Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Because it needs to be said

blogjustine.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 635 posts

Re: Because it needs to be said

#391

Post by pearjuice »

gregd wrote: post #382
pearjuice wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So any contact by a man on woman which has not explicitly said "Yes, I am okay with this" is sexual assault? Rape? Shouldn't the victim have responsibilities? Know what is at stake?

I'll oblige you with a response. This wasn't just "any contact". Did you read where he jammed his tongue down her throat? Did you read where he groped her ass? Did you read the part about penetrating her with his finger? Quit trying to frame this as just "any contact" because it wasn't.

Seeing as you are an expert on the matter: whenever I am presented in such a situation; at which point do I ask the woman for consent? Is it when she jumps on the bar and lifts her shirt or when I lick her belly button (which was why she jumped on the bar)? Before I wrap my hands around her of after I kiss her forehead?

Re: Because it needs to be said

#392

Post by britta »

steveklabnik wrote: post #159
sneak wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hey, ally: try educating instead of ad hominem. It works better.

Yeah, I know. :( Should take some time off.

Thanks for making an effort in this thread, to both you and sneak (and others). It takes so much energy.

Re: Because it needs to be said

#393

Post by scotty79 »

I am very much against any sort of violence but I think I can make exception for female slapping male in the face in such situations.

I was once hitting on a girl I had complicated relationship with (close friends/was my love interest/was her rebound). I was way too physically insistent (although definitely not to the point described by OP) and she slapped me. It brought me so much clarity instantly. It kicked me out of the haze of arousal (no alcohol was involved at all) for long enough to notice what the f*ck I am just doing. It communicated her point of view to me in an instant. Far better than any words we exchanged could.

I am (and always was) a man who absolutely abhors sexual assaults (even more than other kinds of assaults). I always wanted to avoid forcing anyone to do anything. Yet, slap in the face was perfect for me to prevent me from causing the person I loved and was incredibly attracted to, further discomfort.

None of the above should be read as any kind of victim blaming. I'm not saying "she should have just slapped him". I'm firmly behind the idea that there's never a reason to advice any victim of any incident after the fact and that in case of assault, motivation of the attacker is not a thing that should ever be considered. It's totally unimportant that he was aroused, pissed off, drunk, jolly, grieving whatever. If you apply any sort of physical means against unwilling person that's the only thing that counts.

Other thing is that I think much of the damage was done by the fact that the offender hasn't been confronted with the victim. He should be put in position of powerlessness for her to see. Keeping the whole thing PC and under radar resulted in her never being able to close the case for herself.

Re: Because it needs to be said

#394

Post by wilkie »

lawnchair_larry wrote: post #390
ddagradi wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Ask first" works just fine when the question is "can I stick my hand down your pants?". It really isn't the social norm to do that without asking.

What are you talking about? Among the subset of the population who participates in hands-down-pants, roughly zero percent of these interactions begin with one of them asking for permission first. It simply doesn't happen.

Well, lawnchair larry, I have asked, and have been asked, permission to do this very thing. It's really not that uncommon nor unwise to do so.

Re: Because it needs to be said

#395

Post by swombat »

gregd wrote: post #382
pearjuice wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So any contact by a man on woman which has not explicitly said "Yes, I am okay with this" is sexual assault? Rape? Shouldn't the victim have responsibilities? Know what is at stake?

I'll oblige you with a response. This wasn't just "any contact". Did you read where he jammed his tongue down her throat? Did you read where he groped her ass? Did you read the part about penetrating her with his finger? Quit trying to frame this as just "any contact" because it wasn't.

Without wading into this pointless debate, the fact that this part of the story was in the shape of bullet points does not help lift the ambiguity...

The bullet points seem to cover several minutes at least, if not a good half hour or longer. At all times she could have said "please stop now". Did she? Perhaps she did. We don't know, though. At one point she expressed surprise that her boss would do this even though he was married. Was that "please stop, you're married!" Or was it "aren't you married?"

Could be either, from this report... So the ambiguity is enough to give space to all these pointlessly angry debates.

