Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: AnotherUnixGeek
Can we agree...

Who's "we"? You and I might agree but there's a whole bunch of other people who need to agree too. By "touching" I assume you mean private parts, but I've been unexpectedly touched elsewhere, sometimes hugged, more rarely kissed. I didn't take offense but that doesn't mean others wouldn't.

As to "exposing ones self", you only mention men. What about the woman in a low cut top who bends over and provides a clear view of a well formed breast? Or the woman in a short skirt who allows a clear view. You might not object to that. I might not object to that. Can we get everybody to agree with us?

I really am not concerned about wolf whistles or comments, and I don't believe the law is either...

Some people are concerned about wolf whistles or comments. The concern or lack of concern of you and me is not the only consideration.

As to the law, from the US Code (emphasis added):

§ 1604.11 Sexual harassment.

(a) Harassment on the basis of sex is a violation of section 703 of title VII. 1 Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment when (1) submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual's employment, (2) submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment decisions affecting such individual, or (3) such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment.

...not in eyes of the law.

Yet.

20 posted on 11/18/2017 3:01:08 PM PST by KrisKrinkle (Blessed be those who know the depth and breadth of their ignorance. Cursed be those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]


To: KrisKrinkle
By "touching" I assume you mean private parts, but I've been unexpectedly touched elsewhere, sometimes hugged, more rarely kissed.

And is this a function of what you choose to wear, or was this based on some other factors? Regardless of whether you objected or not, do you believe that you are conveying an invitation to be touched by what you wear? Has it ever been your expectation or belief that what you wear should be the determining factor in whether or not people should touch you?

As to "exposing ones self", you only mention men. What about the woman in a low cut top who bends over and provides a clear view of a well formed breast? Or the woman in a short skirt who allows a clear view. You might not object to that. I might not object to that. Can we get everybody to agree with us?

I was referring specifically to exposure of genitalia as a prelude to masturbation and an attempt to coerce another to join in this activity. Most of us do already agree about the advisability and legality of coerced sexual activity.

There are many befuddling aspects to modern society and the legal system, but this simply is not one of them. What another person wears is not the way we decide whether or not we should touch any part of them. And by "we" I mean all of us in society - those of us who haven't gotten the message will be taught by negative feedback and possibly law enforcement.
21 posted on 11/18/2017 4:16:27 PM PST by AnotherUnixGeek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson