No touching! - sexual impropriety thread

User avatar
Painboy
Posts: 3440
Joined: 18 Feb 2013, 11:33
Location: Seattle

Re: No touching! - sexual impropriety thread

Post by Painboy » 16 Jan 2018, 16:46

What I find annoying about some of these chiding editorials is that all solutions have to be enacted by the guy. There is never anything expected on the woman's side of things. I get that guys shouldn't be as grabby or insistent about sex but then maybe the woman should avoid things that can lead the guy to certain expectations, like going back to his apartment.

This should be about compromise and meeting in the middle. Not just one side doing all the accommodating. Do you want an equal partner or do you want a mincing butler?

User avatar
Jadagul
Posts: 6555
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 18:51

Re: No touching! - sexual impropriety thread

Post by Jadagul » 16 Jan 2018, 17:12

The thing about the Aziz Ansari bit is that it's perfect toxoplasma of rage. It's right on the margin where people have a bunch of different reactions, so we're talking and arguing about this. In contrast to, like, the Weinstein thing where there wasn't anything to say, because everyone agreed that he was horrible.

User avatar
Painboy
Posts: 3440
Joined: 18 Feb 2013, 11:33
Location: Seattle

Re: No touching! - sexual impropriety thread

Post by Painboy » 16 Jan 2018, 17:24

Jadagul wrote:
16 Jan 2018, 17:12
The thing about the Aziz Ansari bit is that it's perfect toxoplasma of rage. It's right on the margin where people have a bunch of different reactions, so we're talking and arguing about this. In contrast to, like, the Weinstein thing where there wasn't anything to say, because everyone agreed that he was horrible.
I guess I just can't seriously look at a guy like Aziz and think "sexual predator who regularly takes advantage of women." What about him says power or intimidation?

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 11688
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: No touching! - sexual impropriety thread

Post by Eric the .5b » 16 Jan 2018, 17:26

Mo wrote:
16 Jan 2018, 10:39
Am I the only one wondering why we care about some random bad article on babe.com? If the dude's name was Aziz Khan, no one would care about this story, at all.
I think you answer yourself.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
"Cyberpunk never really gave the government enough credit for their ability to secure a favorable prenup during the Corporate-State wedding." - Shem

User avatar
Mo
Posts: 22346
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Re: No touching! - sexual impropriety thread

Post by Mo » 16 Jan 2018, 20:25

My point is that there is a reason this is on Babe.com as opposed to the NY Times or the Atlantic.
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex

User avatar
Painboy
Posts: 3440
Joined: 18 Feb 2013, 11:33
Location: Seattle

Re: No touching! - sexual impropriety thread

Post by Painboy » 16 Jan 2018, 20:27

Mo wrote:My point is that there is a reason this is on Babe.com as opposed to the NY Times or the Atlantic.
But the Atlantic and the NYT are covering it now so....

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 25396
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: No touching! - sexual impropriety thread

Post by thoreau » 16 Jan 2018, 20:31

She's a young photographer in Brooklyn. She got the attention of a women's lifestyle site in Brooklyn more easily than a major outlet But once she got their attention they got everyone else's attention.

Also, it's babe.net, not babe.com. I learned this the hard way.
"ike Wile E. Coyote salivating over a "4000 Ways To Prepare Roadrunner" cookbook without watching his surroundings, the Road Runner of Societal Inertia snuck up on them both and beepbeeped them off the mesa."
--Shem

User avatar
Mo
Posts: 22346
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Re: No touching! - sexual impropriety thread

Post by Mo » 16 Jan 2018, 20:35

Painboy wrote:
16 Jan 2018, 20:27
Mo wrote:My point is that there is a reason this is on Babe.com as opposed to the NY Times or the Atlantic.
But the Atlantic and the NYT are covering it now so....
And they're largely critical of it, which is why they're not there in the first place.
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex

User avatar
Kolohe
Posts: 13100
Joined: 06 May 2010, 10:51

Re: No touching! - sexual impropriety thread

Post by Kolohe » 16 Jan 2018, 21:55

thoreau wrote:
16 Jan 2018, 20:31
She's a young photographer in Brooklyn. She got the attention of a women's lifestyle site in Brooklyn more easily than a major outlet But once she got their attention they got everyone else's attention.

