Wednesday, August 16, 2006
Ouch... a correction
Yesterday, I wrote this:
If a guy groped me, and I decked him, not a jury in the world would convict me, and they wouldn't bother asking if I said "no". They'd only care that he couldn't prove that I said "yes".
And ick. For the record, I don't go around worrying that I might have to defend my manhood from some gay man finding me attractive.
What I meant to say there was, "look, it's well accepted by society that you're allowed to protect yourself from unwanted touch, especially erotic touch. For examnple, if a guy is groped by another guy, do you really think you can find twelve people who'd vote to convict the grope-ee for decking the groper? Well, now let's look at how people think about women dealing with unwanted touch... big difference, eh?"
If a guy made a move on me, I'd have to feel like I was in real danger before I'd use violence. Or, he'd have to persist, even after I told him to stop (of course, if a guy kept groping at me after I told him to stop, I'd assume I was in real danger...).
And I don't think it's a happy world we live in. It's true, if a gay man put his hand on the shoulder of a man (just to get his attention), and that guy is a bigot or a homophobe, that guy might be able to beat up the gay man with impunity, claiming he was sexually assaulted. If that didn't work, he might still be able to claim he panicked, and didn't realize he was over-reacting. I'm not claiming that it's right, but it is the way the world is, all too often.
It was just an example I grabbed to point out that we accept that unwanted erotic touch is a bad thing... that it's not just a theoretical question, it's something that's well understood.
But still... ick. I'm glad people tend to read blogs in reverse chronological order so they're likely to see this before seeing the previous entry.