# Is this taking Sexual Harressment too far?



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

According to Ohio State University policy, both “staring” and “brushing against a person’s body” can count as “sexual harassment.” (It’s not clear how someone would prove that another student had been staring at them, nor how the common incidents of students bumping into each other in the hallway would be handled under this policy.) 

The sexual-harassment guide also provides an explanation of how “flirting” is different from “harassment.” For example, flirting makes someone feel “good,” whereas harassment makes someone feel “bad.” Flirting makes someone feel “happy,” while harassment makes someone feel “sad/angry.”

Ohio State Sexual Harassment Policy -- Staring Counts | National Review Online


----------



## Constable Odo (Feb 14, 2015)

I've long said the only difference between sexual harassment and flirting is whether or not the person finds you attractive or not.


----------



## Runs like Dog (Feb 25, 2011)




----------



## Red Sonja (Sep 8, 2012)

Yes. And, it's an example of the current trend in the USA toward criminalizing the act of offending another person, i.e. hurting their feelings.

Ridiculous.


----------



## Mr. Nail (Apr 26, 2011)

The problem is and always will be that it is really hard to prove what someone is thinking. Now if a person has clearly expressed their reaction then the others are obligated to adjust their behavior.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
Flirting is when both of you are doing it. Harassment is when only one of you is. 



Constable Odo said:


> I've long said the only difference between sexual harassment and flirting is whether or not the person finds you attractive or not.


----------



## BlueWoman (Jan 8, 2015)

In answer to your question: No. It's not. 

I get that some of you really don't understand what it's like to be harrassed. How demeaned you feel, how embarrassed and ashamed you feel. 

But it's the very fact that you don't get that means we need rules. 

Of course I do agree that I have a responsibility to let the person harrassing know that I am uncomfortable with their behavior. But once I've expressed that, then it's up to the other party to back off. 

Decent men are usually embarrassed and feel bad about making me uncomfortable (because that was never their intent.) Creepy men become defensive, complain about how every one is offended easily, and make jokes about it. These are the men that these rules were intended for. Fortunately I meet more decent men than creeps, but I run into enough creeps to know that this policy is not taking it too far.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

I would hope that they define these things a lot better.

There are times when I can see both being harassment. But, this description given in the article is not clear enough.

One example of bumping into someone that I would call harassment is something that my step daughter experienced in high school. She's big chested. Some of the guys in her school were always bumping into her, some even felt her up while doing it. Now these guys never bumped into the flat chested girls.

context is everything.


----------



## SecondTime'Round (Jan 15, 2015)

My mom and her twin sister better never set foot on the campus of Ohio State. They both have a terrible staring problem. Pretty sure, at age 74, they're not on the prowl, though.


----------



## SurpriseMyself (Nov 14, 2009)

Red Sonja said:


> Yes. And, it's an example of the current trend in the USA toward criminalizing the act of offending another person, i.e. hurting their feelings.
> 
> Ridiculous.


Couldn't disagree with this any more than I do.

Back when I was about 21/22, I worked at a store where a manager sexually harassed me. He would make cat calls at me, he asked me how I felt about older men (he was twice my age), and he would say things like "I've fulfilled every sexual fantasy except one; wanna guess what the last one is?"

When I tried to ignore it and told him I didn't care for what he was doing, he played dumb and acted like what he was doing was totally innocent. And he kept it up despite my asking him to stop.

His targeted words and actions made me so uncomfortable that I almost quit my job. Luckily I was dating a guy who was friends with the general manager, and he told me to write a letter about my experience. I did and the letter went through to the corporate office and he was taken out of the store where I worked. I found out that the company had moved him several times before this and he was eventually fired.

No one should have to put up with that. I'm glad I had support and feel for those who have to endure it.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Constable Odo (Feb 14, 2015)

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> Flirting is when both of you are doing it. Harassment is when only one of you is.


Someone has to flirt first.


----------



## Big Dude (Feb 24, 2013)

EleGirl said:


> I would hope that they define these things a lot better.
> 
> There are times when I can see both being harassment. But, this description given in the article is not clear enough.
> 
> ...


So true, but context can go beyond the circumstances of the incident. Years ago, I pulled a woman who had fallen in a dangerous place to safety in a manner that involved grabbing her breasts (I didn't have time to consider a better way to do it.) I know it hurt her. She was not offended at all, and was grateful for my act, as almost all women would be. But what if she had been a woman who experienced things like your step daughter? Might she have interpreted my act as an opportunistic grope? That kind of context is not so obvious and I think that is what men fear in this kind of policy.

Still, I can't think of a better solution off the top of my head. Maybe this policy needs to play itself out to see if it has any effect, positive or negative.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

EleGirl said:


> I would hope that they define these things a lot better.
> 
> There are times when I can see both being harassment. But, this description given in the article is not clear enough.
> 
> ...


The thing I CANNOT understand is who are these boys and where are their mothers?? Who is asking them to compare their behavior to someone doing the same thing to their little sister? These attitudes are no better for the social or emotional education of the boys that it is for the girls. In 15 years they will be here on the sex in marriage forum asking why are we not having sex. The trickle will reveal the quid pro quo of marriage purchasing sex, etc.. I really don't get who these people are.


----------



## kokonatsu (Feb 22, 2013)

I can see where bumping into someone could be considered harassment. 

If some creepy guy was already making you uncomfortable, you asked him to stop but he didn't, and even started by escalating to trying to touch you through seemingly innocently bumping into you, that would be harassment. 

Women can't call everything they're uncomfortable with harassment. A guy at my work was making me feel uncomfortable but I wouldn't have said he was harassing me. (He's one of those decent guys mentioned above, and was embarrassed when I told him he was making me feel uncomfortable.) though I can see where if he wasn't decent and had escalated his attentions to me, it would have crossed the line into harassment.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

kokonatsu said:


> Women can't call everything they're uncomfortable with harassment. A guy at my work was making me feel uncomfortable but I wouldn't have said he was harassing me. (He's one of those decent guys mentioned above, and was embarrassed when I told him he was making me feel uncomfortable.) though I can see where if he wasn't decent and had escalated his attentions to me, it would have crossed the line into harassment.


Women don't call everything that makes them uncomfortable harassment. Indeed, the opposite is true: they will typically put up with a lot of harassment and make excuses for it, rather than call it out.

I once worked this job, and the first words of my supervisor to me was "so you're my new sex slave." I simply said "no", and let it slide. This guy constantly made lewd and rude suggestions to female staff, never touching, I don't think, but highly inappropriate. Me, being the type of person I am was able to put him in his place, and he never bothered me after that first day. But other women would routinely complain amongst themselves about being made to feel uncomfortable, wishing it would stop, but none of them ever actually made a formal complaint.


----------



## SurpriseMyself (Nov 14, 2009)

Constable Odo said:


> Someone has to flirt first.


Indeed. And when the other person doesn't flirt back, or asked that the flirt stop and they don't, it is at that point that harassment begins.

Also, most sexual harassment doesn't start as flirting. What man flirts by talking about his sexual exploits and fantasies? At work! To a woman half his age. That's not a flirt; that's a pervert.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

Buddy400 said:


> According to Ohio State University policy, both “staring” and “brushing against a person’s body” can count as “sexual harassment.” (*It’s not clear how someone would prove that another student had been staring at them, nor how the common incidents of students bumping into each other in the hallway would be handled under this policy.*)
> 
> The sexual-harassment guide also provides an explanation of how “flirting” is different from “harassment.” For example, flirting makes someone feel “good,” whereas harassment makes someone feel “bad.” Flirting makes someone feel “happy,” while harassment makes someone feel “sad/angry.”
> 
> Ohio State Sexual Harassment Policy -- Staring Counts | National Review Online


Oh, *that's* easy. Whatever a woman says is the truth!


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

Big Dude said:


> So true, but context can go beyond the circumstances of the incident. Years ago, I pulled a woman who had fallen in a dangerous place to safety in a manner that involved grabbing her breasts (I didn't have time to consider a better way to do it.) I know it hurt her. She was not offended at all, and was grateful for my act, as almost all women would be. *But what if she had been a woman who experienced things like your step daughter? Might she have interpreted my act as an opportunistic grope? That kind of context is not so obvious and I think that is what men fear in this kind of policy.*
> 
> Still, I can't think of a better solution off the top of my head. Maybe this policy needs to play itself out to see if it has any effect, positive or negative.


*That* is exactly why some men have resolved not to help women in such circumstances.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

kokonatsu said:


> I can see where bumping into someone could be considered harassment.
> 
> If some creepy guy was already making you uncomfortable, you asked him to stop but he didn't, and even started by escalating to trying to touch you through seemingly innocently bumping into you, that would be harassment.
> 
> ...


If only *that* were true, the world would be a better place. Unfortunately, it is not true.


----------



## unbelievable (Aug 20, 2010)

So, essentially, under this goofy policy, if someone says your conduct was harassment, it's harassment. How can I possibly be responsible for how someone "feels" about whatever I happen to be doing? How could the school possibly determine with any accuracy how an alleged victim "felt" about anything? Those who wish to be offended can find offense in a tuna sandwich.


----------



## tom67 (Oct 2, 2012)

Yes it is over the top pure and simple.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

unbelievable said:


> So, essentially, under this goofy policy, if someone says your conduct was harassment, it's harassment. How can I possibly be responsible for how someone "feels" about whatever I happen to be doing? How could the school possibly determine with any accuracy how an alleged victim "felt" about anything? Those who wish to be offended can find offense in a tuna sandwich.


Exactly. So the real question is why anyone would want this to be policy (much less law, which is where this is heading)...


