Official Sexual Harrassment Thread

[Sour Masher]

In another forum about the Hardwick situation, a poster wrote the following. I'm interested in responses on this, as this opinion drifts into territory that, if accepted, makes a whole lot of men (most I'd guess) not just insensitive or selfish, but sexual assault perps. Is convincing a tired partner to have sex sexual assault? Is unenthusiastic consent now similar to no consent? That seems like a slippery slope.

"All consent should be enthusiastic. If someone doesnt want to have sex and their partner convinces them to do it, and they’re not super into it….:then ya, that’s a form of assault."

[Gregg]

Chris Hardwick is the latest accused. His ex's account is on medium. It paints a picture if a complete selfish asshole that an older wiser her would have rightly left long before. But I'm a little unclear on the labeling his actions as sexual assault. Her account describes emotional coercion and her acceptance. She labels it's three years of sexual assault, because she only agreed to sex because she was afraid he'd leave her. Does that count now? IDK.

She certainly paints him as a total douche, but is emotional coercion followed by verbal consent sexual assault? It seemed to be more a post about a bad relationship with a shallow jerk, not an account of habitual sexual assault. Is the "I might leave you if I don't get enough sex" coercion counted as sexual assault coercion? If it is not, is an accusation that he was a douchy boyfriend enough to totally tanking his career? That sure gives a lot of power to exes of famous people. By her own admission, she cheated on him and he blacklisted her. She insists he forgave the cheating, and just blacklisted her out of spite. But it does seem like the post was as much as response of his blacklisting her as the relationship itself.

I did learn a new term from her article. Apparently laying back too tired to engage but allowing the other person to get on top and do all the work during sex is called "starfishing".

This is the most I will probably read about this situation. From this, it seems to me that she was not too tired to cheat on him. It also seems she used sex to knowingly keep him from leaving. That would be consenting. He might not be the best husband, this description in not sexual assault.

This is dysfunction played out in the media.

[Gregg]

In another forum about the Hardwick situation, a poster wrote the following. I'm interested in responses on this, as this opinion drifts into territory that, if accepted, makes a whole lot of men (most I'd guess) not just insensitive or selfish, but sexual assault perps. Is convincing a tired partner to have sex sexual assault? Is unenthusiastic consent now similar to no consent? That seems like a slippery slope.

"All consent should be enthusiastic. If someone doesnt want to have sex and their partner convinces them to do it, and they’re not super into it….:then ya, that’s a form of assault."

Is there a married man anywhere that really wants to give a back rub?

[Sour Masher]

It is hard to feel sympathetic for a guy who is even half as douchy as his ex describes him, but it still concerns me that a person's professional career can be ruined by being a bad boyfriend/jerk. I don't understand his actions, even if her account is 100% accurate, as sexual assault, and her labeling it that is what led to his across the board suspension. It seems like a dangerous thing to do, that not only damages him, but the me too movement to conflate his emotional manipulation and douchery with sexual assault.

Again, even if we take everything she wrote at face value, accepting her label of his expecting sex from her frequently, and generally controlling persona, and her continued consent to that condition of the relationship as sexual assault is broadening the definition of sexual assault to a level that I doubt many agree with. I have no problem with her outing him as a prick, but to label in bold his actions as sexual assault (she bolded the words for emphasis in her account) is a serious act to be examined given the ramifications of such a serious accusation.

She gives no indication of threats of physical violence or reprisals for ending the relationship. She only mentions his blacklisting her from projects he worked on after she admits to cheating on him at the end of the relationship. She doesn't suggest that was a reason she stayed with him for three years. So, is being a controlling, selfish boyfriend who expects sex on demand, but who never forces himself physically or threatens with harm a sexual abuser? Where is the line between outing a criminal and revealing dirty laundry with the hope of inflicting professional harm?

If the actions he is accused of are not illegal, how can they be adjudicated? If he disputes the claims, and he isn't even named (she never mentions him by name in her post), is suspension appropriate? How can his employers ever determine what he did or didn't do? It seems they are left with just erring on the side of caution and cutting ties with him, even if the actions described are not illegal, or even entirely accurate, and even if her account never names him. It does leave open the possibility of abuse of the power of such accusations.

[B-Fly]

It is hard to feel sympathetic for a guy who is even half as douchy as his ex describes him, but it still concerns me that a person's professional career can be ruined by being a bad boyfriend/jerk. I don't understand his actions, even if her account is 100% accurate, as sexual assault, and her labeling it that is what led to his across the board suspension. It seems like a dangerous thing to do, that not only damages him, but the me too movement to conflate his emotional manipulation and douchery with sexual assault.

Again, even if we take everything she wrote at face value, accepting her label of his expecting sex from her frequently, and generally controlling persona, and her continued consent to that condition of the relationship as sexual assault is broadening the definition of sexual assault to a level that I doubt many agree with. I have no problem with her outing him as a prick, but to label in bold his actions as sexual assault (she bolded the words for emphasis in her account) is a serious act to be examined given the ramifications of such a serious accusation.

She gives no indication of threats of physical violence or reprisals for ending the relationship. She only mentions his blacklisting her from projects he worked on after she admits to cheating on him at the end of the relationship. She doesn't suggest that was a reason she stayed with him for three years. So, is being a controlling, selfish boyfriend who expects sex on demand, but who never forces himself physically or threatens with harm a sexual abuser? Where is the line between outing a criminal and revealing dirty laundry with the hope of inflicting professional harm?

If the actions he is accused of are not illegal, how can they be adjudicated? If he disputes the claims, and he isn't even named (she never mentions him by name in her post), is suspension appropriate? How can his employers ever determine what he did or didn't do? It seems they are left with just erring on the side of caution and cutting ties with him, even if the actions described are not illegal, or even entirely accurate, and even if her account never names him. It does leave open the possibility of abuse of the power of such accusations.

Here's her account: https://medium.com/@skydart/rose-col...s-6be0594970ca

If we take everything she wrote as true, then sorry, I have no problem with his professional career being ruined, just as he ruined hers. The sexual assault charge is the most debatable of her charges, depending on how one defines and interprets sexual assault, but I won't rule it out. Here's the key passage from her account:

At the beginning of our relationship, I was quite ill often due to my diet, something I’ll get to in a bit. One night he initiated, and I said, “I’m so sorry, can we not tonight? I’m feeling really sick.” He responded, “I just want to remind you, the reason my last relationship didn’t work out was because of the lack of sex.” It was a veiled threat. I succumbed.

Add that he was 20 years her senior, powerful/accomplished/connected in her field of work, and the pattern of extreme emotional abuse described through the rest of her account, and I'm not sure I disagree with her calling that "sexual assault". If one embraces the idea of affirmative consent, then it's hardly even questionable.

Again, if we assume her account to be truthful, he's guilty of several "torts" against her: intentional infliction of emotional distress, unlawful imprisonment (through coercion/threat), tortious interference with contract.

In my mind, the conduct she describes absolutely is deserving of public scorn and reputational damage, including the potential "ruining" of his career as a public figure. Particularly for the conduct described that can be viewed as his deliberate effort to ruin her career:

Because of my leaving him for someone else, he made calls to several companies I received regular work from to get me fired by threatening to never work with them. He succeeded. I was blacklisted.

You seemed to suggest that her "cheating" on him could somehow justify his efforts to compel companies to stop hiring her. Absolutely not. And by her account, he cheated first and with some regularity.

Again, I agree the "sexual assault" label is debatable and may well not meet the threshold for criminal liability, despite the coercion, but I have no problem with it meeting the modern moral/ethical label of sexual assault and him facing public consequences for all of the behavior described. It's way, way worse than the Aziz Ansari story that we discussed/debated earlier in this thread.

[Sour Masher]

I agree, it s way worse than the Aziz Ansari story, as it is a three year relationship, rather than one night, of selfish/bad behavior.

