Has the #MeToo movement become a witch-hunt to a significant degree?

[F_Marturana]

Or dead.

I just read a sick story of a drug dealer causing an overdose, proceeding to rape the victim, while posting a play by play on instsgram. She fatally overdosed, he used her thumb to access her phone and posted a message to throw people off the trail.

“And after discovering Alyssa’s mom Gina Pierson was frantically searching for her daughter, Valera is accused of using Alyssa’s thumb to unlock her iPhone and send a Snapchat message to look like she had run away.”

https://www.google.com/amp/metro.co...nds-say-lol-odd-raped-dying-teen-7301124/amp/

 

[Xantippe]

Yeah, dying/dead people can’t give consent.

 

[Theo520]

I thought the whole goal of clearly defining consent was to reduce how often it even becomes a police matter in the first place.

If the expectations around consent are clear and without the ambiguity of judging enthusiasm, I expect the incidents of date rape would drop and the police/DA would have a much clearer case when pursuing rape cases.

 

[Theo520]

Respectfully opinion only.
Should higher morality standards be sought among both men/woman?
Levels of self moral respect and decency being lost by both men/woman?

Yes, I agree with this goal but don’t know how to achieve it. People have been seeking higher moral standards for their brethern since this country was founded.

I think what we are talking about here is more akin to defining clear traffic rules so we have fewer accidents at intersections, and when there is an accident we know who was at fault.

 

[Xantippe]

I thought the whole goal of clearly defining consent was to reduce how often it even becomes a police matter in the first place.

If the expectations around consent are clear and without the ambiguity of judging enthusiasm, I expect the incidents of date rape would drop and the police/DA would have a much clearer case when pursuing rape cases.

–You realize that rape accusations are down 85% over the last 40 years? If you look skim down the Wikipedia article on “Rape in the U.S.” you’ll find that stat. (Not linking because the box that will pop up may not be appropriate.) Things are better today than they used to be.
–I don’t think we actually have previously had a strong social consensus on what is and isn’t consent. In fact, I remember back in the 1990s when I was a college student that “no means no” was actually very controversial. There were a lot of people making the argument that no actually can mean yes, and lots of women find coercion sexy, and listening to no takes the fun out of sex, male sexuality is like a truck with no brakes and men have no control over themselves beyond a certain level of arousal, etc, etc. This seriously happened. I believed a lot of this back when I was a young Evangelical woman. Nowadays, I think it’s foolish and immoral and makes men look bad.
–You’re suggesting that enthusiastic consent is some sort of fuzzing up of existing strong social standards surrounding consent, but that really isn’t the case. The current discussion of what is and isn’t consent is actually the clearest we’ve ever had.
–Note that there are a lot of people taking the position that consent is really hard to detect or be sure of. What I would point out here is that that’s a clear indication to stop and back off. Lack of clear, enthusiastic consent is evidence of lack of consent.
–I’d also point out that a lot of this discussion seems to be based on the idea that “yes” is the default and no is the exceptional case, which is weird. “No” is the default and yes is the exception. We don’t go randomly rubbing ourselves on strangers because they haven’t managed to say no yet.
–“I thought the whole goal of clearly defining consent was to reduce how often it even becomes a police matter in the first place.” Yes, and people who follow these guidelines about enthusiastic consent are much less likely to find themselves in the middle of a police investigation.
–“If the expectations around consent are clear and without the ambiguity of judging enthusiasm, I expect the incidents of date rape would drop and the police/DA would have a much clearer case when pursuing rape cases.” If individuals start expecting enthusiastic consent, the police and DA won’t be involved.
–You’re talking as though enthusiastic consent increases ambiguity, whereas in practice, it decreases ambiguity.

 

[Xantippe]

I think what we are talking about here is more akin to defining clear traffic rules so we have fewer accidents at intersections, and when there is an accident we know who was at fault.

So, what are your traffic rules, and how well do they apply to cases where one part is incapable of giving consent?

Do your traffic rules assume a default “yes”?

 

[Theo520]

–You realize that rape accusations are down 85% over the last 40 years? If you look skim down the Wikipedia article on “Rape in the U.S.” you’ll find that stat. (Not linking because the box that will pop up may not be appropriate.) Things are better today than they used to be.

You are selectively citing your link. I read there have been significant ambiguity in reporting and the prevalence of rape and assault. Far too many conflicting studies and opinions to claim it’s getting better or worse.

