[threevodka]

Sure, #1 is uniquely described as “gang rape” and #2 is “verbal assault”. I don’t think verbal assault and gang rape are equivalent. That’s not what I’m arguing.

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?

[towelr34dy]

Err, I was using the term "Violation of a woman's integrity".

According to you, both 1 and 2 can be described that way.

Listen you are right in part. Like when people talk about drugs being ba-a-a-a-d.

Is cocaine bad? Yes

Is the war on drugs justified by this? No

Same here. You are talking about a real problem. You are suggesting solutions that hurt everyone involved and then acting like if someone doesn't agree with you they are denying the problem.

I'm not denying the problem. I pointed out issue with an applied solution and instead of addressing them, you bring up the problem the issues were supposed to address, while ignoring the point.

[threevodka]

You can’t swing a cat without finding a victim of sexual harassment who felt violated by harassment even if it wasn’t physical. Your physical body isn’t the only part of you that exists, if you are harassed to the point where you don’t feel safe living your life because of the threats posed to you wouldn’t you feel violated? Your life has been compromised.

If you mean “physically violated” then sure, you cannot be physically violated by words, but I don’t see the value in making that distinction. If a woman is afraid to go to work because her colleague shouts obscene remarks at her every time he sees her, why does it matter (in the context of ensuring she feels safe at work) if he hasn’t escalated to committing the acts he threatens yet?

Every situation is different, for some women a physical assault can be far less violating than a daily campaign of verbal harassment.

[towelr34dy]

"physical assault can be far less violating than ... verbal harassment."

...

You are the reason for the article above. Congrats. Now celebrate your victory.

[threevodka]

My statement is absolutely true and the fact that you see harassment and assault as such black and white things makes your ignorance clear — the fact that you had to edit my single sentence to try and make your point should have been a pretty clear sign of that.

There are physical assaults that are far less consequential than verbal assaults, that’s an indisputable fact. Anyone who has experience with victims, has been a victim _or_ even just someone who uses “logic and reason” would understand that.

[towelr34dy]

I don't see them as black and white. I said there was an issue and gave examples. I asked a question based on such examples.

Stop moving the goal posts. Stop your whataboutisms. My original post comparing #1 to #2 stands. You confound such situations. This hurts everyone.

[dgzl]

Sorry mate, you have good points but they don't justify the reasoning.

If a person is being harassed by a colleague and they're not cool with it, then the next step is reporting it and trying to get that person out of their life.

> You cannot be physically violated by words, but I don't see the value in making that distinction.

Maybe I can point out the value for you... Americans and humans in general have an inalienable natural born human right to say, in general, whatever they wish. There's value in human rights. On the other hand, any kind of physical touch can be interpreted as assault if the recieving party doesn't consent.

> Why does it matter if he hasn't escalated to committing the acts he threatens yet?

Because expressing their rights to speech isn't illegal. Not only is it not assault, but it's not even close to assault. You're miles away from actual physical assault. In terms of logical progression.

Edit:

> for some women a physical assault can be far less violating than a daily campaign of verbal harassment.

Can you explain this, because I'm entirely unconvinced.

[threevodka]

Physical assault is wide ranging, from unwanted groping (touching body without permission) all the way to rape. Verbal harassment is wide ranging, from something creepy said in passing to violent language used constantly.

I don’t think it’s hard to imagine being more threatened and traumatised and violated by someone in a position of privilege detailing the ways they want to have sex with you in graphic detail every day you interact with them, than threatened/violated/traumatised by a drunk person at a party grabbing at your body without permission.

[dgzl]

I think you're 100% wrong. Any person would feel more threatened by a person physically assaulting them, than by being harassed verbally. What's hard to imagine is how you ever came to this conclusion.

Verbal harassment doesn't get any more violent than putting the idea of assault in your head. Actual assault is the manifestation of the idea brought by the verbal harassment. It's an entire order of magnitude worse than verbal harassment! It's not even in the same league!

[threevodka]

I’m not arguing hypotheticals. I know women who have had experiences that were more harmful to them because of what was said and what that represents, more so than physical assault experiences.

I don’t know what your life is like, whether you’re friends with many women, but if you ever have an opportunity to listen to someone speak about abuse I really recommend it. You will learn so much. Abuse is so much more than what you think it is.