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

[PetraG]

As PetraG was pointing out, there are going to be accidents and trauma under those circumstances, so giving advice for how to do so safely is like giving pointers for safe drunk driving. It’s simply a matter of time until something bad happens, when not if.

Somewhat related–alcoholism hurts empathy in male alcoholics:

Addictions ruin characters and rob people of their best version of themselves, so you are right: Society should not enable alcoholics and binge drinkers by allowing people to use impairment as an excuse.

The only time impairment is a defense is when someone else is responsible for your impairment to the point that you could not have appreciated how impaired you were. Even then, it doesn’t mean you do no harm when you are impaired. It means there are times when you are not culpable because you didn’t have a reason to foresee a need to act differently in order to be responsible for what you might do to yourself or others while in that state.

Other than that, if you decide to binge drink, it is on you to arrange for a metaphorical “rubber room” for yourself, to limit the damage. The sooner irresponsible drinkers are held to account for the damage they do when their decision-making ability is impaired, the sooner they may just face up to the truth that their chosen state of drunkenness is not a “victimless” way to be. Maybe they’ll wise up and fewer people will be harmed in the long run.

 

[abucs]

The #MeToo movement is a secular movement which is underpinned by secular values.

As such I prefer not to engage as if this is a movement that includes me.

I am a Christian. Men should respect women and reserve sexual acts for the building of family life through marriage. From a Christian perspective many of the actions that have come to light recently are to be condemned.

I am very careful though to articulate that my condemnation always comes from a Christian perspective, not a secular one.

 

[DarkLight]

There was an interesting study a while back (The authors are Lisa and Miller if anyone wants to look it up). They asked men questions like “have you ever had sexual intercourse with someone that didn’t want to, by using force or threatening to use force?” There were two major conclusions. One, some men will answer those questions in the affirmative, even while insisting they’ve never raped anyone.

But the more interesting one to me was that, the men who said yes, tended to report that they did so multiple times. Men who used force typically did so against women they were dating or at least who had shown interest in them (which has a strong correlation with non-reporting because women don’t expect to be believed).

That’s why many of us are wary about putting too much stock in misunderstandings. I guarantee when called on it, these men would turn around and say, gee, they were sure she agreed, and she didn’t really fight back and she seemed ok with it, and they’re very sorry for the misunderstanding. If force or threats were involved, she may even have said “yes” - I think we can understand in that situation that doesn’t represent true consent.

 

[Xantippe]

They asked men questions like “have you ever had sexual intercourse with someone that didn’t want to, by using force or threatening to use force?” There were two major conclusions. One, some men will answer those questions in the affirmative, even while insisting they’ve never raped anyone.

We had a recent TX story where a high school boy attempted unsuccessfully to blackmail a girl into sex by threatening to spread pictures of her (I heard it on the radio–I don’t have a link). Note that in that case, there wouldn’t have been any force or threat of force.

This is a case where the concept of enthusiastic consent is helpful. On the one hand, had he been successful, he could have claimed that she was consenting, but it’s a case where enthusiastic consent would obviously not have been present.

Another thing–a lot of times we talk about this stuff as though young women were the only people to be talked to, but the high school case illustrates that young men need to be talked to every bit as much, if not more. People should learn to feel BAD about bullying and coercing others into sexual acts. And no, I don’t think that that has previously been a standard part of “the talk” for teens. I know that when I was in public school sex ed in the late 80s, there certainly was no talk about consent or not raping people.

 

[PetraG]

We had a recent TX story where a high school boy attempted unsuccessfully to blackmail a girl into sex by threatening to spread pictures of her (I heard it on the radio–I don’t have a link). Note that in that case, there wouldn’t have been any force or threat of force.

This is a case where the concept of enthusiastic consent is helpful…

It never consent when there is coercion. Blackmail is a form of coercion.

Yes, people ought to “feel bad” about coercing anyone to do anything when they don’t have the authority to force them to do it, but the worst offenders are always those who can inflict cruelties and yet feel nothing. It is better that people also realize that, feel bad or not, there will be consequences for those who attempt to wield power over others that does not belong to them or to abuse power that has been entrusted to them.

Consent is consent. It is possible to give grudgingly and yet without coercion or complaint that one was forced. I would, however, go along with those who argue those obtaining sexual consent from someone not their spouse had better realize that they place that person in a place of trust when it comes to giving an account of their consort. I do not see any way around that. Consent does not have to be “enthusiastic,” but both parties ought to trust that the other will come away from the encounter saying, “Yes. I said ‘yes,’” even if they also say, “In retrospect, I cannot believe I said yes, but I was not impaired and that is what I said. I was clearly given opportunties to say ‘no’ or ‘stop,’ and I did not avail myself of those.” We do want people who, when with someone they barely know or are inexperienced with, err on the side of caution in saying, “Are you sure you are good with this?” Sex between non-spouses is fraught with consequences. It is only common sense to see there is some obligation to avoid going forward when one really is not certain that one’s partner is in total agreement.

I mean the legal standard is that people will put weight on the idea that a person trying to stop a sexual encounter should not have to draw blood or leave bruises to prove that he or she really wanted to stop. Who is going to initiate a physical altercation with someone who may be more than their match? You can disappoint a salesman who spent all day trying to get you to buy a car and just walk out without trying to hurt him to prove that you really have changed your mind. He is the one in the wrong if he tries to force you to stay or tries to block you from leaving. Why should someone have to inflict physical damage on their partner to prove that when they said, “no, let’s stop now” that he or she really meant “no, let’s stop now”?

 

[Xantippe]

I would go so far as to say that coercion is pretty much essential to at least a minority of men’s model for how sex works. Consider, for example, the still popular hockey model for dating that I have described before–add coercion to that model and it still works perfectly well, because it’s an essentially competitive, oppositional model, with coercion or violence being just particularly aggressive tactics. It’s not foreign to the model, just a logical extension of it.

Edited to add: Nobody is surprised when hockey gets rough.

 

[Theo520]

But the more interesting one to me was that, the men who said yes, tended to report that they did so multiple times. Men who used force typically did so against women they were dating or at least who had shown interest in them (which has a strong correlation with non-reporting because women don’t expect to be believed).

That’s why many of us are wary about putting too much stock in misunderstandings. I guarantee when called on it, these men would turn around and say, gee, they were sure she agreed, and she didn’t really fight back and she seemed ok with it, and they’re very sorry for the misunderstanding. If force or threats were involved, she may even have said “yes” - I think we can understand in that situation that doesn’t represent true consent.

Sounds like the research was identifying sexual predators. I do think this movement is helping. We are far less likely to tolerate let alone idolize such people. Cosby comes to mind, repeat felony behavior.

 

[Xantippe]

I’d also like to appeal to male self-interest.

Based on what I’ve heard over the last several years online from men who’ve been married for a while, they don’t typically want to be doing all the initiating and persuading. They’d like (at least some of the time) to have their wife do the heavy lifting of initiating and making them feel desirable and desired.

I think that a lot of this alpha male stuff is going to be most appealing to young or inexperienced men, who don’t realize how much work it is to always have to be the one initiating, year after year, and how much pleasanter and more flattering it is to have a wife who does her fair share in this area. Again, from what I’ve seen even from married guys in model Red Pill marriages online, they are exhausted by needing to be alpha/dominant/holding their frame 24/7–it’s like being a lion tamer who has to bunk with his lion.

 

[Elizabeth3]

We had a recent TX story where a high school boy attempted unsuccessfully to blackmail a girl into sex by threatening to spread pictures of her (I heard it on the radio–I don’t have a link).

And yet how did he get pictures of her that were able to be used for blackmail? He’s a bad guy for using something like that to obtain sex for himself for sure. Yet, it wasn’t very smart of her to release pics of herself that put her in a situation in which she could be a target for a bad guy. (Unless, he had pics because he was spying on her and she didn’t know he took them. Without the link, I’m speculating, of course.)

The selfie culture has lead many guys and girls to stupidly show pics of themselves they shouldn’t with the belief they are just being funny among their friends but once those pics fall into the wrong hands, well…there’s consequences.

 

[Xantippe]

And yet how did he get pictures of her that were able to be used for blackmail?

I found the story.

http://www.kcentv.com/article/news/...oto-to-force-girl-into-sex-acts/500-518770933

He allegedly photographed her against her will during consensual sex acts, kept the photos against her will (she thought they were deleted, but they were on his iCloud), then tried to blackmail her into continuing to have sex with him and continuing a relationship.

She went to the police and there was a month-long investigation.

“Law enforcement ultimately obtained a search warrant for Hammond’s cell phone.” As I’ve been told a couple times, these days, if people are up to no good, it’s always on their phone.

“Hammond was arrested and taken to the McLennan County Jail, where he was booked on two state jail felony charges of sexual coercion and unlawful promotion of intimate visual material, according to Devlin.”

He really screwed up if he did it–he turned what could have been just a breakup into two felonies.

 

[Elizabeth3]

He really screwed up if he did it–he turned what could have been just a breakup into two felonies.

All in the hopes of coercing sex. I wonder if he will escape being on the sex offender registry since he’s a minor. Seems to me this type of behavior doesn’t bode well for the future. These types tend to re-offend.

 

[DarkLight]

Sounds like the research was identifying sexual predators. I do think this movement is helping. We are far less likely to tolerate let alone idolize such people. Cosby comes to mind, repeat felony behavior.

It was, but part of the point was also that since predators do tend to reoffend, but that they pick the sorts of situations where they can claim “I didn’t mean to, it was a misunderstanding” or “she said yes and then changed her mind in the morning” or something. So they know, for example, if a girl is flirting with him, she’s unlikely to be believed when she says he raped her.

 

[Theo520]

It was, but part of the point was also that since predators do tend to reoffend, but that they pick the sorts of situations where they can claim “I didn’t mean to, it was a misunderstanding” or “she said yes and then changed her mind in the morning” or something. So they know, for example, if a girl is flirting with him, she’s unlikely to be believed when she says he raped her.

So clear rules of consent help minimize the opportunity for predators to make such claims.

 

[DarkLight]

So clear rules of consent help minimize the opportunity for predators to make such claims.

In part, yes - for example, it gets rid of the idea that consent to one thing is consent to everything. But it also involves a change so it isn’t automatically “she’s lying unless she can prove it in court.”

You can’t convict a man on the word of one woman, but you can, say, tell him he’s not invited anymore. And people can make that on personal judgments the same way they normally do, and taking into account factors that might not stand up in court (for example, your knowledge of the morals and truthfulness of the parties involved, or their personal attitudes towards the opposite sex).

 

[Xantippe]

It was, but part of the point was also that since predators do tend to reoffend, but that they pick the sorts of situations where they can claim “I didn’t mean to, it was a misunderstanding” or “she said yes and then changed her mind in the morning” or something.

See also Bill Cosby and the quaaludes. That created a situation where the women were on the wrong side of the law and also unsure of what happened.

 

[Xantippe]

DL,

Captain Awkward has a post on this. I deleted the URL, because it popped up in a box with bad language, but the blogger is Captain Awkward and it’s the post for letters #322 and #323 and the title is "My friend group has a case of the Creepy Dude. How do we clear that up?” If anybody is interested, it should be easy to google. Some quotes:

“Boyfriend has been friends with Ben since middle school, and I understand that there is a lot of history there, and he feels he needs to be loyal to him.”

“Not long after I first met Ben, we were at a party, and I got drunk/stoned and passed out. Later that night, my friend walked into the living room to find Ben cuddled up against me and stroking my leg.”

