I find it interesting that there is.......nary a whisper of discussion here about the amount of actors, directors, movie and music producers, journalists and politicians accused of sexual harassment recently, these stories lead almost every news cast recently and there is nothing here. I'm curious not about the stories themselves but, why the lack of interest from those that seem to share opinions on all subject, except this one.
There was a time in the past that I would have found such a phenomenon (lack of a thread) unusual - but not anymore - GTPlanet isn't the centre of the Universe; the Internet has burgeoned, expanding exponentially and literally feeding on itself, Hutt-style, and the more the activity is spread out the less the activity at any particular site, with the giants of virtual gratification (Twitter because of the trumpeting, FB/Instagram/Pinterest because of the back-patting, etc.) being more or less the banqueting halls for citizens of the virtual.
Prolific thread-makers (themselves quite often controversial figures) don't come dime-a-dozen, and what is left are usually younger folk, born long after bulletin boards first came up, and hungry for attention initiating desultory discussions about this or that that don't often lead anywhere with any purpose but result in roaming attack-dogs scavenging the discussion for bits of offal on which to chew and hopefully come up with brilliant-sounding one-liners regarding the taste.
Hurricane Harvey had almost hit landfall before a thread washed ashore here.
The big eclipse that showed up this year was almost upon us before it was covered here.
So no surprise that societal events that ripple through Hollywood and Washington and New York are merely regarded as the usual ho-hum scandals being reported that come and go in waves (because of the huge mass of uncurated information) and because much of the news today is yellow journalism (because of the huge mass of uncurated information).
I took your concern about the lack of comment as also an opening for comment - but to initiate discussion on a touchy topic as sexual molestation is itself a plunge into whitewater. So kudos to you for that bravery.
As well, actually providing opinions on the 'should be/should not be' morality of the reproductive acts of
h. sapiens sapiens (unless one is Desmond Morris and writing up the quite enlightening, detached, and well-researched second chapter of
The Naked Ape) one is prone to expose their personal short-comings or eyebrow-raising proclivities regarding their own brand of sexuality.
What surfaces in all these stories in the news is about two things - money and power.
(Or maybe one thing - money - since that can buy power.)
What is hidden are the cries for help - from both sides of the fence.
Humanity today is wrestling with its sexuality. So much so that the fight is now firmly in the limelight. And that is a good thing. The oppression of women (or for that matter any subordinate partner in a sexual relationship) is not easy to brush under the carpet now with cries of 'Lies!' (which in some some cases may be true because of political or financial skulduggery - which further cloud the issue) and the manipulation of professional subordinates, teammates, colleagues, etc. towards personal sexual gratification is now out in the open because of the ease with which information (accusations, denials, allegations, rebuttals) is disseminated, and that, in itself, being the spur for many to come forward (both genuine and false) with histories of being abused.
What we must keep in mind, though, is that the nature of human sexuality itself and what is appropriate and what isn't has never been clearly defined (apart in some 'Holy' books and assorted medical tomes) for everyone.
A first kiss without consent can be romantic for some, invasive to others.
So . . . to open a discussion about sexuality, and where the boundaries are, is to rush in where angels fear to tread - or to be the girl that kicked over the hornets' nest.
That answer your rhetorical question about the missing link to the discussion?
Now . . . on to the actual discussion itself - sexual oppression of one kind or another and accusations mostly from women about men - and all of them
from the limelight
in the limelight.
Sounds like the balance-of-power battle to me all over again - this time involving only a segment of the population - but there is a significant pattern to the crying, the reading from scripts, the apologies, and all the players concerned - maybe the limelight is optically focused.
But that may be a good thing - a place to start.
It seems like this doesn't happen to great degree in law-enforcement agencies, universities, schools, retail workplaces, corporate offices of all sizes, churches, (oh wait - we've covered that to some extent), civil engineering sites, hotels, hospitals . . . but surely it does?
I have to assume, that as a nurse, yourself, you may have come across such problems in your workplace?
This, then, has brought the conversation out into the open, that - while humans are very sexy - there are protocols that must be observed to prevent us reducing ourselves into dogs and bitches.
Let's talk 'consent' first.
What is that? How do we define it? Who gets to say what is permissible and what isn't? What does culture and religion have to do with it? As well as medical science? Different countries have their own 'norms' - from courtship to marriage to social life thereafter.
Bottom line is that the individuals concerned have the last word about consent.
Whether given in writing (to prevent legal backlash later) or as a matter of trust between consenting partners, it is consent between partners that is the first issue.
Wherever sexuality is demeaned and turns us into animals is whenever one of the participants is performing against their will - whether it is a child being molested, a young woman not wishing to be married and tormented in bed, a co-worker who just wishes to do their job, or a student only wanting to get through their grades without having to bend over backwards for it.
This is not as easy as it sounds, though.
People promote their sexuality - as easily evidenced by merely watching female TV anchors (as an example) crossing and uncrossing their bare thighs - and this can be a source of discomfort to those aroused by such display.
Where should the line be drawn? Do nuns wear a habit just for show? Are Muslim women all covered up for a reason?
But again, this very modesty can be arousal for some - hence the popularity of role-playing for some couples.
So arousal, unless physical contact is made, is a program of the mind - and should stay that way. Naked apes are not necessarily pretty - and neither are big lumps of black clothing - but all that is a matter of personal opinion, a matter of cultural programming, simple brain-washing.
But how much should
contact be forbidden? Humans love to touch and be touch - we shake hands, we high-five, we hug, we put an arm around a shoulder - where are the boundaries here?
We come to 'consent', then. Sometimes a simple 'yes' or 'no' should be enough - sexual animals as we are, we still are animals with enough intellect to perceive simple signals and prevent us from descending into mindless debauchery. And if a phrase is uttered that is objective or a hand on a shoulder is found uncomfortable then a simple demand to cease it or apology should suffice.
To make someone lose their job, or ruin their reputations forever because of some phrase uttered jokingly or an arm around a waist during a photo-shoot requires no intellect - merely spite.
To punish a person, however, for wilfully forcing themselves on another's person - whether sexually or violently - without full consent and desire, or under threat of any sort, is justice.
Justice, however, needs a body of evidence - and using allegations as evidence is merely a crime of a whole different nature; we call that slander.
So consent must be proven (if there is actually evidence of such acts having taken place) - or evidence to the contrary needs be shown (if there is actually evidence of such acts having taken place.)
If these criteria are not met - then we're dealing with a bunch of hot air.
Back to 'consent', then:
Pick up some 'chick lit' (of the 'romantic' sort that is still being churned out today) and you are faced with an aggressive, domineering, darkly handsome, quite well-muscled male that eventually 'has his way' with the female protagonist who has been feverishly waiting to be grabbed and kissed while melting in his arms - quite often after he has gotten himself in trouble and she has suitably 'mothered' him.
The majority of these novels are written by women - and read by women.
Where exactly is the consent in there?
The proof of the pudding is in the eating - only in voracious reading of dozens of these novels does the pattern emerge - the conflict, the courtship, the surrender on the part of both parties to give in to their passion.
Unfortunately these fantasies never play out in real life for everyone (admittedly some couples do succeed in having fairy-tale relationships).
What happens is that people turn into dogs, both male and female, and end up snapping at each other.
Consent - and the giving and receiving of it - requires not only decency, but intellect. This is where we start to change. This is where we turn the nightmare into a fairy-tale.
Sleeping Beauty, I'm afraid, will have to continue sleeping helpless to consent to the princely kiss that eventually wakes her up.