Also, it's babe.net, not babe.com. I learned this the hard way.
I bet you did.
when you wake up as the queen of the n=1 kingdom and mount your steed non sequiturius, do you look out upon all you survey and think “damn, it feels good to be a green idea sleeping furiously?" - dhex

User avatar
Sandy
Posts: 9984
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 18:03
Location: In the hearts of little children, clogging their arteries.

Re: No touching! - sexual impropriety thread

Post by Sandy » 17 Jan 2018, 17:04

Hindu is the cricket of religions. You can observe it for years, you can have enthusiasts try to explain it to you, and it's still baffling. - Warren

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 25396
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: No touching! - sexual impropriety thread

Post by thoreau » 18 Jan 2018, 12:20

The President of Ithaca College groped a patient in 2000, while training as a mental health professional.

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2018 ... court-case
https://theithacan.org/news/ithaca-coll ... onviction/

The people hiring her knew about it, it was an apparent one-time incident, and they are standing by the decision to hire her.

I think we err on the side of punitive far too often, so I'm not necessarily opposed to somebody having a career in spite of a single offense, provided that they are closely observed and there are no further infractions. But I do wonder how many other people would get the (reasonable) treatment that she got.
"ike Wile E. Coyote salivating over a "4000 Ways To Prepare Roadrunner" cookbook without watching his surroundings, the Road Runner of Societal Inertia snuck up on them both and beepbeeped them off the mesa."
--Shem

User avatar
lunchstealer
Posts: 15340
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:25
Location: The Local Fluff in the Local Bubble

Re: No touching! - sexual impropriety thread

Post by lunchstealer » 18 Jan 2018, 12:27

I would say that the worse infraction is that she then lived with the patient. That's a pretty big nono in the psych field, isn't it? A one-off thing seems forgivable. But to my layman's understanding, that shows a much more sustained ethical breach.
"The constitution is more of a BDSM agreement with a safe word." - Sandy

"Neoliberalism. Austerity. Booga booga!!!!" - JasonL

"We can't confirm rumors that Lynndie England is in the running to be Gina Haspel's personal aide." - DAR

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 25396
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: No touching! - sexual impropriety thread

Post by thoreau » 18 Jan 2018, 12:57

The alleged victim was no longer her patient when they lived together, and supposedly she was only providing shelter. Does that violate the rules? I dunno, ask a mental health professional. She's accused of having a sexual relationship with the former patient while they were living together, but that accusation was not conceded as part of any plea, and the facts were never aired and examined.

Something hinky clearly happened, though. Should that exile a person from respectable employment? Not necessarily, depending on the nature of the offense, and assuming that the person is carefully supervised to make sure it really is just a one-time offense.

So I'm not necessarily opposed to her having an academic career. And if there's any hypocrisy in the handling of her case I'd rather see it balanced out with more merciful handling of future cases, rather than retribution against her.

At the same time, I have some reasonable suspicions about why she got (appropriately!) merciful treatment when others wouldn't, but we'll all have to pretend that that's not what happened. She got exempted from the Great Heretics' Stake Burning, and we'll have to pretend that we don't know why, and vow to never do it again, rather than try to further curtail the roasting of heretics.
"ike Wile E. Coyote salivating over a "4000 Ways To Prepare Roadrunner" cookbook without watching his surroundings, the Road Runner of Societal Inertia snuck up on them both and beepbeeped them off the mesa."
--Shem

User avatar
Warren
Posts: 23312
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: No touching! - sexual impropriety thread

Post by Warren » 18 Jan 2018, 13:29

thoreau wrote:
18 Jan 2018, 12:57
At the same time, I have some reasonable suspicions about why she got (appropriately!) merciful treatment when others wouldn't...
It's because she has a vagina.
thoreau wrote:
18 Jan 2018, 12:57
...but we'll all have to pretend that that's not what happened. She got exempted from the Great Heretics' Stake Burning, and we'll have to pretend that we don't know why, and vow to never do it again, rather than try to further curtail the roasting of heretics.
Who's pretending? I think it's not merely acknowledged but actively promoted as a moral good. People with penises should be punished for their transgressions, people with vaginas should not be professionally handicapped.
Gentrification is undocumented immigration for the left-leaning. - Shem

