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

In the OP, I don’t think that either the guy or the girl were acting unreasonably.

The girl’s response was quite a valid one for when some strange guy comes up and starts touching her on a dark street. Calling the cops and getting him arrested for sexual assault is the rational action.

Once that arrest happens, though, the mitigating conditions of his psychological state and the context in which he did it demonstrate how innocuous the action was and any charge more than a warning not to do it again would be over the line.

 

[Metaphor]

Luckily fir Ms Perry, the American public and local law enforcement are not humorless, kneejerk prissy killjoys.

You don't need to tell me that there is a gendered double standard around sexual assault that lets women off the hook more easily that both you and the majority of the American public endorses.

 

[laughing dog]

Luckily fir Ms Perry, the American public and local law enforcement are not humorless, kneejerk prissy killjoys.

You don't need to tell me that there is a gendered double standard around sexual assault that lets women off the hook more easily that both you and the majority of the American public endorses.

I find it fascinating thst you mirror the lack of empathy of the judge you decried. I find your animus/lack of empathy towards womebn boring.

 

[Metaphor]

Luckily fir Ms Perry, the American public and local law enforcement are not humorless, kneejerk prissy killjoys.

You don't need to tell me that there is a gendered double standard around sexual assault that lets women off the hook more easily that both you and the majority of the American public endorses.

I find it fascinating thst you mirror the lack of empathy of the judge you decried. I find your animus/lack of empathy towards womebn boring.

What on earth are you talking about? In what universe have I expressed "animus" towards women?

 

[RVonse]

At the of the linked article, Mr Glaze disavows his earlier comments about the kiss.

Not quite. He says he didn't "feel sexually harassed" but he has not disavowed that the kiss was unexpected and unwanted and unconsented. Even if he had, the event itself was caught on multiple high definition cameras under studio lighting and is the best evidence you could possibly hope for in a case such as this.

Indeed, it is quite obvious Glaze is embarrassed by his romantic inexperience, and doesn't want to get Perry into trouble, and acknowledges that a significant section of society would expect him to regard the sexual assault as something to be desired.

Do the gender swap test: if a male judge had done the same thing to a 20 year old girl who revealed she had never kissed a guy, the outrage would be palpable, immediate, and career-ending.

Neither Glaze's feelings on the matter - shaped as they are by gendered expectations around sexual attention, nor the feelings of the girl from the OP story (who has reacted, in my opinion, in an extremely psychologically dysfunctional way to the two assaults) seem relevant to me (except I suppose for prosecutorial success). Either the situation is sexual assault or it isn't, and the Katy Perry assault was obviously sexual but Glaze's is not obviously so.

At the end of the day, you do have to wonder how touching someones arm became more of a sexual crime than kissing someone on the lips. It seems there exists a lot of double standards in the law these days.

Celebrity and female is the card for doing pretty much anything you want. Being male and/or a little retarded....not so much.

Society used to tend to protect the weakest individuals, but not so much anymore. Unless you call sitting in a jail cell protection.

 

[spikepipsqueak]

Damn. I have to out myself as a humorless, kneejerk prissy killjoy.

What Perry did was a sexual assault. Not least because, like so many other sexual assaults, it was done from a position of power.He had already made the comments about saving himself. She saw fit to override that wish, she put him in a position where he couldn't really protest the unwanted touch and she did it for the entertainment value.

As for the OP, without being in the young man's head at the time, we can't know whether he was socially inept and insensitive or whether he was all that and trying to be intrusive as well. He probably doesn't know for sure himself, but it would be more appropriate to give him some training than a place on a register which would mar the rest of his life.

 

[laughing dog]

I find it fascinating thst you mirror the lack of empathy of the judge you decried. I find your animus/lack of empathy towards womebn boring.

What on earth are you talking about? In what universe have I expressed "animus" towards women?

This one.

 

[Rhea]

Society used to tend to protect the weakest individuals, but not so much anymore. Unless you call sitting in a jail cell protection.

Errrr, no they didn't.

In almost ANY arena, we are better today about caring for the "weakest" individuals than ever before.

• children of abusive parents
• people with limited ability to gain skills
• sick people who are poor
• women
• minorities
• on and on and on.

We are not done, by any stretch. We are not where we want to be yet. But we are monumentally better than we were 30 years ago, 50 years ago, 100 years ago, 500 years ago.

 

[repoman]

When is Garrison Keillor going to be rehabilitated in the public eye? That really stung me and probably a lot of other fans. Not to mention Garrison himself of course.

 

[Rhea]

When is Garrison Keillor going to be rehabilitated in the public eye? That really stung me and probably a lot of other fans. Not to mention Garrison himself of course.

Can you explain a little more what you mean? I started to answer and then I realized I'm not exactly clear on the question...

 

[thebeave]

When is Garrison Keillor going to be rehabilitated in the public eye? That really stung me and probably a lot of other fans. Not to mention Garrison himself of course.

I think he's sought refuge from the mob by living on some lonely, isolated tropical island beach in a grass hut and daily pondering that line from the Talking Heads song..."Well, how did I get here?"