----------



## Constable Odo (Feb 14, 2015)

SurpriseMyself said:


> Indeed. And when the other person doesn't flirt back, or asked that the flirt stop and they don't, it is at that point that harassment begins.


If that were only true.

My employer requires I undergo mandatory sexual harassment training once every two years. We have been warned we can be fired for completely innocuous comments such as complimenting an employee on her dress, or hair, etc.

My employer has been crystal clear: it isn't how you may intend the comment, it is entirely how the person interprets the comment.

Since a lawsuit means a sizable settlement for a plaintiff, employers have a "zero-tolerance" policy when they get a sexual harassment complaint. You can read any number of news stories where people have been improperly dismissed over fraudulent SH complaints, for instance.

This is what cultivating a culture of victimology in America has yielded us.


----------



## gouge_away (Apr 7, 2015)

I take the training every year.

We can pretty much say whatever we want until somebody files a complaint or tells us to stop.

I always felt the rules didn't go far enough.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

Big Dude said:


> So true, but context can go beyond the circumstances of the incident. Years ago, I pulled a woman who had fallen in a dangerous place to safety in a manner that involved grabbing her breasts (I didn't have time to consider a better way to do it.) I know it hurt her. She was not offended at all, and was grateful for my act, as almost all women would be. But what if she had been a woman who experienced things like your step daughter? Might she have interpreted my act as an opportunistic grope? That kind of context is not so obvious and I think that is what men fear in this kind of policy.
> 
> Still, I can't think of a better solution off the top of my head. Maybe this policy needs to play itself out to see if it has any effect, positive or negative.


Your example proves that context is everything.

In the context of you saving a woman who fell, if you grabbed boob her in the process of saving her... there is no problem. It was not your intent to fondle her. Your intent was to grab any part of her you could to save her.

In the context of my step daughter being constantly 'bumped' into, grabbed, etc.. the context was for the boys doing it to cop a feel.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

NobodySpecial said:


> The thing I CANNOT understand is who are these boys and where are their mothers?? Who is asking them to compare their behavior to someone doing the same thing to their little sister? These attitudes are no better for the social or emotional education of the boys that it is for the girls. In 15 years they will be here on the sex in marriage forum asking why are we not having sex. The trickle will reveal the quid pro quo of marriage purchasing sex, etc.. I really don't get who these people are.


I think that these boys know that their mothers would brain them had the mothers known what the boys were doing. Maybe their fathers would.. but some would say that boys were just being boys.

I believe that is type of behavior is the product of males getting together and trying to impress each other. If one of them can brag about coping a feel in the hall between classes, he's the big dude for the day.

In my own life, having traveled by train, bus, and walked on crowed sidewalks... I know that there are quite a few grown men to take advantage of the crowd to cop feels all the time. I've had the pleasure of decking a few and even grinding my high heels into the arch of their foot when I was able to. A bit of an object lesson for the creeps.


.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

Big Dude said:


> So true, but context can go beyond the circumstances of the incident. Years ago, I pulled a woman who had fallen in a dangerous place to safety in a manner that involved grabbing her breasts (I didn't have time to consider a better way to do it.) I know it hurt her. She was not offended at all, and was grateful for my act, as almost all women would be. *But what if she had been a woman who experienced things like your step daughter? Might she have interpreted my act as an opportunistic grope? *That kind of context is not so obvious and I think that is what men fear in this kind of policy.
> 
> Still, I can't think of a better solution off the top of my head. Maybe this policy needs to play itself out to see if it has any effect, positive or negative.


That underlined part did not register when I first read the above post.

No, my step daughter would not interpret what you describe as harassment. She, like the women you helped, would simply be glad that you helped her. There is a very distinct difference between coping a feel and what you did.

Keep in mind that most women have experienced men harassing them, coping feels, etc. And most of us can distinguish between help and being harassed.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

gouge_away said:


> I take the training every year.
> 
> We can pretty much say whatever we want until somebody files a complaint or tells us to stop.
> *
> I always felt the rules didn't go far enough*.


Can you explain this?


----------



## unbelievable (Aug 20, 2010)

technovelist said:


> Exactly. So the real question is why anyone would want this to be policy (much less law, which is where this is heading)...


Because they are thought Nazis. They don't intend to prosecute people as much as they intend to browbeat them into submission.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
Yes, but if you are good at flirting, the first "flirt" is barely noticeable, and gives the other person the opportunity to escalate or de-escalate without anyone being embarrassed or pressured. 





Constable Odo said:


> Someone has to flirt first.


----------



## SurpriseMyself (Nov 14, 2009)

Constable Odo said:


> If that were only true.
> 
> My employer requires I undergo mandatory sexual harassment training once every two years. We have been warned we can be fired for completely innocuous comments such as complimenting an employee on her dress, or hair, etc.
> 
> ...


I worked for an employer who did the same. Everyone took the training, not just the men.