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 25396
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: No touching! - sexual impropriety thread

Post by thoreau » 18 Jan 2018, 13:42

Warren wrote:
18 Jan 2018, 13:29
thoreau wrote:
18 Jan 2018, 12:57
...but we'll all have to pretend that that's not what happened. She got exempted from the Great Heretics' Stake Burning, and we'll have to pretend that we don't know why, and vow to never do it again, rather than try to further curtail the roasting of heretics.
Who's pretending? I think it's not merely acknowledged but actively promoted as a moral good. People with penises should be punished for their transgressions, people with vaginas should not be professionally handicapped.
We pretend every day. We say that we know we should adhere to a more subtly-stated version of the standard that you outlined. We also say that because of implicit bias people don't actually adhere to it. But we should adhere to it. But we don't, and we know why we don't: Implicit bias. But we are proud when we make progress toward certain numerical targets, even while we insist that nobody adhered to that standard because out implicit biases prevent us from doing so.

Double-Think is painful.
"ike Wile E. Coyote salivating over a "4000 Ways To Prepare Roadrunner" cookbook without watching his surroundings, the Road Runner of Societal Inertia snuck up on them both and beepbeeped them off the mesa."
--Shem

User avatar
Mo
Posts: 22346
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Re: No touching! - sexual impropriety thread

Post by Mo » 23 Jan 2018, 17:15

There was more than one back touching incident with Keillor.

his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex

User avatar
Sandy
Posts: 9984
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 18:03
Location: In the hearts of little children, clogging their arteries.

Re: No touching! - sexual impropriety thread

Post by Sandy » 23 Jan 2018, 17:51

Over/under on when the tech industry finds out most of their outspoken male feminists were actually compensating for their own predatory behavior?
Hindu is the cricket of religions. You can observe it for years, you can have enthusiasts try to explain it to you, and it's still baffling. - Warren

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 25396
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: No touching! - sexual impropriety thread

Post by thoreau » 23 Jan 2018, 17:53

Sandy wrote:
23 Jan 2018, 17:51
Over/under on when the tech industry finds out most of their outspoken male feminists were actually compensating for their own predatory behavior?
Never. Tech only becomes self-aware in sci-fi.
"ike Wile E. Coyote salivating over a "4000 Ways To Prepare Roadrunner" cookbook without watching his surroundings, the Road Runner of Societal Inertia snuck up on them both and beepbeeped them off the mesa."
--Shem

User avatar
Shem
Posts: 6880
Joined: 27 Apr 2010, 00:27

Re: No touching! - sexual impropriety thread

Post by Shem » 23 Jan 2018, 20:13

Eric the .5b wrote:
16 Jan 2018, 04:01
thoreau wrote:
15 Jan 2018, 22:29
Well, I guess the question is, enthusiastic consent as a standard for what?

...

OTOH, with a person that you don't have much experience with, if you're detecting something is off...
Sure, but that's if you're detecting. And if you're not detecting because your partner doesn't want to communicate this (and how is someone who can't communicate her wine preference or that she doesn't feel like fellating her date going to manage to indicate her active consent?), some people want that to be sexual assault. Not everyone over yonder in the SJW camp, but quite a few.

I mean, yes, it also pays to avoid having sex with idiots, but then, celibacy works for that, too. And the more I mull this, the more I find it hard to get around the point if you can't refuse, then you can't consent.
I'm beginning to think the best rule of thumb is "don't bone strangers." It's like "yeah, you *can* get Molly from that guy in the club, and it's probably not going to kill you, but you're probably better off developing the relationship with a dealer."
"VOTE SHEMOCRACY! You will only have to do it once!" -Loyalty Officer Aresen

User avatar
Shem
Posts: 6880
Joined: 27 Apr 2010, 00:27

Re: No touching! - sexual impropriety thread

Post by Shem » 23 Jan 2018, 20:15

thoreau wrote:
18 Jan 2018, 12:57
The alleged victim was no longer her patient when they lived together, and supposedly she was only providing shelter. Does that violate the rules? I dunno, ask a mental health professional.
It's really, really fucking bad sounding, at the very least. Flip the genders, and you're looking at reeducation, at least.
"VOTE SHEMOCRACY! You will only have to do it once!" -Loyalty Officer Aresen

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 25396
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: No touching! - sexual impropriety thread

Post by thoreau » 23 Jan 2018, 20:26

Shem wrote:
23 Jan 2018, 20:13
I'm beginning to think the best rule of thumb is "don't bone strangers."
Then the question is what constitutes a stranger? A person whom you know by reputation, whom you've met previously, talked to a lot, and now spent an evening hanging out with, may not be someone you know well, but it's also not the same as picking someone up in a bar and going home after a bit of chit-chat.