–I don’t think we actually have previously had a strong social consensus on what is and isn’t consent. In fact, I remember back in the 1990s when I was a college student that “no means no” was actually very controversial. There were a lot of people making the argument that no actually can mean yes, and lots of women find coercion sexy, and listening to no takes the fun out of sex, male sexuality is like a truck with no brakes and men have no control over themselves beyond a certain level of arousal, etc, etc. This seriously happened. I believed a lot of this back when I was a young Evangelical woman. Nowadays, I think it’s foolish and immoral and makes men look bad.

That we haven’t had a clear definition of consent doesn’t mean it’s not required to reduce future #MeToo claims.

–You’re suggesting that enthusiastic consent is some sort of fuzzing up of existing strong social standards surrounding consent, but that really isn’t the case. The current discussion of what is and isn’t consent is actually the clearest we’ve ever had.

Including “enthusiastic participation” as a requirement only makes it less clear. It only increases ambiguity.

–Note that there are a lot of people taking the position that consent is really hard to detect or be sure of. What I would point out here is that that’s a clear indication to stop and back off. Lack of clear, enthusiastic consent is evidence of lack of consent.

No it’s not, not when you are dealing with memories and perceptions in a court case. AGAIN, I’ve already agreed this is sage advice for couples to follow, but it doesn’t help much when the people are not in an ongoing relationship, when they may have just ‘hooked up’ and never had a valid relationship where you learn to read your partner.

–I’d also point out that a lot of this discussion seems to be based on the idea that “yes” is the default and no is the exceptional case, which is weird. “No” is the default and yes is the exception. We don’t go randomly rubbing ourselves on strangers because they haven’t managed to say no yet.

I disagree. This discussion is about recognizing the past and reducing the problem in the future. In most of the cases I’ve read the instigator of assault did not obtain a clear “yes”. Just this one change combined with respecting a subsequent “no” does much to minimize harm when assault was not the actual objective.

 

[Theo520]

part 2

–“I thought the whole goal of clearly defining consent was to reduce how often it even becomes a police matter in the first place.” Yes, and people who follow these guidelines about enthusiastic consent are much less likely to find themselves in the middle of a police investigation.

Relying upon a perception of “enthusiastic consent” is utterly useless when comparing memories a day or perhaps months or years later. How can you imagine it increases clarity when one party is making accusations? Why do you think YES and NO are not sufficient? With your logic, a clear yes combined with moderate passivity is still a felony.

–“If the expectations around consent are clear and without the ambiguity of judging enthusiasm, I expect the incidents of date rape would drop and the police/DA would have a much clearer case when pursuing rape cases.” If individuals start expecting enthusiastic consent, the police and DA won’t be involved.

ROFL, yea and if they just waited to get married the incidence would drop as well. Estimating enthusiasm only introduces ambiguity into a situation that is already highly emotional and where judgement may be clouded. What is the source for your objection to just going for clarity?

–You’re talking as though enthusiastic consent increases ambiguity, whereas in practice, it decreases ambiguity.

Of course it increases ambiguity in a he said/she said analysis. People have morning regret and change their memory of their own involvement. Why must you increase ambiguity?

 

[F_Marturana]

Including “enthusiastic participation” as a requirement only makes it less clear. It only increases ambiguity.

I think in a criminal prosecution, the idea of enthusiastic consent is going to be hard to prove in a he said she said scenario.

Kobe Bryant was acquitted of rape because of lack of forensic evidence. Even with an admission that there was sex.

I’m adding, as a mom, we NEED to teach girls and empower them to say, "No! get your hands off of me. " I’m saddened that some young women are not strong in setting limits.

It doesn’t excuse bad behavior on the part of men. I remember the media circus in New York over the Preppie Murder. A guy strangled a girl to death in a park and claimed it was consensual rough sex. There were many who believed that this handsome all American guy could not have purposely killed this easy girl.

 

[Elizabeth3]

I’ve already agreed this is sage advice for couples to follow, but it doesn’t help much when the people are not in an ongoing relationship, when they may have just ‘hooked up’ and never had a valid relationship where you learn to read your partner.

If people are into “hooking up” then there are always going to be consequences and dangers to that type of situation. One of them is that there is never going to be a clear cut definition of consent that will protect against future allegations. Should we be trying to so hard to find this definition so that it makes it easier to avoid consequences for this type of behavior or should we be promoting abstinence as the best all around protection that someone can choose so they have true freedom from the fear of “being accused”?