If a single man on TAM had responded to my earlier post about how I was harassed, acknowledged how that man was clearly in the wrong, then we could make some headway on this issue. But it was quickly ignored and the men here want to play the victim!

Why not stand up when you see it really happening? Because it does. You have to say a heck of a lot to offend me, but I knew I was being harassed and it was wrong. This is why we women have to ask for such rules, because men won't pull the jerks aside and give it to them straight.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## spunkycat08 (Nov 14, 2013)

Here is an incident that happened at work last year...

A single male employee who was born in 1962 began flirting with a single female employee who was born in 1995.

He called her baby and other names.

He did this in front of other employees... male and female.

She flirted back.


----------



## SurpriseMyself (Nov 14, 2009)

spunkycat08 said:


> Here is an incident that happened at work last year...
> 
> A single male employee who was born in 1962 began flirting with a single female employee who was born in 1995.
> 
> ...


And ....?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Big Dude (Feb 24, 2013)

EleGirl said:


> Keep in mind that most women have experienced men harassing them, coping feels, etc. And most of us can distinguish between help and being harassed.


I trust that you are correct about this, and I generally agree with your position. But, as you say, most women are harassed on a regular basis. Do you really expect all of them to exercise perfect judgement regarding being bumped into (especially in a campus environment where everybody is walking around staring at their phones)? Some guys seem to be afraid that they might have to pay the price for the past transgressions of other guilty men. Is it too hard for you to imagine that a young woman, frustrated by continual harassment, might misinterpret such contact as other than accidental?

Maybe I'm wrong about this, but with this issue and others (like affirmative consent) there seems to be some rationalization that the pains suffered by a few falsely accused men pale in comparison to the indignities suffered by women all the time, so men should stop their complaining and suck up the fact that to make an omelette some eggs must be broken. But there is a big difference between an injustice committed by an individual and one committed by the state or other legitimate authorities. That is why due process, presumption of innocence, etc. are central ideas in any real democracy. On its face, this policy appears to threaten those principles.

I don't know the details of how this policy is to be enforced, and as long as the process ensures a presumption of innocence during the process, I'm OK with it.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

Big Dude said:


> I trust that you are correct about this, and I generally agree with your position. But, as you say, most women are harassed on a regular basis. Do you really expect all of them to exercise perfect judgement regarding being bumped into (especially in a campus environment where everybody is walking around staring at their phones)? Some guys seem to be afraid that they might have to pay the price for the past transgressions of other guilty men. Is it too hard for you to imagine that a young woman, frustrated by continual harassment, might misinterpret such contact as other than accidental?
> 
> Maybe I'm wrong about this, but with this issue and others (like affirmative consent) there seems to be some rationalization that the pains suffered by a few falsely accused men pale in comparison to the indignities suffered by women all the time, so men should stop their complaining and suck up the fact that to make an omelette some eggs must be broken. But there is a big difference between an injustice committed by an individual and one committed by the state or other legitimate authorities. That is why due process, presumption of innocence, etc. are central ideas in any real democracy. On its face, this policy appears to threaten those principles.
> 
> I don't know the details of how this policy is to be enforced, and as long as the process ensures a presumption of innocence during the process, I'm OK with it.


In the current implementation, at colleges in California, there is no presumption of innocence. The accused must prove that he is innocent, or he is guilty.

Now to be sure, this isn't criminal law, but administrative. But I know for a fact that there are people who want it to be implemented as criminal law.

That would basically turn men into second-class citizens who do not have a right to the presumption of innocence in sex-related cases.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

EleGirl said:


> I think that these boys know that their mothers would brain them had the mothers known what the boys were doing. Maybe their fathers would.. but some would say that boys were just being boys.
> 
> I believe that is type of behavior is the product of males getting together and trying to impress each other. If one of them can brag about coping a feel in the hall between classes, he's the big dude for the day.


Yah that is what I don't get. Why is coping a feel off another human being something to be achieved? How is this a good thing?


> In my own life, having traveled by train, bus, and walked on crowed sidewalks... I know that there are quite a few grown men to take advantage of the crowd to cop feels all the time. I've had the pleasure of decking a few and even grinding my high heels into the arch of their foot when I was able to. A bit of an object lesson for the creeps.
> 
> 
> .


Yah we all have. And it does. It makes me scratch my head. Who are these people? And what is going on in their heads?


----------



## 6301 (May 11, 2013)

I can understand where there is sexual harassment in the work place and just out and about. I just wish that if there's a consequences for their actions that it's even across the board. Male school teacher is caught with a student and he's nailed to a cross, a female teacher does the same thing and the punishment isn't nearly as bad.


----------



## Red Sonja (Sep 8, 2012)

SurpriseMyself said:


> Couldn't disagree with this any more than I do.
> 
> Back when I was about 21/22, I worked at a store where a manager sexually harassed me. He would make cat calls at me, he asked me how I felt about older men (he was twice my age), and he would say things like "I've fulfilled every sexual fantasy except one; wanna guess what the last one is?"


