Sexual Misconduct in American Culture

[baskev]

Everyone knows that there's been a recent spate of sexual misconduct allegations that are in most cases annihilating any future career prospects that the accused hold.

Who gives a fuck about them. If you sexually assault anyone you are a monster. And if they proof these allegations are wrong people will not be angry at you. Yes some cases are hard to proof and will time to clear or accuse the person. But some cases where multiple sources say the same kind of thing. You can say pretty sure that they where in the wrong. But some ( like george takei story) is about a date, being drunk, 40 years ago...how do you check this?? and how do you know for 100% that it happened...so yeah it could hurt someone career. So it comes down to he said ( she/he ) said. And this will be the difficult part. And for decades some got away with it....Mr polanski ring a bell? woody allen???

1. It seems like we, as a people, are departing from the rule of law and instead favoring vigilante justice propagated through the media.

First if you had followed this all you would know the rule of law was not always helpful. People complained, went to cops etc etc etc and where not taken serious or it was pushed under the rug... look at how FOX dealt with it. So for some of them its the only way to get "justice". And to find more people who had the same experience and give them a moral support being saying they are not alone. And we can all talk truthfully about it.

2. We're also shifting our moral framework from a system based on the avoidance of harm to a system based on the avoidance of certain behaviors which are assumed to cause harm (this is an oversimplification but you get the idea).

Wait what....assumed to cause harm...sexual assault causes harm...period ( here some more to make my point )..................................
And these behaviors should be avoided...in what world is sexually assaulting okay???

I think both of these changes are negative, and most people would probably agree with me at least for change #1. So I'll talk more about change #2.

Nope. I think most people think that you are wrong about #1. If you had looked at any of these story's , the rule off law did not work.

There are two distinct considerations here.

First, the way we view laws is changing. Laws exist to reduce harm or reimburse harmed parties. That is their founding principle. But in our society not all behaviors that cause harm are reimbursed by law; one might say that laws abide by a boundary that determines whether an affront is harmful enough to require a law or whether that affront can be controlled by social factors instead. Example: Person A breaks up with person B. Psychological harm, sometimes devastating, is caused to person B. Yet there are no laws that reimburse damaged parties. In this case, we as a society have decided that psychological harm that results from breakups is a risk that people who enter into relationships take upon themselves, and the damage can be controlled using social mechanisms such as familial support structures. In the case of sexual misconduct allegations that have become so common, we seem to be struggling with the choice of using law or using social mechanisms to reduce harm or reimburse harmed parties. I think a big part of this question is whether or not these acts, in general, are harmful enough to warrant law. Thirty years ago the answer to that question would have probably been 'no'. Today, I don't think that's true, and the backlash we see is evidence of this.

ill respond to each part.
View on laws: Victims do not want the law ( not always) to reimburse them. They also want to protect others from harm. So saying that is kinda insane.
We do not struggle with the choice...both are correct. The law will make it clear that the law in general does not agree with the behavior. As for the social justice. Its the second part of the punishment. Witch is a correct one in this situation. Because the people harmed by this will have mental scars for the rest of their lives. And sexual crimes are with torture , 1 of the most heinous "normal" crimes there is. Because it deals with both short and long term effects. Both physically and mentally.
I also do not think the laws are changing... i think we are finally following them more correctly.

Second, and more to the point, there is now a pervasive assumption of serious harm in many cases where harm is unclear, subjective, or weak. Harm outcomes are frequently inflated - at least in the public eye - which leads to an overreaction to what is essentially a somewhat unpleasant experience (this is a generalization; not all cases are like this of course). Objectively, the case for harm is often weak and almost always relies on personal feelings of violation. While feelings of violation are certainly harm, the magnitude of this harm has to be considered in comparison to a similar event such as a breakup.

They are not inflated.....if you think this you are insane ( sorry if i get banned for calling you insane). Sexual assault ( i have worked with victims. A short time because it was a intern ship) can do a SHIT load of damage to a person. A bad grope can shatter someones safety in the other sex, it can stress, nightmares, depressions etc all witch lead into long term effects.
And is there such a thing as a over reaction when it comes to sexual assault. You are talking about sexual assault here...not a miss understanding in during a date here!! i dare to say you have it around backward: (this is a generalization; not all cases are like this of course) i think in a small cases is a mistake about border crossing. Most of the cases that have come out are about touching people, exposing yourself, forced oral sex, rape!!