The real guidance is to really get to know a person first, but presenting that as a standard runs into the three-fold problem of sounding (1) too prudish for the modern era if presented as a general standard of virtue, (2) like victim-blaming if said to women in response to negative encounters, and (3) like justifying witch-hunts ("You violated The Standard so you deserve to be exiled from your profession!") if presented to men in response to sexual encounters gone bad. People are looking for a standard by which we can decide whom to punish and whom to continue to welcome in polite society, because the modern era has trouble with the concept of saying "Nobody deserves to be punished for this sexual encounter but it was still messed up." Bad things involving sex are Sex Crimes, which are the worst crimes, and if we aren't going to punish anyone then why are we judging?

And my gut tells me that acceptance of a gray area means that a majority of the time (but far from all of the time) it will mean people saying it's OK that the man walks away feeling fine and the woman feels like something shitty happened, as opposed to the reverse.
Shem wrote:
23 Jan 2018, 20:15
thoreau wrote:
18 Jan 2018, 12:57
The alleged victim was no longer her patient when they lived together, and supposedly she was only providing shelter. Does that violate the rules? I dunno, ask a mental health professional.
It's really, really fucking bad sounding, at the very least. Flip the genders, and you're looking at reeducation, at least.
Agreed. Whether or not it violates a formal rule, it at the very least falls into the zone of "Yeah, your supervisors really want you to do things differently going forward..."
"ike Wile E. Coyote salivating over a "4000 Ways To Prepare Roadrunner" cookbook without watching his surroundings, the Road Runner of Societal Inertia snuck up on them both and beepbeeped them off the mesa."
--Shem

User avatar
Shem
Posts: 6880
Joined: 27 Apr 2010, 00:27

Re: No touching! - sexual impropriety thread

Post by Shem » 23 Jan 2018, 20:40

thoreau wrote:
23 Jan 2018, 20:26
Shem wrote:
23 Jan 2018, 20:13
I'm beginning to think the best rule of thumb is "don't bone strangers."
Then the question is what constitutes a stranger?
Two separate encounters. You cease to be a stranger when I met you for the second time.
"VOTE SHEMOCRACY! You will only have to do it once!" -Loyalty Officer Aresen

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 21851
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

No touching! - sexual impropriety thread

Post by JasonL » 23 Jan 2018, 21:17

*everyone ponders which gryllers are bone permissible on these terms*

User avatar
Sandy
Posts: 9984
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 18:03
Location: In the hearts of little children, clogging their arteries.

Re: No touching! - sexual impropriety thread

Post by Sandy » 23 Jan 2018, 21:44

JasonL wrote:*everyone ponders which gryllers are bone permissible on these terms*
*plays “Can’t Touch This”*
Hindu is the cricket of religions. You can observe it for years, you can have enthusiasts try to explain it to you, and it's still baffling. - Warren

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 11688
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: No touching! - sexual impropriety thread

Post by Eric the .5b » 23 Jan 2018, 22:05

Shem wrote:
23 Jan 2018, 20:13
I'm beginning to think the best rule of thumb is "don't bone strangers." It's like "yeah, you *can* get Molly from that guy in the club, and it's probably not going to kill you, but you're probably better off developing the relationship with a dealer."
That's a weird-ass simile, but trying to develop some kind of familiarity is probably necessary to tell if someone's a feckless woman-child (or worse).

I'm still seeing twits carry the banner of this was sexual assault! No, this was dating. There are a fuckton of first dates where one or both participants go home feeling shitty, and nobody's going to change that.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
"Cyberpunk never really gave the government enough credit for their ability to secure a favorable prenup during the Corporate-State wedding." - Shem

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests