B
Bruised_Reed
Guest
Are you talking about sexual harassment or sexual assault? The personnel handbook should have it defined there. I doubt it indicates that only women can be targets. Was it that HR handled it poorly?
- Status
P
Prodigal_Son
Guest
No, the Church. If we took every chance theory or comment made by priests to represent the opinions of the Church, the Church would look pretty stupid.
But that is PRECISELY what people critical of the University of Michigan are doing in this thread. This document was developed by probably 2-3 people at U of M, and suddenly people unleash their anti-intellectualist diatribes against the whole university.
Anti-intellectualism is just as random, and just as harmful, as anti-Catholicism. Both tendencies take a valid source of knowledge and ridicule it, based on misunderstandings and overgeneralizations.
P
Prodigal_Son
Guest
Pretty soon some crazy organization is going to say that ALL extramarital sex and relationship manipulation is violence against women!
Oh, wait…
The Church already does.
Oh, wait…
The Church already does.
E
EasterJoy
Guest
The problem is that the web site doesn’t nuance it very well. They aren’t talking about sexual aggression. They’re talking about using sex as a way to inflict relational aggression. The web site unfortunately lumps it all under “domestic violence,” which is a gross oversimplification. For instance: a sexual predator might cultivate a relationship of false trust in order to groom a victim for assault that the victim will take the blame for rather than reporting. No one on earth is going to classify someone who withholds sex to get what he or she wants from a partner as a sexual predator. The sexual predator and the person who withholds sex in order to manipulate a victim of her relational aggression are quite different animals. The damage done by relational aggression is very real, but it is not the same thing as every other kind of aggression that can go on between people whose relationship is both personal and sexual.
P
Prodigal_Son
Guest
Yes, this is right. But the more I think about it, the basic notion that “withholding sex from a partner is a form of sexual violence” is actually quite similar to Catholic teaching, except in exceptional cases. The difference is that we say sex is only morally permissible in marriage. But within that context, using habitual refusal of sex as a weapon is wrong.
D
DarkLight
Guest
People also need to consider what sort of thing a particular list is aimed at. From what I can tell this list is aimed primarily at escape and safety planning rather than at discipline. That sort of issue is always going to cast the net wider than what is punishable. We may not want the law to intervene when someone verbally humiliates and degrades another unless in very extreme cases, but we might still want to set up society and resources to aid people in getting out of such situations.
G
Gordon_Sims
Guest
I hate to say it but, been there, done that. One was an actual assault. The other cases were harassment. Each time I was advised by my boss and her lawyer that I couldn’t claim assault or harassment because it wasn’t possible for a woman to sexually assault or harass a man. I let it drop because a friend of mine had been in a similar situation where his manager assaulted him and when he refused to let her turn it into a relationship, she filed rape charges. He was lucky enough to have witnesses so the criminal case was dropped but she still filed a civil suit. She lost that as well, but the lawyer fees left him broke and in tremendous debt.
G
Gordon_Sims
Guest
The problem isn’t whether people on the internet get the various nuances of a report or study; the problem is that it’s not that far a trip from an educational journal or activist claiming A should be B, to various legal or victims’ groups picking up on it and trying to get it legislated via the courts.
D
DarkLight
Guest
The trouble is so far as I can tell no one actually claimed it. What happened is someone used their website, which was hosted on a university server, to make a list of things that can be indications of domestic violence. They wrote some things that could potentially be interpreted badly (though I don’t think that’s a particularly natural interpretation). Someone else decided to run with the worst possible interpretation and write a news story asserting it as something the university said.
The problem is that what we’ve got going is a telephone game designed to spit out the most sensationalist story they can in order to get page views.
G
Groo
Guest
The fact that this is being discussed at all is a victory for this idea. Ultimately this is about giving government more power over our lives. The morality of withholding sex is an almost irrelevant side story in this case.
This is scary, Orwellian stuff.
This is scary, Orwellian stuff.
P
Prodigal_Son
Guest
V
Vico
Guest
The defintion of verb to withhold is to refuse to give (something that is due to or is desired by another).
This is the list of sexual violence given (rearranged):
- discounting the partner’s feelings regarding sex;
- criticizing the partner sexually;
- touching the partner sexually in inappropriate and uncomfortable ways;
- withholding sex and affection;
- always demanding sex;
- using objects and/or weapons to hurt during sex or threats to back up demands for sex
- forcing partner to
- strip as a form of humiliation (maybe in front of children),
- to witness sexual acts,
- to participate in uncomfortable sex or
- sex after an episode of violence,
- to have sex with other people.
F
fpt
Guest
My provocative comments:
In the natural and sacramental marriage, between husband and wife, the unilateral refusal of practicing the marital act without a true reason (fair, real, objective, realistic, serious and present reason) is a violation of the conjugal contract / conjugal consortium / conjugal institution / conjugal covenant. For one part, or at least it is a possible form of violence toward the other spouse: a lack of justice and of charity. The marital debt and the marital obligation in favor of the conjugal sexuality is still existing.