 

[repoman]

Keillor's incident (which was a slight tinge creepy) was more like the OP story and not like Weinstein or Cosby at all. But he got nailed to the wall.

 

[RVonse]

Society used to tend to protect the weakest individuals, but not so much anymore. Unless you call sitting in a jail cell protection.

Errrr, no they didn't.

In almost ANY arena, we are better today about caring for the "weakest" individuals than ever before.

• children of abusive parents
• people with limited ability to gain skills
• sick people who are poor
• women
• minorities
• on and on and on.

We are not done, by any stretch. We are not where we want to be yet. But we are monumentally better than we were 30 years ago, 50 years ago, 100 years ago, 500 years ago.

I agree with children but not the rest of your list. Women and minorities are NOT the weak anymore. As Perry and Bill Cosby have proven to us.

Look at Mary Barra and Oprah Winfrey and and observe that they are anything but powerless.

The OP of this thread is one more example we are wayyy past done.

 

[Toni]

Keillor's incident (which was a slight tinge creepy) was more like the OP story and not like Weinstein or Cosby at all. But he got nailed to the wall.

That’s what I thought for a long time. Then I read a copy of the letter that MPR sent out to its subscribers detailing a much more extensive history of much more serious misconduct. While there were many at MPR who were astonished at the allegations, it appeared that there was a lot more than merely touching someone’s back accidentally. No, it doesn’t rise to the level of allegations against Cosby or Lauer but it was not appropriate workplace behavior.
If you want you can google to find the letter. I’m on my phone now and not able to include quotes so apparently it’s against the rules to just post a link.

 

[Rhea]

Society used to tend to protect the weakest individuals, but not so much anymore. Unless you call sitting in a jail cell protection.

Errrr, no they didn't.

In almost ANY arena, we are better today about caring for the "weakest" individuals than ever before.

• children of abusive parents
• people with limited ability to gain skills
• sick people who are poor
• women
• minorities
• on and on and on.

We are not done, by any stretch. We are not where we want to be yet. But we are monumentally better than we were 30 years ago, 50 years ago, 100 years ago, 500 years ago.

I agree with children but not the rest of your list. Women and minorities are NOT the weak anymore.

So yes, as I said, we are much better today than we were in the past when you claimed we did a "better job."
We did not do a better job protecting the weak in the past, we are doing a better job now.
As I said.


The data does not support your claim that we are now free from oppression (women and minorities).

I know that no facts will change your mind, but for the rest of the people in the discussion and reading: women and minorities still face significant institutional hurdles that, when torn down, will make our society better. These include workplace discrimination, lending discrimination, school discipline discrimination (minorities), school opportunity discrimination (minorities and women), pricing discrimination, law enforcement discrimination (minorities) and justice discrimination.

We have come a very long way, our society. But we have not yet eliminated discrimination and oppression in our society.

As Perry and Bill Cosby have proven to us.

Look at Mary Barra and Oprah Winfrey and and observe that they are anything but powerless.

Of course, the thoughtful debater will understand that having one one thousandth of one percent success anecdote does not equate to elimination of the discrimination.

The OP of this thread is one more example we are wayyy past done.

On the contrary, this OP shows nothing of the sort. It shows that the system still needs to grow to institutionalize the empathy that leads to understanding a situation fully.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/r...7/news-story/79331a2ca766b2b234717e59f0128bdd

A “very anxious” university student who googled “how to make new friends” is facing jail after he touched a 17-year-old schoolgirl on the arm and waist because he was “lonely”.

Jamie Griffiths, 19, a student at Durham University, came into contact with the girl during two encounters as she walked to and from school.

...The 19-year-old will be sentenced later this month and also faces being ordered to sign the Sex Offenders Register.

The offence carries a maximum sentence of 10 years jail if dealt with at a crown court.