Objectively, the case for harm is often weak and almost always relies on personal feelings of violation. While feelings of violation are certainly harm, the magnitude of this harm has to be considered in comparison to a similar event such as a breakup.
First off this is your opinion...because most people will not agree with this...neither does the law...so its not "objective".
And you are again comparing rape, molestation, sexual assault to a brake up...i hope i never date you if you think those things are the same...

Personally, I believe that a lot of this outrage - by victims and for victims - stems from the West's inescapable sexual conservativism which is of course rooted in religion. And I also think that this outrage is coming from people who are not part of the relatively sexually liberal Hollywood scene - people who are judging from the outside on the basis of their own standards. In a different culture, I think there would be no harm at all; that is to say, the harm caused here is cultural in origin and generally exists only because we hold conservative sexual values.

Wait what??? Religion has nothing to do with this!!( even tough allot of priest apparently fall under this discussion 2)
What is conservative about not wanting sex??? what is conservative about being raped ??? Do you know what conservative means?
So you are saying a progressive civilization should not get mad about rape?? about assault??
Euuhhh And I also think that this outrage is coming from people who are not part of the relatively sexually liberal Hollywood scene WHAT?!?!
So let me get this right. You think because some guys forced themselves on women, that its a accepted part of a the culture in hollywood. And because some people are not in that world have nothing to say about it being right or wrong??
And again....WTFFFFFFFFFFFF rape, assault has nothing to do with being conservative! You are again saying...that in a more liberal world ( using liberal wrong) but in a more progressive world...rape, sexaul assault is okay. Grabbing women's asses unwanted is okay. Jerking off on women who do not want it is okay??
My god.....

Continuing along this thought, a conservative sexual culture also makes it harder for victims to speak out about events that displease them for fear of judgement by peers. In this light, the upwelling of misconduct accusations might bring us to a crossroads: depending on how we react to these events, one might path take us towards hypervigilance against sexual interactions and a deepening conservative culture, while the other might take us towards sexual liberalism. It would be a delicate balance of empowering victims with the ability to speak out without shame and crusading against the accused - the direction each would take us towards is obvious.

........This has nothing to do with being open or closed about sex. This has to do with power and abuse. People did not talk , not just because they where ashamed. They did not talk because they feared for their jobs. Or to be put in to you are are liar corner.
Yes i agree that if its hard to proof we should not go with social justice after a person.
But crusading against offenders . Getting them fired is okay!! Its their punishment!

Thoughts?

Thoughts: i get banned because i was not nice to you.
I think you are over generalizing the situation. You do not grasp what has happened. And understand what sexual assault means. We are not talking about turning around and walking into someone accidentally touching her boobs and saying sorry i did not see you. We are talking about way worse things, and things that where not accidents.
You are trying to say. We should let the law deal with it. while it has failed.
You clearly do not understand that being sexual conservative or sexual progressive has NOTHING to do with assault, rape etc. Its like saying i am a safe driver that drives 80 in a 100 zone or a less safe driver who drives 101 in a 100 zone. Has anything to do with a drunk driver driving into you at the traffic lights!!

I have never seen a weird social post like this. That is so serious but so wrong, and bad at the same time at mmo champion!

[Mormolyce]

Part of the problem is also that employers hold a lot more power and influence in the USA than they do in other modern western nations. It is bound to cause more abuse.

That said it feels like a lot of this is just generational disconnects. While some parts were truely heinous, others were just part of the culture.

Stuff like this was distributed a few decades ago:

Hey they had pickup artists at the turn of the century.

[Unhinged]

You say that like having a perspective on something invalidates any claims you make. If this was a thread on global warming and I had posted in other threads about how global warming is real, are my claims instantly invalid? No, that's silly.

- - - Updated - - -



Consent to what, exactly? Is the idea that one must consent to any social interaction before beginning such a social interaction? Because that gets very difficult very quickly, and we're not too far from that extreme.

Well that is in thing. But going to a room and just pulling you dick out isn't on just because its your room. This is pointless anyway as the goal posts just keep shifting.

[Louisa Bannon]

This is a good thread in my view, regardless of anyone's possible motives or biases.

I do think puritanism, and organized religion more generally, is dangerous stuff. Too often these religious principles exist as a kind of supra-government entity to make cultural judgements where the legal system should be the sole arbiter of fault and recompense. Personally, I see less and less use for organized religions and even less for any notion of an almost certainly absent deity. And yet, we have not voted in a known atheist to any meaningfully high office. This stupid religious shit still stands as some unstated litmus test of a person's worth. Personally, I see it the exact opposite way: any religious claim is either a mark against a person's intelligence or a ploy used to pass among the sheep.

