The Behavior Americans Count as Sexual Harassment

[Josiah]

"In fact, three in 10 American adults (29%) tell Barna they have been sexually harassed. Women in this group report experiencing it almost three times more than men (42% vs 16%). Younger generations also report harassment at a higher rate: Millennials (31%) and Gen X (35%) are twice as likely as Elders (16%) to say they have been sexually harassed, with Boomers somewhere in the middle (26%). A further 15 percent of all adults say they have witnessed sexual harassment, and almost one-quarter (23%) says someone they know well was sexually harassed. However, the majority of American adults (52%) says they have not encountered sexual harassment in any of these ways"

rest of the article here
https://www.barna.com/research/behaviors-americans-count-as-harassment/

are you surprised by these numbers?

I find it troubling - both as a human and as a man.


1. PART of the problem is the definition. WHAT, exactly, is "sexual harassment?" Part of the problem is that it's probably not possible to give an exact, all-embracing definition.... yet without it, how do men or women KNOW what "it" is? "It" seems largely subjective: being WHATEVER a woman - at the time or up to half a century later - FEELS is offensive or inappropriate. Hard to get a handle on that.... for men or women.... for churches or companies or schools or the courts.


2. PART of this is one symptom of the POWER thing that is in many ways is central to sin. Humans play power games.... sin says the one with the most power may exercise it over those with less (often with impunity). It's why abortion is supported, it's why many "winked" at slavery, its why some Germans permitted Hitler to murder 6 million plus, why Stalin did even worse. SIN says the one with power may abuse those with less. The kind of issues we see in animals applies to us too. It's an aspect of SIN and we are COMMANDED to work against it, to defend the weaker, to speak up for those who cannot speak up for themselves. For some, sexual harassment has as much to do with "because I can" than it does with sex, as much to do with establishing the "pecking order" than satisfying some biological itch. We like to avoid this aspect because we all tend to play this POWER game and we'd need to address other aspects of it (including abortion, war, treatment of the homeless, etc.)


3. It works the other way, too. I'm one of those 35% who has been on the receiving end of sexual harassment. Yes, women often feel power over some man, too.... and conclude this gives them the power over him in this area, too. My position at the time made me feel too powerless to say or do a thing about it (I was a teen at the time) and so I decided my only option was to move on (which is what I did). The POWER milieu of all this causes this.


4. Sex is a big thing, lol. We may not even be aware of how it impacts our lives and interpersonal relationships. When I was a teen, my older sis often noted how obviously (and rather largely) flirted.... and HONESTLY, I was nearly always unaware I was doing it. A pretty girl entered the picture and..... well..... lots of big stuff just kicked in, lol. IMO, our interpersonal relations are often more sexual than we realize (and perhaps even intend). Becoming aware of this is the first and largest step in not allowing this to be inappropriate. But (as one who was single for some years).... we all know it can be hard to evaluate this. We ALL have had a LOT of situations where we THOUGHT the situation was one thing when it reality it was not. "Advances" aren't always welcomed. When and EXACTLY HOW that crosses the line from "unwelcomed advances" to "harassment" is.... well..... blurry. I forget now the man involved (some famous person) but he resigned from his job because a female who worked with him was deeply grieving and his put his hand on her back.... that was determined to be sexual harassment. My wife (a public school teacher) is forbidden to hug a child - even if that child desires to hug and receive a hug, even if that child is enormously disturbed and crying because a hug - even in such a case, even between a teacher a third grade child - COULD be seen as sexual harassment. All this seems...... blurry, subjective..... and it leaves ME confused. And since EVERYTHING we do is impacted by our sexuality (it is INSEPARATELY part of who we ARE) I wonder how practical this is. As a married man... as a man working in an environment where there are some women.... do I "flirt?" Probably..... unintentionally.... a pretty girl enters and I tend to notice. I'd NOT do ANYTHING I regard as disrespectful or inappropriate but that's entirely, completely, absolutely IRRELEVANT, all that matters is if SHE regards it as inappropriate - even 50 years later but not at the time. I think this topic is..... difficult. And yes, I think back to the time when I was treated badly..... did that women (about my mother's age) MEAN to be harassing or was she just "unglued" by a teen boy she regarded as very cute? Should I just laugh it off and sing "Hello Mrs. Robinson?" Should I be honored an adult woman would be sexual attracted to me, just a teen? Or was it appropriate for ME to CHOOSE to be "creeped out" (how I put it at the time) by this (especially since it went on for months)? Should I have taken POWER and told her off? Should I have reported it (perhaps first of all to my parents)? Would they have laughed at ME? I DID choose to largely ignore and evade it and be silent.... and it did end. We're all sexual..... more than we probably realize.