‘REALLY WEIRD’
The court heard how the encounters took place between October and November last year.
On the first encounter the girl, now 18, told how she was walking home from school when she saw Griffiths staring at a hedge.
She said: “As I walked towards him, I was watching him and he suddenly swung round so he was facing me.
“I remember it happening fast. As soon as he moved I moved and I said ‘stop’, and he touched me on my arm.
“I sort of jolted out of the way, and I went into the road to avoid him and he very quickly walked away.
“I think it would have been on my breast had I not moved. When it first happened I didn’t think much of it, didn’t click in my head, I just thought ‘that was really weird, why did he touch me?’”
‘TRAUMATIC’
The victim told how she encountered Griffiths again on November 7.
She said: “I was quite far up the road when I noticed him. He is someone who lives in my area, someone I have seen before … I thought I recognised him but I didn’t think it was the person from the first incident at the time.
“It was only when he moved to touch me and looked me in the eyes that I realised it was the same person. The pavement was quite wide but he suddenly moved to walk in front of me, looked me straight in the eye and touches me on my side and walked off.
“It was quite a while — three to five seconds. He smirked at me, he didn’t stop, he just touched me and walked off and I broke down crying in the street — it was quite traumatic.
...Griffiths, who had been volunteering at a charity shop, told the court his intention was to “make a friend”.
He said: “I was lonely … I just wanted to speak to someone.”
The university student added: “She was walking towards me and I recognised her. I didn’t say anything but I really wanted to say something — the words just didn’t come out. I touched her but I believed that it was the arm I was touching.”
Griffiths said he struggled to make friends and had “always been a very anxious person”.
He told the court he’d looked up “how to make new friends” online.
He said: “I have always been more stay-at-home with my parents and loneliness is all consuming. I really needed someone to talk to at the time and my intention was to make a friend — but I clearly didn’t go about it the right way and I am sorry for the misunderstanding.
“I tried to speak to her but I just couldn’t. My anxiety kicks in and it makes it impossible to say anything”.
Griffiths’ lawyer, Claire Aldridge, said: “She did say: ‘I think it would have been on my breast had I not moved’, but what she thinks might have happened isn’t the issue.
“Are you dealing with somebody lying in wait in broad daylight, or are you dealing with an anxious and awkward young man, someone who struggles to make friends by his own admission?
“He is a particularly shy, anxious young man who spends most of his time studying with his parents.”
But prosecutor Victoria Norman said: “The complainant was adamant about what she had suffered and was very frank and honest with this court. He intended to touch her breast area and was waiting for her.
“What rational person looks up ‘how to make a friend’? Even if the defendant is advancing he was just seeking to make a friend, he waits in two areas that are isolated on her route home, he touches her.
“An attempt to make a friendship with anyone surely starts with a hello or a wave.”
Convicting Griffiths, the magistrates told him: “The complainant’s evidence was very clear, logical and without embellishment. We can think of no motivation for you to touch the victim other than sexual.
“Had she not taken evasive action the assault was likely to have been even more serious.
“The first assault can be recognised as opportunistic, however there is more evidence of premeditation in the second.”

I don't understand the prosecutor. What's "irrational" about googling 'how to make a friend'? If you don't know how to do something, why should seeking advice on it be 'irrational'? It seems to me what she really means is "only abnormal people don't know how to make friends--this was the actions of someone who was a sexual predator".

Neither of these actions appear to me to be sexual harassment. At worst they seem like common assault (but barely even that).

Is it right that the student was prosecuted for this? That he goes on a sex offences register?

I am skeptical that the news story has all the pertinent information about the case to form a rational conclusion. The quotes from victim and perpetrator are soundbites and we are not reading a full transcript of testimony with tough questions. Presumably, persons who came to conclusions about it had such extra info.

Also, while I might be inclined to call this attempted sexual assault, rather than sexual assault, the legal conclusion is based on statutes or case law. If it is true that attempted sexual assault is legally sexual assault, then it is not the verdict at issue but instead statutes. Maybe. OR when it says he touched her for 3 to 5 seconds on the side, it is very vague. Does that mean the side next to a breast where nerves create tingling sensations in the breast?

We don't know.

Someone came to the verdict for some reason and we don't have all the info they did.

Now, even so, his story doesn't sound credible at all. It sounds unreasonable. He targeted a young lady and touched her the first time. Hardly a website googled will say to touch someone non-consensually unless it's about flirting but still you'd have to look for social cues that websites would explain. And that first time she moved away and said "STOP."

That first time we could chalk up to a bad mistake. He was looking for romance. The second time after she said stop the first time, it is unreasonable that he was looking for a friend.

I don't think he deserves jail time. I don't think he should be on a register. BASED ON THE LIMITED INFO WE HAVE.

Based on the very limited info we have, the case has appearances. Conclusions could be wrong. For example, it looks to me like this is part of a trend of how we shelter kids. And then they don't know how to deal with each other.

That isn't the only trend going on either. People read a story online, read a couple of quotes, get exposed to limited views in echo chambers and reach conclusions in such chambers. Then get all dramatic about it.

I would want more info about this case before drawing certain conclusions to stand by.

 

[Rhea]

Keillor's incident (which was a slight tinge creepy) was more like the OP story and not like Weinstein or Cosby at all. But he got nailed to the wall.

That’s what I thought for a long time. Then I read a copy of the letter that MPR sent out to its subscribers detailing a much more extensive history of much more serious misconduct. While there were many at MPR who were astonished at the allegations, it appeared that there was a lot more than merely touching someone’s back accidentally. No, it doesn’t rise to the level of allegations against Cosby or Lauer but it was not appropriate workplace behavior.
If you want you can google to find the letter. I’m on my phone now and not able to include quotes so apparently it’s against the rules to just post a link.

You can post a link, you just have to give context on what is in it and a description. It doesn't have to be a quote from the link - you've already described enough above to meet the expectation.

 

[Rhea]

Now, even so, his story doesn't sound credible at all. It sounds unreasonable. He targeted a young lady and touched her the first time. Hardly a website googled will say to touch someone non-consensually unless it's about flirting but still you'd have to look for social cues that websites would explain. And that first time she moved away and said "STOP."

To me this story sounds exactly as I would expect a story to sound if he has Autism.