Reckoning on Sexual Misconduct Divides Women Over How Harsh Judgment Must Be | Hacker News Reader

Reckoning on Sexual Misconduct Divides Women Over How Harsh Judgment Must Be

nytimes.com

12 pointsartsandsci15 comments

Does anyone else find it strange that we've apparently settled on "sexual misconduct" as the general descriptor for this stuff? Is the media afraid to call it "sex crime"?

The term's broader than the one you proposed.

Sure, but how much discussion is going on right now of non-criminal sexual misconduct?

Pretty much all of it?

I tossed "sexual misconduct" into Google news to see who came up. I got:

John Conyers, accused of firing someone for refusing him sex and misappropriating official transportation for women he was having affairs with, among other things, which is criminal.

Matt Lauer, Dustin Hoffman, Roy Moore, James Levine, Robert Knepper, Bruce Weber, and Matt Dababneh, all accused of sexual assault.

And that's the end of the first page. How far do I have to go to find this "pretty much all of it" which is non-criminal misconduct?

> John Conyers, accused of firing someone for refusing him sex

Not criminal. A basis for a successful lawsuit, but it wouldn't land him in jail.

> misappropriating official transportation for women he was having affairs with, among other things, which is criminal.

Fraud is criminal, but it's hardly a "sex crime."

OK, bad examples. Turns out Conyers is also accused of sexual assault, so let's just go with that.

Most of the conduct reported in the news is not criminal. Often the kind of thing that would open someone up to a lawsuit. And wrong. But not criminal.

Really? I'm struggling to come up with any recent report that was not criminal. Maybe I'm paying attention to the wrong things.

The comedian recently pilloried did his acts with consent, and did not do them when denied consent. The value of the consent, given he’s a comedian, is certainly up for question, but his acts were also not obviously illegal.

Does every wolf whistle and catcall deserve jail time?

Does hitting on someone deserve jail time?

Does hitting on someone aggressively deserve jail time?

Does hitting on someone aggressively when you have a position of some power relative to them deserve jail time?

Does doing it repeatedly deserve jail time?

I am not saying that we should be desensitized to this stuff. We should not become complacent and say it's OK. But it's not all in the category of "crime". Reserve the word for the stuff that really is criminal, that is, something that can land people in jail. (Calling everything criminal winds up desensitizing people to that which actually is criminal. "Oh, yeah, you say that about everything, so this is probably no big deal too.")

How much of that stuff is in the news? All of the sexual misconduct stories on the first page of Google News right now, for example, are about things that are clearly criminal.

This is exactly why I'm disturbed that the standard term has become "sexual misconduct." The major issues right now are people who use their power to rape and assault. Using the term "sexual misconduct" in that context puts those things in the same category as telling a naughty joke in the wrong company. And instead of asking why we keep electing sex criminals, or why rapists seems to enjoy so much success in Hollywood, we're asking whether or not a catcall deserves jail time.

I have no problem calling rapists "rapists" or "criminals".

But take Conyers, for example. I haven't been following that particular mess closely, but a quick glance shows him being accused of (repeated) "unwanted advances" and "mistreatment". Well, are unwanted advances abuse of a position of power? Absolutely. Are they rape? Are they criminal? No and no. (I'm not sure what, exactly, is covered by "mistreatment". Could that be criminal? Certainly. Was it? I can't say without more specificity, and I don't care to wade further into the cesspool to find out.)

I haven't been following him closely either, but looking into it a bit more, there's at least one alleged incident of sexual assault with him as well.

So I think I understand and sympathize with the people who've come out about sex crimes or sexual harassment. There are some very serious, truly heartbreaking cases involving women who had to live in fear and had their future relationships ruined because of these terrible acts.

But honestly, it's getting to the point where asking a woman out for coffee seems like I might be harassing her.

I think there is a sexual dynamic that everyone avoids talking about, because exploring it in such public light would be taboo. How do we distinguish between what is primal, not yet understood when it comes to sexual dynamic (body language, looks, etc...) prior to engaging in an intellectual conversation, and the discomfort that women might feel when they are approached by an entity they deem as harassing?

I don't mean to confuse creepy and harassing, but I expect to be forgiven if I was 18, new to this world, and trying to get this to work without consciously ignoring all of these warning messages about harassment. It just seems like the solution is binary for the inexperienced. Either don't approach women, or approach them _hard_. The latter may cause some issues.

I also don't want to take away from the truly heinous sex crimes that are committed every day, but I think the lines need to be clearer for those of us not so sharp or experienced.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com