“He’s also sent me weird, sexually explicit messages over facebook, and told me not to tell Boyfriend because he “wouldn’t believe [me] anyway””

He’s done a lot of gross things to different women in the group, including “Offering to drive my stranded friend home from a party, then informing her that he expected sex as “payment” when he dropped her off; following her to the house after she said no.”

“For what should be obvious reasons, every single girl in our group of friends completely hates Ben, and none of us want him around. However, when I tried to bring up the subject with Boyfriend and our guy friends, none of them seemed willing to admit that his behaviour was predatory or threatening, and they seemed reluctant to take a strong stance against him.”

Captain Awkward says that this is an example of rape culture. She describes the following sequence:

“Step 1: A creepy dude does creepy, entitled [stuff] and makes women feel unsafe”
“Step 2: The women speak up about it to their partners.”
“Step 3: It gets written off as “not a big deal” or “he probably didn’t mean it” or “he’s not a bad guy, really.” Any discussion of the bad behavior must immediately be followed by a complete audit of his better qualities or the sad things he’s suffered in the name of “fairness.””
“Step 4: Everyone is worried about hurting creepy dude’s feelings or making it weird for creepy dude. Better yet, everyone is worried about how the other dudes in the friend group will feel if they are called out for enabling creepy dude. Women are worried that if they push the issue, that the entire friend group will side with creepy dude or that they’ll be blamed for causing “drama.””
“Step 5: Creepy dude creeps on with his creepy self. He’s learned that there are no real (i.e. “disapproval & pushback from dudes and dude society”) consequences to his actions.”
“Possible Step 6: Creepy dude rapes someone. If he does, there’s a less than 50% chance that the woman will report it. Why? Could it be that all the people who surround her have taught her that if she speaks up nothing will really come of it anyway? Could it be that she doesn’t trust her friends and the people who love her to have her back on this? I CAN’T IMAGINE WHY.”

 

[Xantippe]

As Captain Awkward points out, "I would put the chances that he has already raped someone as high. Very high. Someone, somewhere back in college was a little too drunk to wake up in time or to fully enforce a “I appreciate the ride home, but please don’t come into my house because I don’t want to have sex with you and I told you no already.”

"I don’t know how we fix it, but one step has to be to stop tolerating it when it happens to us and when it happens to people we love. Making our social circles and spaces safe means making them AWKWARD AS HELL and UNSAFE for creeps and predators. It means constantly reframing the conversation away from the dominant narrative, so when stuff like the situations in these letters comes up we can say “That’s called sexual assault and it’s a crime. So I need you to stop talking to me about his feelings and pressuring me to invite him to parties.”

 

[Werbenjagermanjensen]

We have a system already for dealing with sexual assault cases and it goes beyond excluding creepy dudes from a social circle. The current system also has the added bonus of giving the accused the opportunity to face their accuser and have their side heard. Should probably just stick with that system, call the police, and not ask friends and acquaintances to sort a bunch of hearsay and gossip.

The problem with cases of sexual assault is that sex, groping, petting, necking are activities that go on all the time between two consenting adults. When a crime is committed there is often no physical evidence left behind and the case can be difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Many in the #metoo movement want to solve that by doing away with due process. What else can you make with phrases like, “trust women” or “listen and believe?” Also, the fact is that places that have enacted enthusiastic consent laws have changed from beyond a reasonable doubt to preponderance of the evidence. For men that could mean that if you’re accused of a crime you will be dragged in front of some sort of kangaroo court without the opportunity to face your accuser and then punished.

 

[Theo520]

Good example of how we (royal) unconsciously enable some predators. I say unconscious because I don’t think that was the intent of the other male friends.

 

[Werbenjagermanjensen]

Good example of how we (royal) unconsciously enable some predators. I say unconscious because I don’t think that was the intent of the other male friends.

Women are enabling here too. We aren’t speaking about a group of invertebrates here and they certainly need no permission from no man to exclude someone they find creepy they own dang self.