I'm not defending the guy. Reading this account has changed my opinion of him, and I certainly don't feel sorry for him being professionally blackballed, if he really acted this way. But, again how exactly are his actions, as she describes them, sexual assault? And how can we ever know the degree of accuracy of her account? Is her account of his behavior egregious enough that it warrants his career to end, even without evidence of his behavior, or her even naming him in her account?

And I wasn't suggesting him blacklisting her was justified, but him doing that after the fact was not threatened beforehand, so was not coercive in getting her to stay with him, was my point. I made mention of it, because if he had made such threats during the relationship, I could see that as being part of an argument for labeling his demands for sex as more threatening. I mentioned her cheating, because it came at the end of the relationship, and seems to suggest his blacklisting of her only came up at that point, and not during the three years she stayed with him.

It is also important to note that at the start of their relationship, she describes him as small time. He didn't have the power you suggest. She said she started seeing him when he was just a podcaster. He didn't rise up to the big time until well into the relationship. So, early on, and she makes clear, he let her know who he was early on, she could not have felt cooerced by his professional power in her field. Again, I only bring it up in relation to labeling his acts sexual assault. If professional threats were not part of the equation, I don't see how his demands for sex and her acceptance of them amount to more than selfishness and douchery. She fell in love with an asshole, and kept staying with an asshole until she or he, depending on who you believe, ended it. But labeling their sexual encounters as assault, as she does, I don't get.

Also, again, what if her account isn't accurate? Or what if her perspective was different from his? She admits from suffering from body dismorphia during the relationship. Isn't it possible for some to have relationship dismorphia, to perceive actions and words as worse than they are? Don't we need some kind of evidence of her claims before passing final judgment on his career? She says she has such evidence, so I hope she realeases it. She says she didn't to save him trouble. That seems disengenious, and she can't really make things worse for him now by releasing, so I hope she does. And I hope if he acted this way with others, they come forward too.

[cardboardbox]

"All consent should be enthusiastic. If someone doesnt want to have sex and their partner convinces them to do it, and they’re not super into it….:then ya, that’s a form of assault."

Whoever posted this is an idiot.

[cardboardbox]

Is there a married man anywhere that really wants to give a back rub?

I dont know about you but around here back rubs turn into front rubs!

[B-Fly]

I don't think all consent to sex within a relationship has to be enthusiastic, but it should have to be affirmative, and it shouldn't be coerced with threats. If you need to express to your girlfriend or wife a concern or frustration with your overall lack of sexual activity as a couple, particularly if it's at a point where you're contemplating ending the relationship, I think it should be separated from any instance of an attempt to initiate sex and the rejection/denial. If she's willing and able to have the conversation with you that night, I guess that's okay, but the conversation should be about what you each want and need in the relationship with regard to intimacy -- not an effort to shame/guilt/coerce her into "starfishing" for you right then and there after she's told you she doesn't want to.

[Sour Masher]

I don't think all consent to sex within a relationship has to be enthusiastic, but it should have to be affirmative, and it shouldn't be coerced with threats. If you need to express to your girlfriend or wife a concern or frustration with your overall lack of sexual activity as a couple, particularly if it's at a point where you're contemplating ending the relationship, I think it should be separated from any instance of an attempt to initiate sex and the rejection/denial. If she's willing and able to have the conversation with you that night, I guess that's okay, but the conversation should be about what you each want and need in the relationship with regard to intimacy -- not an effort to shame/guilt/coerce her into "starfishing" for you right then and there after she's told you she doesn't want to.

I agree completely. But is doing that childish, selfish, and cause for the coerced partner to reevaluate the relationship, or is it sexual assault? I think it is the former, but not the latter. If the only implied threat is the threat to end the relationship, then the sexual act that follows, if one does, does not seem like a sexual assault, at least with my current understanding of what sexual assault is.

In this case, the threat to end the relationship didn't even have the complications that a more serious relationship would have. She was not financially dependent on him. She had no children with him. She did not need him to provide shelter, food, etc.