5. I think all this is difficult, too, because we tend to express our sexuality mostly privately; these cases often are private. Which makes it HARD to prove or disprove. The Rule of Law (that we SUPPOSEDLY all so highly respect) begins with the assumption of innocence, that one is guilty only if clearly proven to be.... the burden of proof is ENTIRELY on the side of the accuser, the accused need not say one word. Yet.... in this area.... the Rule of Law if often wholly abandoned and rejected. In this area, the accused must prove themselves innocent - which can be impossible if this happened 50 years ago or was totally private (which is USUALLY the case). All this can be kangaroo courts.... indeed, as we witness every few weeks with some celeb, a person tends to be condemned SIMPLY BY being accused (no need for a kangaroo court). But how do we get around this when the nature of the crime is that it tends to be very private; it's almost unavoidable to be a "he says, she says" situation? If we entirely abandon the Rule of Law here, what keeps it from being abandoned elsewhere? Where does this end?



?????????????



- Josiah

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

I find it troubling - both as a human and as a man.

2. PART of this is one symptom of the POWER thing that is in many ways is central to sin. Humans play power games.... sin says the one with the most power may exercise it over those with less (often with impunity). It's why abortion is supported, it's why many "winked" at slavery, its why some Germans permitted Hitler to murder 6 million plus, why Stalin did even worse. SIN says the one with power may abuse those with less. The kind of issues we see in animals applies to us too. It's an aspect of SIN and we are COMMANDED to work against it, to defend the weaker, to speak up for those who cannot speak up for themselves. For some, sexual harassment has as much to do with "because I can" than it does with sex, as much to do with establishing the "pecking order" than satisfying some biological itch. We like to avoid this aspect because we all tend to play this POWER game and we'd need to address other aspects of it (including abortion, war, treatment of the homeless, etc.)

3. It works the other way, too. I'm one of those 35% who has been on the receiving end of sexual harassment. Yes, women often feel power over some man, too.... and conclude this gives them the power over him in this area, too. My position at the time made me feel too powerless to say or do a thing about it (I was a teen at the time) and so I decided my only option was to move on (which is what I did). The POWER milieu of all this causes this.

- Josiah

I think you've hit something important. The varying power dynamic in relationships is often either not examined, or when it is the focus is on the power of the husband over the wife, and the abuse of said power. Power can be overt or subtle, and sexual power is certainly at the forefront much of the time (just read recent news...); and it should be. Abuse of power needs to be examined and exposed for what it is - sin. But the more subtle power dynamics/power plays often take more scrutiny to uncover, and honesty on the part of both partners.

*Ftr, I'm basing the above on an experience I had counselling a separated couple where there was domestic violence. Both partners were perpetrators and victims of the violence - they admitted as much. Examining the power dynamic between them was at the core of the work we did together.

 

[NewCreation435]

I find it troubling - both as a human and as a man.


1. PART of the problem is the definition. WHAT, exactly, is "sexual harassment?" Part of the problem is that it's probably not possible to give an exact, all-embracing definition.... yet without it, how do men or women KNOW what "it" is? "It" seems largely subjective: being WHATEVER a woman - at the time or up to half a century later - FEELS is offensive or inappropriate. Hard to get a handle on that.... for men or women.... for churches or companies or schools or the courts.


