We should be debating this in all its nuance.
Frankly(!) I'm surprised (and encouraged) at the overwhelming support of Franken on DU. But its good to hear this point of view. I say this as someone who has had posts hidden for daring to go against the tide of certain threads. So I applaud your bravery.
But while I do agree, even though I have no real experience as a victim, only what I know from a past girlfriend who was VERY sensitive based on abuse as a young person from her father, that someone who has experienced actual physical sexual abuse, probably would cringe and even be mentally triggered if there were ANY kind of real or perceived uninvited touching, like a hand slipping a little low on the back while taking a picture, I think there must be room for nuance and an understanding that while there are some females (or males) that are triggered by even a hand a little low around a waist, that there must be some form of intent by the person accused in order for there to be a crime.
That of course there are evil men that rape and abuse, and they KNOW that "boundary violating techniques" are all a part of their depraved predatory strategy But surely there must be some form of innocent before proven guilty, especially in cases where the accused has never had any reported history of this, and the accusations are spurious and there is more evidence of collusion than there is any evidence of any kind of sexual abuse beyond a rude photo on a comedy tour.
You say "if Binkie tells us adult women that we shouldn't make such a fuss about being patted on our behind without our consent, why should the 14-year old rape victim think that Binkie will believe her or him when they tell their story?"
....There are layers to that. I understand where you are coming from there, that you alert us to the danger of a slippery slope where if we dismiss more minor sexual misconduct, and draw a line, that that line could be moved or clouded.
But IMO, we simply must trust that we are adult enough, or smart enough, as a majority, to define that line. As a society we do it when we delineate between "murder" and "manslaughter" for instance. We may get it wrong at times when that line is just under or just over. But there must be SOME semblance of trust in the majorities definitions or we are lost, we are not a Democracy. That when you reason that Binkie (and others here) by not making a fuss about being patted on our behind are diminishing the accusations by a rape victim, you are pointing out, that they are very different extremes. So you are essentially arguing against your initial premise...that its all the same thing (to some women).
But it is such an emotionally charged subject, and in fact, it is one of the rare instances in crime and law and order that emotions SHOULD be a factor in a decision. That is what makes this kind of debate so charged. Because, like my past girlfriend, I can see first hand how women (and some men) never 'get over it' and that should be acknowledged and respected, but IMO the line must be drawn somewhere, and we must trust our justice system made up of laws we as a society have honed through centuries, as defined by a majority of citizens, to draw that line for us.
And i feel that in Franken's case, not only was he not tried in a court of law, he WAS tried and sentenced, for political reasons, by his own peers. They have decided that there is no line. And by defining their position as such, Trump, Moore, and others can use that conclusion to whitewash their own behaviour. And that is far more dangerous than erasing any clear standards by only taking into consideration one segment of society, those who were more violently assaulted, made up of mostly women, that may be adversely triggered by even a hand around their waist. Cold though that may sound to any former sexual assault victim. But like I said, I respect and appreciate your post.
= new reply since forum marked as read