It is incredibly disturbing to see mere allegations play out as if they were now facts. It is very disturbing to see that one accuser is seen as perhaps damning, but that multiple possibly false accusers somehow make the allegations seem even more true. An unproven allegation remains unproven despite any possible pile on effect. I mean, wtf...?!

I don't support these dumbshit witch hunts, red scares, or any of the same type of pure bullshit.

But people are stupid. Their ethical and value system comes from some asshole at the pulpit that is probably buggering the children of the congregation. As a whole people continue to do really dumb shit somehow hoping for better results.

I come home and find life with my partner to be an oasis of sanity in a world that seems literally on fire with intentional madness.

[Levelfive]

We are more sexually liberal than other countries, but objectively we are still very conservative. I think this will change with time; I'm not really sure if the current movement in this area is a step forward or a step back. I suppose it could be seen as both, which is in agreement with my crossroads analogy. The optimist in me might consider these allegations as a first step in breaking free from traditional conservative sexual values - that step being the empowerment of women/people who are not in positions of power. But this change is occurring within the broader context of a sexually conservative culture, and simply changes the power level between two parties while retaining the core principles of sexual conservativism. I therefore don't think it's appropriate to view this change as a toppling of conservative sexual values, but rather as a modulation of how people behave within the conservative sytem.

I will disagree with your statement that harm matters less than rights when determining crime. First, we decide what rights are. Second, rights are broad principles that are used to diminish harm or risk of harm based on the assumption that a violation of a right leads to harm. There are a lot of holes in that argument; the biggest one is that it's built on the assumption of harm upon violation of rights, which is certainly not an assumption one can make. I think you understand this, because you used the word 'generally' to describe this assumption, and there are certainly many exceptions. In an ideal system, though, it might be.

But that's a bit of an aide, because you somewhat mischaracterized my argument. My argument specifically in regard to sexual transgressions is that, in many cases, people feel violated by a sexual transgression because of the conservative culture that we exist in. As in, if we were not taught that sexual interactions are special, risky, shameful, immoral in certain cases, we would not care much if someone groped us. We might tell them not to do it again, or we might tell them to stop; and then we might get on with our lives, instead of allowing such an act to destroy our trust and confidence. Of course, this is not true in all cases. There are many, many cases where harm is not cultural in origin and those cases need to be brought to justice. Moreover, I don't think it's particularly classy or nice to go around groping people. But that's not the same thing as classifying it as an innately destructive criminal behavior.

We don't have to assume harm to determine something is wrong or that it is a violation of another's rights. We agree that taking something from someone without their permission is wrong, independent of the degree of harm, if any, experienced by the person from whom it was taken. I have never heard anyone call groping an "innately destructive criminal behavior," but however we characterize it, we consider touching people without their permission wrong, regardless of the touched person's psychic resilience. You seem to be using a 3-step process to argue that harm determines crime rather than the other way around: a sexual transgression is only a transgression insofar as the amount of harm it causes, the premise of which I reject; that the perception of harm is cultural and subjective (and therefore malleable to zero), which therefore transmutes a crime into a neutral, blameless interaction, the conclusion of which I reject.

Also, to clarify, I definitely do not see this as a toppling of conservative sexual values, but rather the structure / system / network that protected perpetrators and silenced and demonized accusers. And that is long, long, long overdue.

[Wildtree]

Thoughts?

Thoughts... First thought is, that you are all over the place with your post.. You're making a case in parts against assumptions while you yourself resort to some. Let me try a few things..

1.

I think a big part of this question is whether or not these acts, in general, are harmful enough to warrant law. Thirty years ago the answer to that question would have probably been 'no'.

That's a clear case of someone speculating about a time, during which they weren't alive, or not old enough to comprehend just yet.
Thirty years ago, the answer was a definite Yes!
Nothing changed from that aspect.

2. The reasons for laws.
Reimbursements are very rarely the reason for laws. Laws are primarily there to prevent people from misbehaving. Laws are moving things, since they're based on a societies moral standing. And they must be flexible, otherwise you run into troubles, example US constitution. If the law becomes static, the socially and morally evolving society can eventually not fit into the legal framework anymore.

3. Your thread title mentions the American culture, yet, in your last paragraph you write..

...stems from the West's inescapable sexual conservativism which is of course rooted in religion.