2. PART of this is one symptom of the POWER thing that is in many ways is central to sin. Humans play power games.... sin says the one with the most power may exercise it over those with less (often with impunity). It's why abortion is supported, it's why many "winked" at slavery, its why some Germans permitted Hitler to murder 6 million plus, why Stalin did even worse. SIN says the one with power may abuse those with less. The kind of issues we see in animals applies to us too. It's an aspect of SIN and we are COMMANDED to work against it, to defend the weaker, to speak up for those who cannot speak up for themselves. For some, sexual harassment has as much to do with "because I can" than it does with sex, as much to do with establishing the "pecking order" than satisfying some biological itch. We like to avoid this aspect because we all tend to play this POWER game and we'd need to address other aspects of it (including abortion, war, treatment of the homeless, etc.)


3. It works the other way, too. I'm one of those 35% who has been on the receiving end of sexual harassment. Yes, women often feel power over some man, too.... and conclude this gives them the power over him in this area, too. My position at the time made me feel too powerless to say or do a thing about it (I was a teen at the time) and so I decided my only option was to move on (which is what I did). The POWER milieu of all this causes this.


4. Sex is a big thing, lol. We may not even be aware of how it impacts our lives and interpersonal relationships. When I was a teen, my older sis often noted how obviously (and rather largely) flirted.... and HONESTLY, I was nearly always unaware I was doing it. A pretty girl entered the picture and..... well..... lots of big stuff just kicked in, lol. IMO, our interpersonal relations are often more sexual than we realize (and perhaps even intend). Becoming aware of this is the first and largest step in not allowing this to be inappropriate. But (as one who was single for some years).... we all know it can be hard to evaluate this. We ALL have had a LOT of situations where we THOUGHT the situation was one thing when it reality it was not. "Advances" aren't always welcomed. When and EXACTLY HOW that crosses the line from "unwelcomed advances" to "harassment" is.... well..... blurry. I forget now the man involved (some famous person) but he resigned from his job because a female who worked with him was deeply grieving and his put his hand on her back.... that was determined to be sexual harassment. My wife (a public school teacher) is forbidden to hug a child - even if that child desires to hug and receive a hug, even if that child is enormously disturbed and crying because a hug - even in such a case, even between a teacher a third grade child - COULD be seen as sexual harassment. All this seems...... blurry, subjective..... and it leaves ME confused. And since EVERYTHING we do is impacted by our sexuality (it is INSEPARATELY part of who we ARE) I wonder how practical this is. As a married man... as a man working in an environment where there are some women.... do I "flirt?" Probably..... unintentionally.... a pretty girl enters and I tend to notice. I'd NOT do ANYTHING I regard as disrespectful or inappropriate but that's entirely, completely, absolutely IRRELEVANT, all that matters is if SHE regards it as inappropriate - even 50 years later but not at the time. I think this topic is..... difficult. And yes, I think back to the time when I was treated badly..... did that women (about my mother's age) MEAN to be harassing or was she just "unglued" by a teen boy she regarded as very cute? Should I just laugh it off and sing "Hello Mrs. Robinson?" Should I be honored an adult woman would be sexual attracted to me, just a teen? Or was it appropriate for ME to CHOOSE to be "creeped out" (how I put it at the time) by this (especially since it went on for months)? Should I have taken POWER and told her off? Should I have reported it (perhaps first of all to my parents)? Would they have laughed at ME? I DID choose to largely ignore and evade it and be silent.... and it did end. We're all sexual..... more than we probably realize.


5. I think all this is difficult, too, because we tend to express our sexuality mostly privately; these cases often are private. Which makes it HARD to prove or disprove. The Rule of Law (that we SUPPOSEDLY all so highly respect) begins with the assumption of innocence, that one is guilty only if clearly proven to be.... the burden of proof is ENTIRELY on the side of the accuser, the accused need not say one word. Yet.... in this area.... the Rule of Law if often wholly abandoned and rejected. In this area, the accused must prove themselves innocent - which can be impossible if this happened 50 years ago or was totally private (which is USUALLY the case). All this can be kangaroo courts.... indeed, as we witness every few weeks with some celeb, a person tends to be condemned SIMPLY BY being accused (no need for a kangaroo court). But how do we get around this when the nature of the crime is that it tends to be very private; it's almost unavoidable to be a "he says, she says" situation? If we entirely abandon the Rule of Law here, what keeps it from being abandoned elsewhere? Where does this end?