 

[Theo520]

If people are into “hooking up” then there are always going to be consequences and dangers to that type of situation. One of them is that there is never going to be a clear cut definition of consent that will protect against future allegations. Should we be trying to so hard to find this definition so that it makes it easier to avoid consequences for this type of behavior or should we be promoting abstinence as the best all around protection that someone can choose so they have true freedom from the fear of “being accused”?

Have you followed the campus stories over the past couple years? Several made prominence because of Obama’s title 9 guidance.

The problem of ambiguity is real and impacts lives on both sides. Much better to reduce the ambiguity I think.

Increasing abstinence is a great goal, but it’s separate. Also, many of the news stories are only about harassment, about words and activities that don’t go that far.

 

[F_Marturana]

No it’s not, not when you are dealing with memories and perceptions in a court case. AGAIN, I’ve already agreed this is sage advice for couples to follow, but it doesn’t help much when the people are not in an ongoing relationship, when they may have just ‘hooked up’ and never had a valid relationship where you learn to read your partner.

I think society as a whole needs to reconsider the dangers of casual sex with strangers or near strangers.

Women can be sleeping with a serial killer who is searching for his next victim.

Men can too.

Then there are diseases, some incurable.

Then pregnancy, unwanted and aborted babies.

And rape, physical harm.

And hurt feelings.

 

[Werbenjagermanjensen]

If people are into “hooking up” then there are always going to be consequences and dangers to that type of situation. One of them is that there is never going to be a clear cut definition of consent that will protect against future allegations. Should we be trying to so hard to find this definition so that it makes it easier to avoid consequences for this type of behavior or should we be promoting abstinence as the best all around protection that someone can choose so they have true freedom from the fear of “being accused”?

Making consent something that is poorly defined and difficult to prove hurts the #metoo movement more than it helps it. Are you really going to ask that a jury judge whether a woman remained enthusiastic and was properly gratified during a drunken romp? Making bad sex anything more than bad sex just muddies the waters. Consent is consent even when it is given only grudgingly and then regretted after the fact.

 

[rose321]

I think what we are talking about here is more akin to defining clear traffic rules so we have fewer accidents at intersections, and when there is an accident we know who was at fault.

Respectfully opinion. Great interesting point of view one made!!
Signs make it clearly known and we are taught thus to learn and the importance to fully understood for the safety of all>> to maintain Law and Order for the good of all that>
Green, means go.
Red, tells us to stop.
Yellow, warns us to take caution.

Traffic goes both ways, whether one is coming or going, the HighwayTraffic Laws of the road applies> both sideds of the road> Men/Woman, Youth also?

We are all Human Beings.
What can create such confusion, could it be how we outwardly present ourselves to others?

How we Personally, Morally Respect and Physically Present Ourselves> through our outward appearance>that become outward signs>that can be or lead to confusing?

Whether one be a Man/Woman or Youth who reaches the age to know right from wrong, could there be within in many, a lack of self respect first toward oneself?

Sorry just confused, not to offend either, questioning, pondering on all that is taking place.
Would it not begin with > respecting our own bodies first?

Can there be Men/Woman who lack their ownself respect first?

Men/Woman allowing themselves to be photo naked for public use and for what purpose? Confused on that.

Who are those who are dressing up publicly >>in Vagina costumes, what is that all about? Yet protesting one demands self respect from others, confusing is it not?

Our bodies should be looked upon as Sacred and should be treasured, if we as Men/Woman are demanding self respect from others, we first have to have self respect for our own bodies first<< right?

Why are beautiful mothers, attaching posters to the very backs of their own precious little daughters, when they gather to protest, thou attaching posters to the innocent backs of their own little daughters backs with the sayings>> don’t touch my p…y? sources lots of videos, right?

Who is disrespecting who here?>>Really?

What is swinging naked from a wrecking ball all about?
Or why was there a need to have a pen…s custom and doing sexually acts to entertain publicly before our youth? Really?

Is there such a thing as>>

Can others >Rape< the Innocent Minds of others and our Youths?

Can Our own outward appearance contribute to such confusion in all this? Tempting?>>

Kinda like spilling sweet honey all over onself and wonder why the bees are attacking you? This can go both ways also?

Or piling a pile of candies on a table and telling the children do not touch or take one?

Sorry find this all so confusing is all.

Is there such a thing that others can>> Rape<<< The Innocent Minds of our Youth or others, whether they be Men/Woman?

Just confused is all.