Your disagreement is based on comparing apples and oranges.

The OP subject was "staring" and “brushing against a person’s body” which is entirely different than what you are describing. :scratchhead:


----------



## SurpriseMyself (Nov 14, 2009)

6301 said:


> I can understand where there is sexual harassment in the work place and just out and about. I just wish that if there's a consequences for their actions that it's even across the board. Male school teacher is caught with a student and he's nailed to a cross, a female teacher does the same thing and the punishment isn't nearly as bad.


That's because a 15 year old boy is a stud if he gets laid, but a 15 year old girl ... Well, she gets a reputation. You want the double standard to stop? Stop applauding boys for "getting some."
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## SurpriseMyself (Nov 14, 2009)

Red Sonja said:


> Your disagreement is based on comparing apples and oranges.
> 
> The OP subject was "staring" and “brushing against a person’s body” which is entirely different than what you are describing. :scratchhead:


Oh, he stared. It got to the point where I checked all around before I would bend over. And I suspect he would have tried to brush up against me were it not for the fact that I worked with quite a few people at any given time.

You see, men who do this do it on the sly. They sneak in a "brush" and then act like it was an accident. They say inappropriate things when no one else is in earshot. They stare when no one is looking.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Red Sonja (Sep 8, 2012)

I do not want to argue about this @SurpriseMyself. I have been blatantly sexually harassed at work also, but that is not the point of this thread, at least not as I understand it. The point as I understood it is *do we criminalize/penalize words and gestures when someone takes offense to them.* My answer is an emphatic no; the very idea of doing so is ridiculous.

In a free society no one has a right (legal, natural or otherwise) to be protected from having their feelings hurt or feeling uncomfortable. We as individuals have choices when this happens. We can ignore the idiot speaking, we can speak up and tell them to stop the behavior (state a boundary), we can remove ourselves from the situation, to name a few.

Do we want to live in a society where our (physically harmless) words or gestures can lead to imprisonment or other penalty?


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

6301 said:


> I can understand where there is sexual harassment in the work place and just out and about. I just wish that if there's a consequences for their actions that it's even across the board. Male school teacher is caught with a student and he's nailed to a cross, a female teacher does the same thing and the punishment isn't nearly as bad.


Despite the false hysteria reported by the media, it's not true that female teachers/offenders get lessor punishments for doing the same sexual criminal offenses as male teachers/offenders.


=============quote====================

According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, women committed only 3.5 percent of all single-perpetrator sexual assaults or rapes in this country in 2003, consistent with their share of these crimes since at least 1996. In California, where recent teacher-student cases have made news, the number of female offenders convicted annually has stayed flat for years at about 4 percent of the number of male offenders. Even in teaching, where women are highly overrepresented, five of seven studies reviewed by the U.S. Department of Education two years ago indicated that 80 percent to 96 percent of offenders were male.

Are women getting lighter sentences? It's not clear they ever did. In the 1991 study Women and Men Who Sexually Abuse Children: A Comparative Analysis, researcher Craig Allen studied 75 male and 65 female offenders in the Midwest. "Relatively similar proportions of female and male offenders had charges pressed against them (52% and 55%, respectively)," Allen reported. "However, more female offenders (30%) were put in jail than male offenders (25%)." Five of the 65 women were in prison during the study, which inflated the female number. But at best, the gender comparison was a wash.

Have the numbers changed since then? Since the government doesn't break down current data, Slate intern Ben Raphel went back through the Nexis database from the beginning of 2005 to last Thursday, identifying every case in which the terms "teacher," "sentence," and "sexual assault" appeared. Lots of cases don't involve the term "sexual assault," so this list is partial, but we stuck to that phrase to be consistent. Raphel found 43 offenders—26 male and 17 female—of whom 37 had been sentenced.

At first glance, the sentences look biased. The men got an average of more than 11 years; the women got less than two. But compare the crimes, and the story gets more complicated. Most of the men molested victims younger than 15; most of the women didn't. * Half the men molested multiple victims; only three of the women did. Ten men on the list had multiple victims, including victims younger than 16. These men earned an average sentence of more than 17 years, drastically inflating the average.

Only two female teachers fell into the under-16, multiple-victims category. * One was younger than any of the male offenders in that category, and her victims were older (15) and fewer (two) than most of theirs. She also had the good luck to be prosecuted in Vermont, where she got a one-year sentence. The other had sex with a 12-year-old and two 13-year-olds in California. She got six years, the maximum under her conviction. The Nexis search turned up a third woman in this category. She wasn't a teacher, but she had molested more victims (five), was as old as many of the men who committed similar crimes, and was prosecuted in Colorado. No slap on the wrist for her: She got 30 years.