Only, the Roman Catholic Church has the power to explain the elements of the regime of the natural moral order of the marital sexuality. The unilateral withholding Sex in the marriage can be morally wrong under particular conditions. The secular views are wrong, only, the catholic views are good, naturally and supernaturally speaking. The sexual violence in the marriage by passivity and by omission, why not, only, in the catholic acception.
F
fpt
Guest
“criticizing the partner sexually,”??, **no definition??? That is the problematic!!! The critic can have two destinies: a positive aspect and a negative aspect. **
In the marriage, each spouse has to listen the legitimate feelings of the other. Each spouse has to try to satisfy the legitimate feelings of the other, in the respect of the natural moral order of the marriage. The conjugal dialogue, the conjugal talk and the conjugal discussion about the couple, on the family, on the children, on each member of couple, on the conjugal sexuality and on all the topics of the conjugality is a moral right, a moral obligation and a moral duty. Naturally speaking , each spouse has the right to discuss about issues of the conjugal sexuality, even more, the right to the critic is still existing, in respecting the natural moral order (here, only, the circumstances and the intentions and the effects have to be taken in consideration for evaluation of the morality of this critic). Each spouse has to try to satisfy the legitimate sexual hopes, the legitimate sexual needs, the legitimate sexual desires, the legitimate sexual rights of the other, in the respect of the natural moral order of the marriage and of the marital act.
In the marriage, each spouse has to listen the legitimate feelings of the other. Each spouse has to try to satisfy the legitimate feelings of the other, in the respect of the natural moral order of the marriage. The conjugal dialogue, the conjugal talk and the conjugal discussion about the couple, on the family, on the children, on each member of couple, on the conjugal sexuality and on all the topics of the conjugality is a moral right, a moral obligation and a moral duty. Naturally speaking , each spouse has the right to discuss about issues of the conjugal sexuality, even more, the right to the critic is still existing, in respecting the natural moral order (here, only, the circumstances and the intentions and the effects have to be taken in consideration for evaluation of the morality of this critic). Each spouse has to try to satisfy the legitimate sexual hopes, the legitimate sexual needs, the legitimate sexual desires, the legitimate sexual rights of the other, in the respect of the natural moral order of the marriage and of the marital act.
F
fpt
Guest
One of ends of marriage and of the marital act is the fact avoiding the wrong effects of the concupiscence, thus each member of couple is for the other** a conjugal nurse**, a **conjugal doctor, a medical lover and a medicinal beloved. **The marital debt is helpful and useful for keeping the chastity. Each one must offer his or her body to the other, and to sacrifice, in the reason and the moderation, (rules of reason), in favor of the other in the respect of the natural moral order of the marriage and of the marital act. Yes, the practice of the marital act can be a moral treatment and a spiritual treatment for each member of couple.
B
Bruised_Reed
Guest
I really wouldn’t worry about that. I’ve worked as an advocate and now that I’m no longer an advocate I would probably be considered and activist (cue Wagnerian death chord) though I still work collaboratively with a similar agency (victims’ group) and that is not a part of the agenda.
If you believe it is their agenda then I’m afraid you don’t really understand the scope of the problem.
B
Bruised_Reed
Guest
Discussing what is healthy or not healthy in relationships is Orwellian? Because as clumsy as the this article is that healthy relationships is what it is about. Fixating on one line because it sounds ridiculous out of context misses the point.
F
fpt
Guest
The marriage is a voluntary act of love what means the will to love the other for all the life by the mechanism of the volition. This love is composed, materially speaking, by the body. Thus, if you disagree with the fact of having to touch the other, sexually speaking, the marriage is not for you, and if you disagree with the fact of having to be touched by the other, sexually speaking, the marriage is not for you. The marital act and Co is one of hard cores of marriage because the marriage is a sexed and sexual contract, a sexed and sexual institution, a sexed and sexual covenant and a sexed and sexual consortium: a sexed and sexual donation, and a sexed and sexual reception, for all the life and for all the time, in the respect of the natural moral order of the marriage and of the marital act. The rules of reason, the reasonability, the fair rationality, the objectivity, the justice, the natural goodness, the catholic charity, the natural love, the supernatural love, the moderation, the balance, the efforts and the sacrifices, the principle of practice of the marital act and the exception of un-practice of the marital act are the rules of marriage.
S
sirach2v4
Guest
I’m not sure if the Catechism offers any advice on anything this specific about sexual intimacy in marriage.
In his famous encyclical Humanae Vitae, soon-to-be-saint Pope Paul VI referred to a married couple validly refraining from sexual intercourse. So, such refraining is certainly not automatically sexual violence; I think it is only when it is part of a bigger picture of marital discord.
Judaism broadly acknowledges the command of God to procreate. So, violence against procreation is violence against God, as much as it is anything else.
E
Estevao
Guest
What a nice subjective list, perfect for liberals to interpret in whatever way they want to paint men as abusers. Just throw in some made up terms like “relational aggression” and “healthy relationships” (healthy as defined by ivory tower academics of course) and we’re good to go!
- Status