|
|
|
|
|
by towelr34dy
2759 days ago
|
|
So... you think it is fair to the woman in example 1 to have the same term applied to example 2? 1- The first woman's gang rape where she spent months in the hospital recuperating.
2- An upper middle class woman getting told in a loud manner "uuuuhhh girl, you're looking finnnnneeee today" Really? You can't see the difference between 1 and 2? You can't see the need for different terminology? That's on you. I find it silly, and I find the confounding hurts everyone involved. Including girl #2, who has a legitimate complaint, but seems ridiculous using the terminology that is used for #1. It also creates an environment of emotions and hysteria instead of reason and logic applied to resolving problems. |
|
I am arguing that any form of sexual assault is predatory behaviour engaged in by an abuser and it is completely appropriate for a woman to consider someone who verbally harasses them to be a sexual assault risk.
Sexual assault is woefully under reported and woefully under prosecuted, you cannot possibly argue that we have ever applied “logic and reason” to this issue. The progress that has been made in the last decade has improved the logic and reason applied to this issue but we have a long way still to go. A few decades ago you could not legally rape your wife, how is that logical? Or well reasoned?