Edit: the following links remove some ambiguity, but not a whole lot: http://theotherzach.com/writes/2013/10/9/events http://blog.matt-darby.com/essays/i-am-the-other-developer

Re: Because it needs to be said

#396

Post by lawnchair_larry »

mkrecny wrote: post #120

Here's Joe's "Funemployment" post: http://objo.com/2013/06/01/taking-some-time-off/

While we're taking things out of context, I noticed that he also followed up with a post that he is checking himself into a 6 week mental health program to get some help.

http://objo.com/2013/06/01/taking-some-time-off/

It's possible that just maybe, this is a decent man who made a bad decision, like all of us have done in different ways. Fortunately for us, our mistakes were not aired on the internet. There is a chance that he is not a cruel, evil being that the internet should burn like a salem witch, but that he's human like you and I.

If you think you're better than him, read this again in ten years. Eventually, real life will happen, and you'll do something regrettable.

Re: Because it needs to be said

#397

Post by chris_wot »

brazzy wrote: post #336
chris_wot wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Either you are trolling me, or you are judging me (what a strange and pitiable man!), or you have no idea what you are talking about. Given you know nothing about me, I'd say a bit of each.

Nope, I was just trying to be witty and to make my point implicitly. I did not really mean it to be personal. My bad. So let's make this an explicit discussion, shall we? What I was trying to say is that contrary to your original statement not every penetration is sexual assault, nor are (in general) sexual acts without explicit consent. Why? Because in Western society, consent is more often than not implicit. People…

I understand, sorry I took it the wrong way. I understand what you are saying, and I don't necessarily disagree. It's possible I wasn't clear. When this Joe character penetrated her with his fingers, he did it surrounded by people at a bar. He was drunk. I think in this case it's clear he didn't have consent, at least one other account (by the gentleman who stopped it going further) said the situation looked out of control, and it didn't look like consent was given.

For the record, where I got a little upset with your comment was when you said I must have a strange relationship. As it turns out, I'm a very happily married man with two kids. I actually do ask my wife if she's in the mood. Different couples communicate differently I guess.

Re: Because it needs to be said

#398

Post by lawnchair_larry »

wilkie wrote: post #394
lawnchair_larry wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are you talking about? Among the subset of the population who participates in hands-down-pants, roughly zero percent of these interactions begin with one of them asking for permission first. It simply doesn't happen.

Well, lawnchair larry, I have asked, and have been asked, permission to do this very thing. It's really not that uncommon nor unwise to do so.

I assure you then, you're a rounding error. I'm surprised if you actually think most people do that.

Re: Because it needs to be said

#399

Post by chris_wot »

anu_gupta wrote: post #318
chris_wot wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You must have a problem reading. I'm not taking legal action against VMware. Where do you think I said I was? As for the aggression - your sarcastic comment about my organs being harvested (???) came off as attacking me.

OK, I think we have very different definitions for what aggression is, and also a different understand of what reading means. Probably best to leave it there, although I would encourage you to consider taking legal action, it really might stop this kind of thing from happening again.

Hold on... You were serious about your comment that I might be trafficked or had my organs harvested?!?

Re: Because it needs to be said

#400

Post by swombat »

mst wrote: post #369
Udo wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Just because she consented to the shot part does NOT mean she was offering anything else. This part a lot of people can agree with, myself included. The rest, not so much. I understand and I share the sense that pearjuice's opinion is aggravating, but this reaction is not acceptable and, worse, it sabotages your (valid) point. By the way, if you really want to hate someone, go search the comments of the article for…

Words to the effect of "she was asking for it" are uncivilised and to my mind an uncivil response is at that point not just acceptable but important. I had two points there - the first was that pearjuice was plain wrong. The second was that pearjuice's attitude does not belong in civilised society and that anybody holding such an attitude should be defenestrated with extreme prejudice. I respect your opinion that my…

I don't think anyone is suggesting that she was asking for it. However, from the report it is ambiguous whether she clearly stated "no" at any point (reminding him he's married may have been a clear no statement, but we don't know for sure). Unfortunately this ambiguity is giving rise to the arguments above.

I am civilised. I think that your attitude (suggesting that someone whose opinion differs from yours should be killed by throwing them out of a window) is far less suitable to civilised society than pearjuice's, who is arguing a contentious and sensitive point, and may be wrong, but is at least willing to do so without calling people names or threatening to harm them physically.

Your behaviour, however, is completely unacceptable. What's your excuse for it? Do you also beat up things and people around you physically when you get upset, or does your violence remain verbal only?

Post reply on HN