?????????????



- Josiah

There are a lot of rules in counseling about relationships that you can have with clients and former clients. Our ethics code says that you cannot have a relationship with a client or their family that is romantic in nature for at least five years after services end. This is to acknowledge the power differential that exists between therapists and client. The standard is first and foremost to do no harm. If you think it might then you don't do it. you also have to be careful about physical touch in counseling, such as a hug, especially if you are a therapist and have a client of the opposite sex.

 

[tango]

There are a lot of rules in counseling about relationships that you can have with clients and former clients. Our ethics code says that you cannot have a relationship with a client or their family that is romantic in nature for at least five years after services end. This is to acknowledge the power differential that exists between therapists and client. The standard is first and foremost to do no harm. If you think it might then you don't do it. you also have to be careful about physical touch in counseling, such as a hug, especially if you are a therapist and have a client of the opposite sex.

In the UK there are specific rules that relate to relationships perhaps best described as adult-child or leader-member where young people are concerned. The standard age of consent is 16 but it rises to 18 where one party is in a leadership-type relationship with the other (e.g. teacher, youth club leader etc). In theory I think that means that if you've taken a liking to a 17-year-old member of your youth group you can resign as a leader and immediately begin a physical relationship with them.

 

[tango]

It's clear to me because the persons in which this happens I get to know first and spend time with - not someone I just met. Even then, it's often the female that initiates in some subtle way with comments, looks, exposed wrists, questions and small talk, hair playing and any other number of indications that indicate interest and a green light. If she's stiff and rigid and can't even make eye contact, it's not likely I'm going to even extend my hand to shake hers, lol.

You make good points here, there's a world of difference between getting to know someone and, over time, seeking to determine if they share your interest in taking things further. The trouble is if the female does all the things you mention they could still potentially consider you responding in kind as harassment if they decided they didn't actually want to take things any further.

 

[Stravinsk]

You make good points here, there's a world of difference between getting to know someone and, over time, seeking to determine if they share your interest in taking things further. The trouble is if the female does all the things you mention they could still potentially consider you responding in kind as harassment if they decided they didn't actually want to take things any further.

Don't encourage feminist thinking,lol.

 

[tango]

That's great that it's clear to you.
Maybe I live in Sodom and Gomorrah, but I've been to christian dating sites in Holland. And not only me, I heard it from some women there and my ex spoke a lot of women there when he was looking for one. He said they all said he was the only one they met who just took em to a restaurant and talked and tried nothing. The rest would immediately put their hand on their leg or whatever. Those were the decent ones btw. What I encountered mostly was they grab you in ze ... to see if you are willing.
In Norway they have a new law now that you must first ask before you do anything. I think that's good, cause a lot misunderstand. They think if you're nice to em or give a hug that means you want sex now.

A new law that you must ask makes lots of sense in theory and very little sense in practice.

Firstly, it's hard to think of anything that could "kill the mood" more effectively then endlessly stopping and explicitly asking "do you consent to me doing this now?". Secondly, given such encounters typically don't take place in front of witnesses it's hard to see how anyone could prove whether or not such explicit permission was granted anyway.

ETA: Part of the problem is that the people who need to be told that they need consent to proceed are the ones least likely to worry about an explicit law like this and the ones who don't need to be told to respect others, well, don't need a law telling them to respect others.

 

[tango]

One thing I find particularly alarming is the relentless rise of "trial by media" or, worse still, "trial by social media". Someone makes a claim, next thing it's all over social media with people's reputations being dragged through the mud. And for good measure it seems there's no time limit on making a claim. It's the kind of thing that could come back and bite any of us.

What were you doing on the evening of February 16, 1994? Can't come up with an alibi? That's too bad, because this lady here claims you assaulted her that night. If you can come up with a rock-solid alibi (fairly unlikely, given most of us don't remember what we were doing on any given day 20+ years ago) you're still potentially on the hook for it because, come to think of it, maybe it was February 18th. Or was it the 20th? It's hard to remember, it's been a while. Do you remember where you were every night during February 1994?