[B-Fly]

I agree completely. But is doing that childish, selfish, and cause for the coerced partner to reevaluate the relationship, or is it sexual assault? I think it is the former, but not the latter. If the only implied threat is the threat to end the relationship, then the sexual act that follows, if one does, does not seem like a sexual assault, at least with my current understanding of what sexual assault is.

In this case, the threat to end the relationship didn't even have the complications that a more serious relationship would have. She was not financially dependent on him. She had no children with him. She did not need him to provide shelter, food, etc.

I think we agree that what is described here is morally wrong, and that our debate is primarily over whether it should subject him to criminal or even civil liability. On that I think I need to better understand the facts. Let's look at her description more closely:

One night he initiated, and I said, “I’m so sorry, can we not tonight? I’m feeling really sick.” He responded, “I just want to remind you, the reason my last relationship didn’t work out was because of the lack of sex.” It was a veiled threat. I succumbed.

Every night, I laid there for him, occasionally in tears. He called it “starfishing”. He thought the whole idea was funny. To be fair, I did go along with it out of fear of losing him. I’m still recovering from being sexually used (not in a super fun way) for three years.

She didn't say she "consented". On the night she describes first, she says that after saying "I'm so sorry, can we not tonight? I'm feeling really sick", that he made the "veiled threat" and she "succumbed". How did she "succumb" that night? Did she say something like, "Fine, just do it", which is probably consent albeit emotionally coerced and unenthusiastic consent? Or did he penetrate her while she lay silent, morose, crying, which may reasonably be sexual assualt?

She then goes on to say that every night she "laid there for him, occasionally in tears" and that "I did go along with it out of fear of losing him". Again, I don't know what "I did go along with it" means in terms of what she did communicate verbally and non-verbally, but lying there in tears while you're being penetrated might reasonably be sexual assault.

[Sour Masher]

Yeah, I a guess it would have helped if her description were more precise. She mentions being occasionally in tears, and that is definitely an assault flag. But we don't know how many times that happened, or if he was aware of it.

With my first girlfriend in college, we were having sex once when I noticed she had a tear in her eye. I immediately stopped, aghast that I might be hurting her. She gave no cues of distress, and I only noticed because it was day time and I could see her face clearly. She revealed to me that she had already orgasmed, and continuing after that point caused her pain. I was inexperienced at that time and didn't realize that could be an issue (and I now know it is not universally an issue). It is something I became sensitive to at that point, to make sure it didn't happen again.

If he was aware of it, and still carried on without asking her what was wrong, then I agree that we have crossed the border into assault. He was an experienced older guy, so no excuses. In my case, I really didn't know what the hell I was doing, and without a verbal cue telling me I was hurting her, I don't think I would have noticed in the dark. I'm not sure it was the first time it happened.

To this day, I am not certain why she didn't say anything--she was far more sexually experienced than me, and a pretty confident person, not afraid to say what she wanted, when she wanted it. In fact, she was the one who started me being a vegetarian, because she made it clear to me, she wasn't gonna have sex with me if I made it a point to eat meat in front of her--it was a real turn off for her, and she said so (I guess some could call that coercive, but I understood I had a choice and chose to give up meat to be with her). Despite those traits, she told me she felt obligated to let her partner finish if she had, which is why she didn't stop or tell me she was in pain. I let her know we didn't have to do that, and it didn't happen again, but I don't know if it happened before that point without me noticing.

[Gregg]

I dont know about you but around here back rubs turn into front rubs!

Yep, and that is why we give them when we do not want to.

[Fresno Bob]

I like to give back and foot rubs, and if you are in tears when we are fucking, I'm going to stop and figure out what is going on, because fucking women that are crying is not hot.

[Sour Masher]

I like to give back and foot rubs, and if you are in tears when we are fucking, I'm going to stop and figure out what is going on, because fucking women that are crying is not hot.

Yeah, it would be a huge turn off for anyone but a sadist.