Peace

 

[nearlycatholic]

HaHa? all a woman needs to do is say something happened. No proof, no formal charges, nothing! and a man’s life is ruined. BTW the “offense” happened 30 years ago. If it’s legitimate, he should hang. But there needs to be proof. Other than my wife I ignore women anymore. You can wait your turn in line, manage the flat tire yourself, wish someone would tell you your haircut is cute, wait for the next elevator and open your own door. After all we’re all equal. I work with lots of women. And the crudest talk, nastiest banter is from their lips among each other in the break room. It ain’t the men. Just waiting for my turn. Won’t waste a minute filing the complaint.

 

[Elizabeth3]

The problem of ambiguity is real and impacts lives on both sides. Much better to reduce the ambiguity I think.

Increasing abstinence is a great goal, but it’s separate. Also, many of the news stories are only about harassment, about words and activities that don’t go that far.

I was only addressing the hookup culture aspect of this in response to your comment

You said

it doesn’t help much when the people are not in an ongoing relationship, when they may have just ‘hooked up’

I replied…

If people are into “hooking up”

My point was that in these sticky situations there are so many variables that it will be next to impossible to have a clear cut definition of consent -edited to add [that covers all the nuances]

1. You don’t know the person, at all or very minimally at least, which goes to your point where you mentioned “where you learn to read your partner.” You were right. There’s no learning curve and what another persons words might mean to you may not be what they meant when they said them. (Are they “just joking” and you missed the joke? Are they using sarcasm? Does watch a movie at my place really mean just a movie or something more? etc)
2. How much drinking or drug use is going on and at what point is a person’s ability to consent lowered or non-existent?
3. Is this person who seems enthusiastic now going to “regret it in the morning”? Did they start off consenting and at some point change their mind and said something like “Maybe we shouldn’t be doing this” and found themselves being coerced or guilt-ed into continuing?
4. Are they legally a minor (say 17) but they lie about their age or look and act older?

5)Was one person pushing, manipulating, or coercing for “consent” which may have lowered the other’s ability to FREELY consent?

There are many more questions in this type of situation. I’m not saying there shouldn’t be a definition of consent. There should. But when the definition of consent becomes so muddled with grey areas (enthusiastic consent) and the endless possibilities and nuances that type of language would mean, then it makes it even more difficult to determine consent. It seems, in the end, to all be towards the effort of protecting people from the consequences of their imprudent choices.

 

[Theo520]

This thread has a lot of understandable posting about the underlying morales.

Our legal code defines the extreme boundary between what we’ve decided is still morally acceptable and what is immoral.

Hooking up is thus deemed morally acceptable between consenting adults. Society has a different standard than Catholics.

 

[TheAmazingGrace]

Consent is consent even when it is given only grudgingly and then regretted after the fact.

No, not really. I recently watched a movie called “Compliance,” which was based on a true story about a sicko who prank-called a McDonald’s posing as a police officer, and used this ruse to manipulate a gullible manager into doing terrible things to a young female employee (starting with taking her clothes away). One of the things he had this manager do was get her fiancee to “guard” the girl until the police came for her, and when the manager left the room, the fake officer ordered the girl to “reward” the fiancee for “helping the investigation” by giving him oral sex. Now, this 19-year old girl didn’t challenge or refuse the “officer’s” order to go down on the gross middle-aged man, so on the most technical level she did give consent. However, the fiancee still got charged with sexual assault because even though he didn’t force himself on the girl, her ability to consent was severely compromised due to the fact that she was naked, bullied into submission by her manager and the “officer,” and physically defenseless against the man who insisted on following the “officer’s” instructions.

This may seem like an odd example, but it effectively demonstrates how consent can be compromised by situational factors like physical intimidation, being denied your clothes, psychological manipulation, etc.

 

[AlNg]

And the crudest talk, nastiest banter is from their lips among each other in the break room. It ain’t the men.

I’ve noticed that too. A lot of women around here use filthy language.

 

[TheAmazingGrace]

Can Our own outward appearance contribute to such confusion in all this? Tempting?>>

Kinda like spilling sweet honey all over onself and wonder why the bees are attacking you? This can go both ways also?

Ah yes, the classic “what were you wearing?” justification. Lemme tell ya, honey, I’ve been solicited for prostitution while wearing perfectly modest attire. My clothing didn’t make a difference. Nor does it make a difference in the cases of young children, seniors, mentally disabled people, and modest-dressers who fall victim to sexual abuse. If a person is already willing to get handsy without permission, then their victim’s attire will neither deter nor encourage them. I spit on that excuse.