At the other end of the gravity spectrum, two of the women confined themselves to single victims 16 or older. One got a two-year sentence; the other got a one-year sentence—an average of 18 months. Did they get off easy? Before you answer, look at the four men who, like these women, targeted single victims 16 or older. They drew an average sentence of 14 months. For comparable crimes, men got less jail time than women did.
In the middle categories—crimes against single victims under 16, and crimes against multiple victims age 16 or older—men did get heavier sentences. One reason is that women's victims were, on average, fewer and older. But let's broaden the variables and the pool of data.

In 1994, summarizing her work with 800 male and 36 female offenders, psychologist Jane Kinder Matthews reported: 1) "None of the women we have worked with has coerced others into being accomplices." 2) "Women used force or violence in committing their crimes far less often than men." 3) "Women tend to use fewer threats in an attempt to keep their victims silent." 4) "Women are less likely to initially deny the abuse, and they are more willing to take responsibility for their behavior."

Six years later, L.C. Miccio-Fonseca, a clinic director in California, compared 18 female to 332 male sex offenders and found that males "had more legal problems" and "more sexual partners than females did," despite the fact that 39 percent of the females said they'd been raped themselves, compared with 4 percent of the males. A 2002 study of registered sex offenders in Arkansas added:
In comparison to males, female offenders in general were slightly younger at the time of arrest for their first sex offense. Females were significantly more likely than males to be a first-time offender at the time of arrest for the sex offense. Males generally had a higher number of sex offenses in their criminal histories compared to females.

Two years ago, in Sexual Exploitation in Schools, Kansas State University Professor Robert Shoop confirmed that many of Matthews' findings applied to abuse of students. "Women seldom use force to compel sex or threaten victims to keep them silent," Shoop reported. Whereas female teachers like Mary Kay Letourneau and Julie Feil tried to marry their students (and Letourneau succeeded), "Most male school employees who sexually exploit students do not have a romantic attachment to their victims." Shoop added that "it is far more common for men to exploit a series of students over time. Such behavior is rare among women."

Every one of these differences between the average male and female offender is a likely factor in sentencing. The acid test is whether they're also used to distinguish lesser from greater offenses committed by women. They are. Using Letourneau's name as the starting point for a series of Nexis searches, I looked at 15 recent cases of sexual abuse by female teachers and four cases of abuse by other women. The two women the media seized on as examples of lenient sentencing—Debra LaFave of Florida and Sandra Beth Geisel of New York—turn out to be exceptions. A judge has rejected Lafave's no-jail plea deal, so in her case, stay tuned. Geisel is the only multiple-victim offender who got less than a year behind bars. Another such offender got just a year because the judge found "no evidence of violence or coercion." The rest got three years or more.

Systematically, any female offender who targeted multiple kids or a kid under 16 was forced to register as a sex offender, ending her career. Systematically, sentences of three years or more were handed out to women who abused multiple kids or kids under 14. Letourneau, who grossly violated her probation, got seven years. Sarah Bench-Salorio, the teacher who had sex with a 12-year-old and two 13-year-olds, got six years. Tani Leigh Firkins, who assaulted a boy dozens of times beginning at age 14, got nine years. Silvia Johnson, who plied multiple victims with drugs and booze, got 30 years.

By the time Bench-Salorio came up for sentencing this month, the uproar over sexist leniency had reached such a pitch that prosecutors used it in court. Women shouldn't get lighter sentences just because they're women, the deputy district attorney told the judge. Damn straight. Nor should they get heavier sentences than their crimes deserve, just because we're trying to look tough on women.

=============end quote====================




Are teachers who sleep with boys getting off?


----------



## AliceA (Jul 29, 2010)

In the event of sexual harassment, staring and bumping/rubbing up against a person is just another way of harassing them. If authorities have to start getting specific in order to stop harassment then so be it.

Edited to add: I can imagine a bunch of people will get the idea that because it *could be* classed as sexual harassment that every inadvertent bump or stare will be punished, which common sense says won't happen, but in the cases where these actions are used to harass someone, the victim has the power to stand up and say "no more".


----------



## arbitrator (Feb 13, 2012)

gouge_away said:


> This is why you go to *OleMiss.*


*... or to Texas A&M!*
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Big Dude (Feb 24, 2013)

breeze said:


> I can imagine a bunch of people will get the idea that because it *could be* classed as sexual harassment that every inadvertent bump or stare will be punished, which common sense says won't happen, but in the cases where these actions are used to harass someone, the victim has the power to stand up and say "no more".


Nobody on this thread that has expressed concern over this policy suggested anything of the kind. Nobody believes that *every* accidental "bump" will result in punishment. But some believe that even *ONE* such incident would invalidate this kind of policy.

You, however, seem to echo the sentiment that *all* women have the ability to correctly discern the context of such an incident. To me, common sense indicates that mistakes will be made. 

