Peter Sagan....it was just a pinch (Page 16)

Well, TO ME, it's disappointing that as a society, we think that demeaning someone or touching them in an inappropriate way is funny, reasonable and expected.

Since you chuckled, I guess that's your view as well.

I personally don't see the humor when my wife get's grabbed and comes home upset.  I NEVER want to see her hurt or disrespected.  I transfer that displeasure when I see any girl grabbed without consent.  They are someone else's daughter/wife/girl friend.

Maybe the humor of it will fade for you once it's someone your care for this happens to while they were just doing their job.

How do you know she was offended unless she articulates it?

We've covered the fact that a myriad of reasons exist for why she might not. Can I assume offense and then call it an assault? Can his actions be egregious enough that any reasonable person would have been offended, even if she wasn't? Is that, then, an assault?

Were his actions, on the podium of an international event, egregious enough? 

There is a hole there, IMO.

Your INTENT was to run a red light and the result is you killed someone.  Guess what, you get charged for killing someone (result), not for running the light (intent).  The level of sentence varies.

His INTENT was to grab her butt as a joke.  The result is he hurt her.  So in this case, you believe the punishment should be on the joke (intent) and NOT that he hurt her (result)?

Maybe the line is blurry (and I personally refrain from commenting in those threads - not to proclaim I have NEVER posted there).

I do know people can make crude comments that can offend, but I also draw a line between that and something physical.

I keep using it because I can relate:  I can't count how many times people have said something raunchy/crude or leered at the wife.  I don't like it, but I can "tolerate" it.  But lay hands on her?  oh no...

I don't think I'm on a high horse or being hypocritical.

In order:

Sure, if you assume she was offended, we can call it a crime based on that assumption. 

Possibly, but that doesn't make it a crime. 

No.

To be a crime, without knowing more, no.

Every semester, I instruct a 12 week course for men who are at risk of suspension for behavioral issues. Every semester, the course fills with a minimum (over the past 5 years) of 8 men. For the past fall semesters, I've taught two sections of the course with 8 men in each section. That's around 25 men per year that I spend 12 weeks with helping them to identify the behavior that has landed them at an intersection with the university where they have refused to meet the basic expectations about what it means to be a student of this university.

We offer a female version of the section as well. We do this in two separate, gendered tracks, because we cover specific and societal reasons why their behavior is clashing with larger, more universal expectations. For the past two years, the female track has not had any participants. Prior to that, it averaged 3 per semester.

I am not into shaming men. I have sat in the room countless times when, upon having read the sexual assault codes for the first time, men have realized that their actions met the definition. That moment is always incredibly sad ... and I see it far too regularly. I try desperately to hold my audience. But that desperation matches the desperation of the costs, specific to men, who fail to take this seriously.

I see the world as through the Psych/Sociology lens I've decided to wear by way of my educational path. For whatever reason, I've gravitated to the gender aspects of those fields.  Sexual crimes are reaching epidemic levels both on college campuses and in society at large. I happen to have the ability to impact campus culture. We are in the midst of an awakening where the definitions that have been cited in this discussion are being validated and upheld ... both in the court of public opinion and in the process by which actual cases are heard on campus and in the civil arena. I'm not speaking rhetoric here. This awakening is happening. 

Regardless of intent, men are being held to those awakened standards. I have both the podium and the obligation to increase the awareness of that fact.

The reality of the situation is that the punishment is extreme. If you get stuck saying that it doesn't fit the reality of the situation, I'm going to continue to encourage to adjust your reality. I encourage this because it's very sad when I see the circumstances impact the men around me ... those who get the reality check in the midst of a conduct hearing and suddenly have their behavior defined as assault by people who hand out serious consequences.

You'll note that I've not said what should have happened to Sagan. I've pretty much just expressed extreme frustration that his actions get in the way of men recognizing the awakening I describe. That's shameful. And ignorant. And disregardful of the power he has as an athlete who is watched.

I don't need to be right in all of this. I don't need you to suddenly see the world as I see it. But I encourage you to be more open to the dialogue than you come across. 

Looking/commenting are worlds away from putting your hands on a woman.  If they had taken a picture of him looking at her butt, I seriously doubt we would have 20 pages of discussion, if the picture even got published.

What questions do you have that remain unanswered? The consistent theme of your questions has been to challenge what is being presented. That's where you come across as close minded. 

Let me be clear.

I'm thankful that you remain in the dialogue. I truly am. Most men do just as you say ... shut down and stop participating. I'm glad you haven't. Thank you for that. It is most certainly an indicator that you're more interested in dialogue than in debate. That's a valuable skill to have. Continue to hone it.

And if I'm being honest ... yes ... I would have hoped for more movement from you. And less devil's advocacy.

But, again, I appreciate your willingness to stay engaged. To call you less than open to dialogue was not accurate. 

I have considered that. I articulated that his intent doesn't matter to me as much as the impact does. I defined that impact as 1. impact on the woman and 2. impact on the culture I'm trying to shift.

I've articulated that response should be weighted to the impact ... not the intent. I'll stand by that. 

I agree.

Hence the popularity of phrases like "the consequences of our actions" and similar.

"consequences of our intent" never really took off.

Keep hearing about the Ed Rush story all day (the whole week, actually) and it makes me think of this thread for some reason.  He is also using the "it was just a joke" defense.  Not working out too well for him.

Interesting that it seems pretty universal that everyone is saying he is full of it when he says he was joking and he lost his job for it.  There are some things you just don't say/do.

Don't mess with the integrity of our sports.  Even JOKE about it is a no no.  Mess with the integrity of a girl and inappropriately touch her?  For some?  "Meh, it was just a joke".

Interesting where we focus our indignation.  Basketball is more fun to talk about, I suppose.

You know, I'm sitting here thinking about all of this and remembering.

When I was in college I worked in a video store with most other employees the same age I was. The guys that worked there constantly made inappropriate comments or implied sexual jokes towards me, extra "hugs", comments about how I looked. It was not appropriate but I did not do anything about it. I didn't know any better, I just laughed it off. I always thought of sexual harassment as something else, something more violent I guess. I'm sure the video store had policies but I did not know what they were.

The difference between the 20 year old me and the 40 year old me - today I would not tolerate that. Or course I doubt I would be spoken to that way at this age anyway.

My husband used to do his fair share of grabbing my rear when I walked by. Then one day when my son was 2 he grabbed my rear. I looked at my husband and said now look what you are teaching him. Next thing you know he's going to grab the little girl down the street or his teacher.

Just watched that clip - this guy is a creep.

If you are equating assault with criminal, absolutely incorrect.  She has to be offended for the pinch to be criminal, whether she complains or not.

Quoted because I am interested in the response...

It's apples and oranges.  A victim has to be offended in order for that pnch to be criminal.....that's an element of the crime...so yeah, we need to know that in regard to what Sagan did.

That's not the case in a rape....a rape just has to be "without consent".....you really can't equate the two in the criminal sense.

Rape is alwas rape no matter if it was reported or not....not the case with the pinch.

I will tell you this.....a rape that is not  reported, or that the victim has no intention of reporting even if someone else knows about it, will NEVER be prosecuted. 

But don't worry all, YOU can still be offended in both cases so the outrage may continue.