I firmly believe that those who prey upon others should face the force of law, but at the same time those accused of such acts need to have a fair chance to defend themselves. Part of having a fair chance has to include some form of time limit, after which such claims are automatically dismissed.

 

[Imalive]

A new law that you must ask makes lots of sense in theory and very little sense in practice.

Firstly, it's hard to think of anything that could "kill the mood" more effectively then endlessly stopping and explicitly asking "do you consent to me doing this now?". Secondly, given such encounters typically don't take place in front of witnesses it's hard to see how anyone could prove whether or not such explicit permission was granted anyway.

ETA: Part of the problem is that the people who need to be told that they need consent to proceed are the ones least likely to worry about an explicit law like this and the ones who don't need to be told to respect others, well, don't need a law telling them to respect others.

Yes. Well I've learned from it to just never go out w someone and not let em in. Coffee means sex, although you explicitly said you wait before marriage and assume that someone is decent because of the Bible text babble and going to church. One old collegue who's an atheist was way more upfront. Hey come over and take your tooth brush with you. I appreciate that. Be clear. Then I can just friendly say no thanks.
Ah well its good they make ppl aware and warn youth. They should warn dumb naive youth and old people much more and parents shouldnt be so dumb either and protect their children.

 

[tango]

Yes. Well I've learned from it to just never go out w someone and not let em in. Coffee means sex, although you explicitly said you wait before marriage and assume that someone is decent because of the Bible text babble and going to church. One old collegue who's an atheist was way more upfront. Hey come over and take your tooth brush with you. I appreciate that. Be clear. Then I can just friendly say no thanks.
Ah well its good they make ppl aware and warn youth. They should warn dumb naive youth and old people much more and parents shouldnt be so dumb either and protect their children.

Yes, sadly "would you like to come in for coffee?" does imply that you're offering more than a hot drink. It would be nice if there were a clean way to invite someone in for coffee and have both sides clearly understand that what is on offer is a cup of coffee and the only extra that might be made available is a piece of cake or something.

 

[Imalive]

Yes, sadly "would you like to come in for coffee?" does imply that you're offering more than a hot drink. It would be nice if there were a clean way to invite someone in for coffee and have both sides clearly understand that what is on offer is a cup of coffee and the only extra that might be made available is a piece of cake or something.

:=D: cake
Yes and then I'm told that I'm dumb, cause I should have known that. I feel bad for normal guys who now get treated like they're a creep if they really just want a piece of cake.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

:=D: cake
Yes and then I'm told that I'm dumb, cause I should have known that. I feel bad for normal guys who now get treated like they're a creep if they really just want a piece of cake.

See, that's what's really sad because sometimes "Hey, wanna go to Starbucks and maybe get dinner somewhere?", is just coffee and dinner. Holding someone's hand, (if culturally appropriate, and with permission) is just holding someone's hand. If I offer to hold the door open, I'm not making a statement about your ability to hold it open for yourself - I'm being polite. In the same way, if I don't ask you to come in for coffee, It's not that I'm trying to offend, it may just be that the boundaries in the relationship haven't extended that far yet. If I do, it may just be coffee, and not that I have ulterior motives.
But, as it is, some folks have this endless mantra of "Is this okay? Is this okay? Is this okay?", that the only conclusion is "why risk it?"

(mmmmmm.... cake.....)

 

[tango]

See, that's what's really sad because sometimes "Hey, wanna go to Starbucks and maybe get dinner somewhere?", is just coffee and dinner. Holding someone's hand, (if culturally appropriate, and with permission) is just holding someone's hand. If I offer to hold the door open, I'm not making a statement about your ability to hold it open for yourself - I'm being polite. In the same way, if I don't ask you to come in for coffee, It's not that I'm trying to offend, it may just be that the boundaries in the relationship haven't extended that far yet. If I do, it may just be coffee, and not that I have ulterior motives.
But, as it is, some folks have this endless mantra of "Is this okay? Is this okay? Is this okay?", that the only conclusion is "why risk it?"

(mmmmmm.... cake.....)

Indeed... the whole process of looking for a partner seems to have shifted from trying to read the signs and facing possible rejection if you get it wrong, to trying to read the signs and facing possible public shaming or even jail time if you get it wrong.