The issue is not whether harassment is bad, nor if organizations should construct policies to try and prevent it. The issue is that policies like this have the potential to be unjust if they do not include basic protections for the accused, so they need to be constructed very carefully.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

Red Sonja said:


> I do not want to argue about this @SurpriseMyself. I have been blatantly sexually harassed at work also, but that is not the point of this thread, at least not as I understand it. The point as I understood it is *do we criminalize/penalize words and gestures when someone takes offense to them.* My answer is an emphatic no; the very idea of doing so is ridiculous.
> 
> In a free society no one has a right (legal, natural or otherwise) to be protected from having their feelings hurt or feeling uncomfortable. We as individuals have choices when this happens. We can ignore the idiot speaking, we can speak up and tell them to stop the behavior (state a boundary), we can remove ourselves from the situation, to name a few.
> 
> Do we want to live in a society where our (physically harmless) words or gestures can lead to imprisonment or other penalty?


Some people do. That tells you a lot about what kind of people they are.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

6301 said:


> I can understand where there is sexual harassment in the work place and just out and about. I just wish that if there's a consequences for their actions that it's even across the board. Male school teacher is caught with a student and he's nailed to a cross, a female teacher does the same thing and the punishment isn't nearly as bad.


Actually, women are punished much less severely overall than men are for illegal actions in general, even if that may not be the case for sex with minors. For some reason, I don't see too many people decrying that, other than the much-despised MRAs.

And in this case, of course, the double standard applies even more powerfully, because most people don't consider it particularly horrible for a 16-year-old boy to have sex with a 25-year-old woman (as an illustrative example, not any particular case), whereas they would be much more upset about the reverse case.

Considering why that would be the case leads to politically-incorrect thoughts, so we won't go there. >


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
The amount of harassment of women varies a lot by work location. I have a number of friends doing similar jobs and they report very different levels of harassment at their work-sites and I've personally seen different levels at different work-sites. 

Where I am now, the rate of harassment is very small. I got into an argument with a friend over this when he claimed that we had a problem. In the end he had to admit that the only case he had heard of was 20 years ago, and that management had dealt with the problem. 

I'm not a big fan of extreme rules, but in this case I have to admit that they work. We have very strict anti-harassment policies and that may have developed a culture where harassing comments are just not tolerated. Its not a case of people being fired, I haven't heard of that in recent years, but a culture where sexist comments and harassment are just not considered acceptable. 

The result is that (for our business) we have a large number of women, and a much larger number than is typical in high management positions. 

I do think workplace interactions need to be very different from social interactions and would not expect the same sort of rules to be applied to everyday life.


----------



## Mr. Nail (Apr 26, 2011)

The only experience I actually have with sexual harassment happened when I was in Jr. High. There was this girl who had a crush on me, She stared a lot, I was uncomfortable, I failed to say or do anything about it. Eventually she made an advance (asked me to dance). That was the point at which I said no. She respected that boundary (or had her heart broken) from that point on. I still feel a bit guilty for shutting her down. 

Does anyone see how this applies to this thread?


----------



## gouge_away (Apr 7, 2015)

EleGirl said:


> Can you explain this?


Well, it seems through the training they (my employer) do a good job explaining the laws, your rights, and our obligation to protect them in the workplace.
The company itself doesn't have any code of conduct outside of what the law says.

Unless harassment has escalated to a hostile work environment, no action is required, therefore no action is taken.

Even when actions are taken its a joke.

I witnessed 2 employees get into a heated argument, one male (60s) and one female (50s). The male called her every name in the book, 'b,' 'c,' called her fat, even demoralized her for, "getting away with it being a woman."

She reported the verbal sexual abuse, and threatened to file a lawsuit, the company was required to move one of the employees into a different department, and they did. The man was temporarily moved into a supervising position for 6 months, so now he was her supervisor!

I believe he should have been fired, but the union got involved and had to protect his and her job, he was already beyond retirement age, but going through a D, so the company, I feel, felt sorry for him.

I'm all for zero tolerance, the way that this company handled the situation almost promotes and encourages harassment.


----------



## Runs like Dog (Feb 25, 2011)

The question you have to ask yourself is harassment itself a crime and if so at what point does it rise to that level. Catcalls and 'staring' while unpleasant don't seem to rise to the level of actual crimes in the general sense. On the other hand an employer employee relationship or the use of some authority probably do by their very nature. Do students amongst one another actually have that power disparity to exploit? No, not usually. Because you and I don't have the right, the entitlement to never be made to feel uncomfortable at all, about anything from anyone.


----------



## sisters359 (Apr 9, 2009)

A work place or school is no place for *any* behavior or comment that addresses the sexuality of the other person. Even saying "You look nice" is inappropriate in work/school context--it is not your right to comment on the appearance of another person outside the professional context. If you say, "You look very professional today," then you are acknowledging the person's appearance in relationship to the context. There is no way such a comment can be interpreted as sexual-unless it is intentionally delivered in a manner to change the meeting (e.g., staring at a women's breasts while saying it).

