Posted on 11/17/2017 8:37:44 PM PST by nickcarraway
Gymnastics star Gabby Douglas slammed fellow Olympian Aly Raisman on Friday for dressing in a “provocative/sexual way” after Raisman accused her former gymnastics team doctor of sexual assault.
Douglas responded to a tweet from Raisman that detailed the victim shaming she has recently received after launching the allegations because she had once done a “sexy photoshoot.”
“Just to be clear,” Raisman posted on Friday. “Just because a woman does a sexy photoshoot or wears a sexy outfit does not give a man the right to shame her or not believe her when she comes forward about sexual abuse.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Wow, can you imagine if a man came out with l “she was asking for it”?
I don’t think that’s what she said.
GD is jealous.
It’s not legitimate to suggest that how anyone dresses justifies or explains unwelcome sexual advances made to them.
Maybe if those cute little female gymnasts weren’t wearing such revealing outfits that thier butt cheeks pop out and they are continually pulling them back down, just maybe a male coach wouldn’t be given to obsessive thoughts about that. Maybe cute little female gymnasts should have female coaches. Male gymnasts wear body covering outfits for the most part, or loose shorts. The women wear tight revealing little things. Why IS that, I wonder?
Same with volleyball. The women are in bikinis. The men are in sports clothes. And people wonder why the women get treated like they do. It’s not rocket science but people seem to be baffled about this. Whatever could the motives of women and men BE in these matters? DOH! Just sayin’
Games women play. Men see it everyday. Women think it’s a fiction.
Make a pass get turned down and humiliated. Succeed and you’re a hero.
Let the women get educated and succeed. Than laugh at them when they start complaining about Gold Digging men or ridiculed for having a trophy husband.
If a woman dresses “provocatively” (whatever that means) why should every man who happens to see her not think she is providing an “open invitation” (whatever that means)?
If a woman dresses “provocatively” and thereby successfully provokes someone, what is her basis for complaint?
“When you dress well, in a way that shows off your best physical attributes, is the reaction you intend to provoke sexual harassment or sexual assault? Would you complain if your attempt to dress in an exciting fashion resulted in such behavior from random people you had zero interest in?”
Dress like a thug people will assume you are a thug. Dress like a slut they will assume you are a slut. There is a difference between clothes that “accentuate your best features” and those that make you look like a hooker.
I’m baffled why so many are baffled considering the sexual content in the media that passes for entertainment.
The gymnastics program’s doctor was a serial molester of young girls in the course of what was supposed to be “health care.” The idea that this had anything to do with how gymnasts dress, for competition or outside it, is absurd.
What is it revealing clothing reveals? Skin? Yes. Anything else?
When a careful reader reads interesting fiction, s/he looks for ideas beneath the surface, makes inferences. So, too, with the way a woman dresses? Possibly. Depends on the reader, I suppose.
What is it revealing clothing reveals? Skin? Yes. Anything else?
In the current legal structure, those cues are ignored. The woman is always allowed to redefine the situation after the fact.
In most previous cultures, and in most other cultures around the world, it is women that have been held responsible for the non verbal cues more than men.
Men are more visually oriented, women are more verbally oriented.
In the United States, women have become the dominant force politically and in the culture over the last 50 years. They have rearranged the legal assumptions so that the man is defined as wrong, who must prove his innocence.
It is a reversal of most of history, but not obviously better or worse.
It is a step away from the rule of law to allow women the power to define a situation the way they want it defined, after the fact.
Me too.
All it takes is a little sense and a little decency.
Again, "whatever that means". "Sense" and "decency" may mean different things to different people.
When you dress well, in a way that shows off your best physical attributes, is the reaction you intend to provoke sexual harassment or sexual assault?
Probably not. But how does "intent" matter? Whose intent? Does it work both ways? If "...you dress well, in a way that shows off your best physical attributes..." and the reaction is a wolf whistle, a long look interpretable as a leer, or a comment you don't like, is the reaction harassment because it was not your intent to provoke it or is it not harassment because the intent behind the reaction was complementary? What if it was your intent to provoke the reaction from someone in whom you were interested but the reaction came from someone in whom you had no interest? Can the reaction from someone in whom you had no interest be harassment but the same reaction from someone in whom you were interested not be harassment?
Would you complain if your attempt to dress in an exciting fashion resulted in such behavior from random people you had zero interest in?
Depends. But what about the random people? If "...your attempt to dress in an exciting fashion..." excited random people in whom you had no interest and they reacted in spite of your lack of interest, might not at least some of those random people feel harassed no matter what your intent was? Especially if you took offense at their reaction? Might they not feel entrapped if they reacted with neutral or complementary intent and their reaction was taken as offensive? What if they had to suppress a reaction? Might they consider it harassment to be excited when they didn't want to be?
Who's "we"? You and I might agree but there's a whole bunch of other people who need to agree too. By "touching" I assume you mean private parts, but I've been unexpectedly touched elsewhere, sometimes hugged, more rarely kissed. I didn't take offense but that doesn't mean others wouldn't.
As to "exposing ones self", you only mention men. What about the woman in a low cut top who bends over and provides a clear view of a well formed breast? Or the woman in a short skirt who allows a clear view. You might not object to that. I might not object to that. Can we get everybody to agree with us?
I really am not concerned about wolf whistles or comments, and I don't believe the law is either...
Some people are concerned about wolf whistles or comments. The concern or lack of concern of you and me is not the only consideration.
As to the law, from the US Code (emphasis added):
§ 1604.11 Sexual harassment.(a) Harassment on the basis of sex is a violation of section 703 of title VII. 1 Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment when (1) submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual's employment, (2) submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment decisions affecting such individual, or (3) such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment.
...not in eyes of the law.
Yet.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.