Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT
WCDT: 13-17 Dec 2010 (1816-20)
mira:
--- Quote from: Armadillo on 15 Dec 2010, 22:42 ---
--- Quote from: Overkillengine on 15 Dec 2010, 22:38 ---
--- Quote from: Armadillo on 15 Dec 2010, 22:28 ---
--- Quote from: Razgriz on 15 Dec 2010, 22:15 ---I don't think I can win on the harassment debate, and in the interest of not making the mods ban me/everyone I'll just let that one slide with a 'I respectfully disagree'. I honestly don't have enough experience in this field to argue it, but in my books what he did was a jerk move but in no way illegal. and he was disproportionally punished for it.
--- End quote ---
Seconded. Also, I'm old enough to have been in the workforce (teenage shit jobs) when sexual harassment became a big deal. I remember from those lovely training videos that the standard for sexual harassment was for the harassee to VERY CLEARLY say "no," and then the harasser ignores that and continues on with whatever they were doing. There was nothing about "implied no" or "unwanted advances without letting the person know they're unwanted" situations; that came later, and really muddied the waters as far as I'm concerned. Separating this from the story line, people can't read minds, and therefore are incapable of knowing whether or not an advance is unwanted unless told so. As a male, I've known a few of the famous "nice guys" myself, and they're assholes. However, I've misread situations before and gone in for a kiss on a girl I thought was interested but soon discovered otherwise. My intentions were pure, so am I a sexual harasser?
--- End quote ---
By the legal definition, yes.
Your intent/motives don't count for shit. Even a 3rd party that doesn't like what they saw can report you. Even if the woman that was the target of your attentions actually liked what you were doing. As long as someone there wasn't happy, whether your intent was malicious or not, you are guilty.
Edit for clarity: And no, I've never been accused or convicted of sexual harassment, so you can't just pass this off as sour grapes. It's just literally how the laws are set up.
--- End quote ---
Well then, that's just fucking stupid. So if I'm with my wife of almost ten years, and I give her a playful tap on the butt or a quick smooch, and someone across the street doesn't like it, they can report me to the police and I can be cited for sexual harassment?
Again, fucking stupid.
--- End quote ---
Quote stream here...
Anyway, you're not violating any law by smooching your wife or smacking her butt in public! This seems like a gross over interpretation of what it means to "harass". We even have a right to engage in PDA's provided they do not get sexually graphic. In some cities, that just means you wear a non thong bathing suit, at least, while doing it and keep all your junk in side it. Heck, if someone's "unhappiness" on the street makes the difference then we'd quickly be in a police state.
Armadillo:
--- Quote from: Rusty on 15 Dec 2010, 22:50 ---If i give you a dickbroom, is that sexual harrassment?
--- End quote ---
That depends. Is the person eating at the time?
Rusty:
--- Quote from: Armadillo on 15 Dec 2010, 22:52 ---
--- Quote from: Rusty on 15 Dec 2010, 22:50 ---If i give you a dickbroom, is that sexual harrassment?
--- End quote ---
That depends. Is the person eating at the time?
--- End quote ---
is a frosty considered eating or drinking?
Armadillo:
--- Quote from: Rusty on 15 Dec 2010, 22:55 ---
--- Quote from: Armadillo on 15 Dec 2010, 22:52 ---
--- Quote from: Rusty on 15 Dec 2010, 22:50 ---If i give you a dickbroom, is that sexual harrassment?
--- End quote ---
That depends. Is the person eating at the time?
--- End quote ---
is a frosty considered eating or drinking?
--- End quote ---
Eating at first, drinking twenty minutes later.
Overkillengine:
--- Quote from: mira on 15 Dec 2010, 22:42 ---Harassment is not generally a *single* instance of misbehavior, that would be characterized more accurately as a sexual molestation or assault. Harassment is more accurately described as a series of events or a more pervasive creation of a hostile environment, such as in a work situation, which can involve verbal comments, persistent come on's ect. and don't necessarily have to involve a sexual assault to be actionable. And yes, you are generally given a chance to hear "NO" in regards to a verbal advance. After that, it's breaching the "harassment" line. No one is a mind reader-someone's level of "unhappiness" is not the meter in that situation. Physical touching, especially depending on where, is an exception. For example, you don't have to say "no" in order have a right to not be fondled or otherwise sexually violated. But just saying "give me a kiss..." is hardly an assault.
His verbal actions alone would not constitute assault or molestation and as this is not a work situation "harassment" wouldn't be the appropriate term. The one more likely to be charged, based on what we can see here, would be Faye, as she hit Martin, when she could have simply left the apartment or sought another option. Since this is a domestic situation, both would likely be taken in for questioning as that is the usual protocol in DV situations these days. I could be wrong, but I was a DV educator and case worker for several years and have some familiarity with the topic.
--- End quote ---
True, harassment law is generally more applicable to employment situations, as it was mainly created to keep scumbags from using access to continued employment/advancement as a form of extortion.
But in those situations, all it takes is one screw up or misinterpretation that in more than a few States to allow an employer to terminate you- and you have little to no recourse other than litigation that will likely go nowhere, and your career is already tainted.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version