“The protestor kissed an inanimate object that happened to be being worn by the officer. If someone kisses my jacket on the bus is that sexual harassment? I don’t think I could get the police to take that one seriously, which says something… doesn’t it?”
As can be attested by a number of friends and relatives of mine, it’s disturbingly difficult to get police officers to take rape allegations seriously…
Not in the slightest. The whole idea is preposterous.
First, is consent necessary? Obviously not, since it happens all the time.
Should people always insure consent before touching another human? Of course not, and I doubt most people would disagree. If someone is about to walk into traffic without seeing the car speeding around the corner, I am not going to hesitate about grabbing their shoulder and pulling then back. If someone is breaking the law or endangering others, I do not have a problem with them being restrained. If it’s a packed bus or subway, I don’t think there’s any need to get consent from the others on it to be pressed up against them. If I want to get someone’s attention, I don’t think there’s a problem with tapping them on the shoulder. A tentative touch is often a way to check for consent - a hand on a hand. It’s communication.
There are ways to sexually abuse people with words, but simply talking at people is not sexual abuse, and the concept is ludicrous - as is any requirement that consent be obtained before beginning a conversation - or allowing someone to overhear you. Physical contact is certainly more limited in the range of “acceptable” behaviours, but the intent matters.
Touching with the intent to make the other person uncomfortable, against their will and for no better purpose, is clearly not okay. When the person is communicating that they actively do not want to be touched, one should make an effort to avoid touching them if there are other options, but it’s still quite situational.
I can’t believe that 102 posts later, this still hasn’t been posted:
http://www.theonion.com/video/bloomberg-defends-nypds-controversial-stop-and-kis,34731/
Dammit. I ALWAYS miss the Onion url and go’ Whaaaaa?’. Always.
Depends on which helmet she’s kissing.
I’d have asked for her number.
[quote=“ActionAbe, post:78, topic:16696”]
And it’s a sad, sad thing if I was never tried. This is why weakening standards for sexual assault for anyone ultimately has the effect of weakening them for everyone. [/quote]
Are you under the impression that people who commit sexual assault are customarily tried in a court of law for their transgressions? The truth is, only a very small percentage of sexual assault ever even gets to the point of being prosecuted at all (to say nothing of the lesser charge of sexual abuse, which is much closer to the specific situation here).
I worked with rape victims for five years in a major city. Weapons, children, scarring, you name it. Two cases went to trial. In one case, two of the 19 perpetrators (yes, you read that right) confessed, were found guilty, and were given “time served” sentences. They named a handful of the others, none of whom were even arrested. The other case, the perpetrator got less than a year.
Two trials in five years. State/county attorneys won’t take a case unless they are absolutely certain they will win.
Sexual abuse/assault is all about power. By definition, the weak are incapable of assaulting the powerful in this way.
hominis paleae
Of course it would. As it should be. And police doing the same to the protestor would be even worse. But it’s already a competition within the sexual offender olympics, and competing in them at all means you’ve already lost.
Putting your hands on a cop typically results in a bad ending, regardless of whether you’re going for the gun or going for a smooch.
So the charge should be ‘damaging police equipment’, or what are you getting at?
I am with you on that. I couldn’t believe how far I had to scroll to find your post. I thought for one brief moment that it was to be me who eventually posted it.
I was thinking about the exact same event, but without the smile.
The police officer’s concerns about “what if the situation were reversed?” is a fair concern, but here’s the sticking point:
If the officer in full riot gear is kissed by a protester and subsequently feels threatened, the officer may beat the protester to death with little consequence.
If the officer in full riot gear kisses the protester and the protester feels threatened, the officer may beat the protester to death with little consequence.
So, you’re saying it’s not so much that you’re sexist, more that you’re an authority-worshipping cop fan who feels the need to grab onto any argument available to strike back whenever you see the police’s actions criticized in any way. Gotcha.
He was taken advantage of physically she placed her fingers on his lips. Sexual assault is the worst crime on this planet didn’t you know? I know that cause my feminist friend told me that.
Well that was full of reason and logic, bravo. Good job we have people like you around.
Reading some of these comments makes me think that either
(a) What I am wearing and what I am doing at the time of a sexual assault determines whether or not it counts.
(b) If a person comes up to me, licks/kisses something that I am wearing and puts their fingers on my mouth, then I should be okay with that.
So the guy is being faulted for not responding with force against the woman?
CTRL-f FTW 
