| 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. |
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.