I think people find a lot of this change very difficult but, for true equality, we need to see one another as individual co-workers or fellow students--not first as "desirable woman/man" or "undesirable woman/man." 

No one who remains strictly professional at all times will have any problem with these kinds of policies. You would not say something inappropriate, b/c you are focused on getting the job done. 

It's especially important to start teaching people that schools should be considered "professional" spaces, too--no one's opportunity to earn a living or to receive an education should be compromised by another's inappropriate behavior. There are many social contexts where professionally "inappropriate" comments are not being restricted and no one expects anything more--you can go to another bar easily but you cannot easily change jobs/schools, nor should you have to.

It's been too long that women's bodies have been viewed as open to comment/touching, so carving out space where women don't experience this s*it is a good thing.

If you think the guidelines are too vague, stop and 1) realize you may have no real experience with creepsters; and 2) ask yourself if you would say/do such a thing to your boss or another man before you consider saying it to a woman. It might help to imagine how you might feel if someone you did NOT find sexually attractive kept saying/doing things that revealed their sexual appetite for you. It is not a pleasant experience--even without feeling threatened, and a lot of time, creeps want to make sure the person feels threatened, too.

As for proving that someone is speaking/behaving inappropriately, it isn't as hard as you think. Cameras (in school halls, for example) are often available, and there are often witnesses to events. I think it is really important for women to learn to be comfortable telling a man the behaviors/comments are unwanted, but until we get there (as a society), people need to consider their own behaviors and quit worrying about whether or not it is experienced by someone as unpleasant--the comment / behavior is inappropriate, regardless of how another person feels about it (that is, even flirting with a neutral recipient is still wrong, b/c it degrades what should be a professional environment).


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
workplaces are very different.
I had a coworker start to say "have you worked with Alissa (a young very attractive engineer who just joined), I...." He stopped, then said "I probably shouldn't say anything". I said "yes, that's probably best". 

That's the closest I've heard to a sexist comment in years. 

I could tell from his tone that he was about to go somewhere he shouldn't, so maybe he noticed my "glance of death". 






gouge_away said:


> Well, it seems through the training they (my employer) do a good job explaining the laws, your rights, and our obligation to protect them in the workplace.
> The company itself doesn't have any code of conduct outside of what the law says.
> 
> Unless harassment has escalated to a hostile work environment, no action is required, therefore no action is taken.
> ...


----------



## Mr. Nail (Apr 26, 2011)

A university is a school (professional environment), it also has social spaces and events, It also has living spaces (residence). So the rules can change from one step to the next. Add to that the age of the students. These people are transitioning into adulthood. Quite literally the rules change from person to person. As a freshman (17) there was a Junior woman (21) who flirted with me relentlessly in an attempt to make her BF jealous. Had she realized that I was under the 18 line she probably would have chosen some one else.

I honestly think universities need different harsher rules. Good learning tool.


----------



## LongWalk (Apr 4, 2013)

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> Yes, but if you are good at flirting, the first "flirt" is barely noticeable, and gives the other person the opportunity to escalate or de-escalate without anyone being embarrassed or pressured.


To be good at flirting requires practice.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Agreed - I practice a lot .

Sometimes even on this discussion board :wink2:
With any luck a couple of women here are thinking about how trip to Venice sounds nice....






LongWalk said:


> To be good at flirting requires practice.


----------



## BradWesley (May 24, 2013)

SurpriseMyself said:


> That's because a 15 year old boy is a stud if he gets laid, but a 15 year old girl ... Well, she gets a reputation. You want the double standard to stop? Stop applauding boys for "getting some."
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


For the boy to "get some", the girl needs to be willing to "put out".

Be careful of that double edged sword. It will cut you to ribbons.


----------



## SurpriseMyself (Nov 14, 2009)

Red Sonja said:


> I do not want to argue about this @SurpriseMyself. I have been blatantly sexually harassed at work also, but that is not the point of this thread, at least not as I understand it. The point as I understood it is *do we criminalize/penalize words and gestures when someone takes offense to them.* My answer is an emphatic no; the very idea of doing so is ridiculous.
> 
> In a free society no one has a right (legal, natural or otherwise) to be protected from having their feelings hurt or feeling uncomfortable. We as individuals have choices when this happens. We can ignore the idiot speaking, we can speak up and tell them to stop the behavior (state a boundary), we can remove ourselves from the situation, to name a few.
> 
> Do we want to live in a society where our (physically harmless) words or gestures can lead to imprisonment or other penalty?


The law exists so that, when a woman does come forward, what the creep did can be deemed unlawful. Simple.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## SurpriseMyself (Nov 14, 2009)

BradWesley said:


> For the boy to "get some", the girl needs to be willing to "put out".
> 
> Be careful of that double edged sword. It will cut you to ribbons.


No one applauds the girl for "putting out." Perhaps you should consider your words and what they mean.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------