I found an interesting article about the issue of consent, degradation and rape. I think it was linked from faceache so the chances of finding it again are pretty much zero. What it said was that the essence of sexual encounters is that they get divided into "good" and "not good", where "good" is the consensual variety and "not good" is basically rape. Then it goes on to say that people who engage in a one-night stand may well wake up feeling somewhat degraded, which is to be expected given they degraded themselves, but then the encounter gets classified as "not good" and therefore is considered to be rape. The fact that both parties were willing participants gets lost in the maelstrom of accusations and finger pointing. As the article said, to acknowledge the concept of degradation requires the acknowledgement of the concept of human dignity, which gets stripped away in so much of the push towards encouraging sexual expression even if that does turn people into little less than collections of anatomical components to be used for the satisfaction of another. But since traditionally speaking men have been the ones with all the power, it's men today who get blamed for just about any encounter that the woman regrets even if she was an entirely willing participant at every step of the process.

As it said, waking up feeling guilty doesn't mean you were a victim of someone else forcing themselves on you, merely that you are a victim of the consequences of your own poor decision making. Sadly that won't keep a man's name from being dragged through the mud.

 

[Imalive]

Indeed... the whole process of looking for a partner seems to have shifted from trying to read the signs and facing possible rejection if you get it wrong, to trying to read the signs and facing possible public shaming or even jail time if you get it wrong.

I found an interesting article about the issue of consent, degradation and rape. I think it was linked from faceache so the chances of finding it again are pretty much zero. What it said was that the essence of sexual encounters is that they get divided into "good" and "not good", where "good" is the consensual variety and "not good" is basically rape. Then it goes on to say that people who engage in a one-night stand may well wake up feeling somewhat degraded, which is to be expected given they degraded themselves, but then the encounter gets classified as "not good" and therefore is considered to be rape. The fact that both parties were willing participants gets lost in the maelstrom of accusations and finger pointing. As the article said, to acknowledge the concept of degradation requires the acknowledgement of the concept of human dignity, which gets stripped away in so much of the push towards encouraging sexual expression even if that does turn people into little less than collections of anatomical components to be used for the satisfaction of another. But since traditionally speaking men have been the ones with all the power, it's men today who get blamed for just about any encounter that the woman regrets even if she was an entirely willing participant at every step of the process.

As it said, waking up feeling guilty doesn't mean you were a victim of someone else forcing themselves on you, merely that you are a victim of the consequences of your own poor decision making. Sadly that won't keep a man's name from being dragged through the mud.

I don't think that happens in Holland that they go to court for that. Try to prove it. Leviticus says if shes in the field and screams but noone hears her it's rape.
Oh I read that it happens here too, but only 1/8th go to the police w real rape, half is not believed or its not proven and if a real rapist goes to jail he gets a year or so.

 

[tango]

I found the article I mentioned...

https://www.dailywire.com/news/25928/walsh-you-feel-violated-after-casual-sex-because-matt-walsh

 

[Imalive]

I found the article I mentioned...

https://www.dailywire.com/news/25928/walsh-you-feel-violated-after-casual-sex-because-matt-walsh

If I say beforehand that I want nothing and they try and push anyway I feel violated or afterwards cause I couldnt control myself. I wondered why I even gave in. Theyre just all like Trump. Thats the way to ask if she wants and thats why I neatly stay alone. After a while you get so disgusted by it you hate it all. It was my fault though. I could have just not been dumb and naive to kiss someone. I read that that means to them you want sex cause thats how they do it in the porn movies. Say no means yes.

 

[Imalive]

Sex drive is from hell. Lol I love this guy.
https://youtu.be/51X3rF4Dg4E

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

Sex drive is from hell. Lol I love this guy.
https://youtu.be/51X3rF4Dg4E

The "hoopah"?
And what's going on in the background? "Yeah, mmhmm, whooo!"


I'll have to catch the rest after work

 

[Imalive]

The "hoopah"?
And what's going on in the background? "Yeah, mmhmm, whooo!"


I'll have to catch the rest after work

Hahahahaha that woman is watching him on tv.