I guess the whole concept of consenting adults goes out the window with "Sexual Harassment" lawsuits.
Personally I don't believe any of them. IMHO if the conduct does not rise to the level of a crime, it should not rise to the level of a tort.
I completely agree with you.
If the encounter goes well, it is called a marriage....or an “association”
In the military, they have strict UCMJ rules about fraternization that make these things impossible to defend because of their very nature. But, in the civilian world, there is no law against “dating” or “encountering”.
“IMHO if the conduct does not rise to the level of a crime, it should not rise to the level of a tort.”
Yes!
I also object to sexual harassment law on the same basis as “hate crime” law. We ought not create special classes of citizens willy-nilly. Murder is murder, whether your victim is the same race as you or not; just as harassment should be harassment whether the person you harass is a chick or a dude.
Not that men and women can’t be treated differently for various purposes. I certainly don’t want to live in a perfectly unisex culture. But the idea that saying the exact same thing to a man as a woman can result in a lawsuit in one case but not the other is anathema to me. We ought not to leave it to the subjective feelings of women as to when they’ve been wronged in any case, and especially not when men are denied the same privilege.
Not that we’re equal. Men continue to be menaces. And though women are not wilting flowers, they are more sensitive and vulnerable. But that’s just the thing; we’re transferring the very real brutality of men in the physical realm over into the realm of words, which is unjustified. Words are a problem, but a problem that can be dealt with privately. It is a social, not political, issue.
Whether or not we give the benefit of the justifiable homicide to women who shoot what their imaginations tell them might have been attackers in dark alleyways. I have a problem with it, since, as feminists constantly warn us, all men are potential rapists. But that’s another issue. We can’t make mere words legally actionable just because men often back words with violence. Men and women should be equal before the law as regards what comes out of their mouths. Not equal in company policy or how your mother would react to hear you, but before the law.
True.
However, the immature response to the issue should open the eyes of serious voters. The ease at which the race card is thrown out and then unsupported accusations of others is made should concern people who are looking for a POTUS.
Cain has been iffy at best from my perspective since his failure to sign the Pro-Life pledge. The more I see of him the less I like him.