Please be aware that American stance towards sexuality is vastly different from that of other western nations.
If you talk about the USA, you are correct for the most part. The country is still under the influence of the Puritans. And those were utter religious radicals, I'd call them crazy freaks.

So, now if you look to Europe there's a whole different handling of sexuality. It evolved, and religion plays no role in it (anymore) whatsoever. That's not saying that there aren't any religious nutcases left in Europe, there in fact are, but for the most part sexuality is different. Nudity is normal, is natural. After all no one is born with clothes on. If you treat nudity as normal, the sight of a partially or completely exposed body does neither cause mass arousal (unless it's Kate Moss lol) nor a scandal.


What we see right now is a trend.. People coming forth now, because they feel protected by the collective.
It's elevated not by the media. This part is what most people get wrong...... "the media", "the liberal media" etc. etc..
Guess what, fuck that shit.. No, it's not the media. It's the people themselves, it's the internet.
Everyone and their grandmother are tweeting, fb-posting, instagramming etc etc. Everyone has an opinion, which is of course more important than the other guy's opinion. And out of one small paragraph that would normally end up somewhere on page 7 inside the newspaper, a mutation caused by 10 million couch and basement journalists emerges.
That creates an exaggeration. Like a pendulum. It swings one way, overshoots, it comes back and overshoots again. Eventually it finds it's middle ground, we adjust, and we move on again.

[Total Crica]

they must be flexible, otherwise you run into troubles, example US constitution.

The amendments to the US constitution means it is flexible. People realize a piece of paper doesn't make laws, people do.

[Wildtree]

The amendments to the US constitution means it is flexible. Everyone realizes a piece of paper doesn't make laws, people do.

You and I know what amendment means..
But you and I also know that there are millions of Americans who believe that the Constitution (especially the bill of rights) is a static construct that's not to be touched.

[Total Crica]

You and I know what amendment means..
But you and I also know that there are millions of Americans who believe that the Constitution (especially the bill of rights) is a static construct that's not to be touched.

Rights are for the protection of people. That's different and based on people valuing people simply because they are people. If people ever lose that, there will be no laws, let alone constitutions, and you and I both know that.

[Wildtree]

Rights are for the protection of people. That's different and based on people valuing people simply because they are people. If people ever lose that, there will be no laws, let alone constitutions, and you and I both know that.

The "Bill of Rights" is just a nickname for the first few amendments.
There is factually no difference between the first and the last amendment. They are legally all part of the same frame.
They are all amendments.. They are all subject to change.

[Total Crica]

They are all subject to change.

I never said they weren't. I stated the implications of doing so for the rights of people that are based on valuing people simply for being people.

[Wildtree]

I never said they weren't. I stated the implications of doing so for the rights of people that are based on valuing people simply for being people.

yeah.. we're (society) having a problem with rights.
The human rights are the best example. Not part of the laws.
Some laws foundation are results of those rights, but the rights themselves are not legally binding.
If they were, a lot of misery would not exist.

[Mittens]

3. Your thread title mentions the American culture, yet, in your last paragraph you write..
Please be aware that American stance towards sexuality is vastly different from that of other western nations.
If you talk about the USA, you are correct for the most part. The country is still under the influence of the Puritans. And those were utter religious radicals, I'd call them crazy freaks.

So, now if you look to Europe there's a whole different handling of sexuality. It evolved, and religion plays no role in it (anymore) whatsoever. That's not saying that there aren't any religious nutcases left in Europe, there in fact are, but for the most part sexuality is different. Nudity is normal, is natural. After all no one is born with clothes on. If you treat nudity as normal, the sight of a partially or completely exposed body does neither cause mass arousal (unless it's Kate Moss lol) nor a scandal.

This bothers the hell out of me and this is unironically the reason why gender studies should be mandatory. Desexualizing something is very much different than being more accepting of sexual advances. OP is refering to the latter, Europe in this regard is very much in line with the USA with countries like Sweden having expanded the definitions of what counts as rape,sexual harrasment, etc.

[Cosmic Janitor]

I have a theory, it has to do with prudish cultures imploding in on themselves sexually. So far I have Japan and the US to prove it. I'm looking to the middle east for more data.

[Stelio Kontos]

Is this more of that "If we weren't so prudish and ...eww... Christian in views of sexual morality then we wouldn't view sexual exploitation of minors as a bad thing?" sophistry?

[Spookysheep]

Well, when the media says you are obviously guilty then, well, you are obviously guilty, right?