SEXUAL HARASSMENT? CRIMINAL SEXUAL BEHAVIOR? POLITICS? MONEY?

Are the definitions of “sexual harassment” and "criminal sexual behavior" changing?  Is one (especially a male) ever able to be sure that consensual sex at the time will not be “sexual harassment” or "rape. later?

BE SURE THAT DEFINITIONS ARE NOT du JOUR

I am appalled at the recent flood of sexual harassment allegations. I believe most of it is the desire for gold or revenge.  Some have appeared because “safety in numbers” has made it easier for them to do so. When I worked for the state of Washington, for example, in order for an employee to allege sexual harassment she had to sign a statement that declared she said “stop” to the harasser.  “Stop, should mean “stop,” eh?  It doesn’t always.  There was a case at North Idaho Junior College (not now listed on Google) where a male was charged with rape when the woman took him all the way to the brink of intercourse and then said “no” and he proceeded.  Were I a juror I could not find that male guilty of rape.  Back to Washington.  That awful government was so full of political correctness and haters of men that the rule included language to the effect that if the one-time behavior was “egregious,” the woman need not have said “stop.”  So,  who determines “egregious”?  A personnel hearing staffed by the same people who generally thought only men could be guilty of sexual harassment?  I was once told by a despicable boss (male feminist) that because I spoke loudly, naturally, I had to learn to speak softly because I intimidated woman.  Two problems. The first is volume is not in the speech code and, second, these were often the same women who thought they should be president...of something.  Yet a loud voice intimidates them.  I guess they weren’t quite ready for the presidency. I can’t see Donald Trump’s cabinet being intimidated by loud voices. The definitions of sexual harassment and criminal sexual behavior are evolving too fast to be carefully considered and debated.

THOSE WHO ALLEGE MUST BE ACCOUNTABLE

I digress for three important points:

1. I do not believe in any force, or coercion in the pursuit of sex.  “Rape” is not the topic of this blog.  Rape is assault. There are plenty of harsh laws dealing with assault. I believe either the victim or a bystander has a perfect right to use lethal force against a rapist - even after he has finished the act - and if the victim were my wife or daughter and the courts did nothing about it, I would. If the victim is a toddler or infant I believe the punishment ought to be life-without-parole. Field professionals claim these folks cannot be rehabilitated.
2. I was never accused of sexual harassment, nor should I have been so this blog is not a disguised hate letter toward an accuser or any system.  My loathing of “systems” won’t be disguised at all.  This subject and its use in politics and personal aggrandizement is loathsome enough.
3. Unfounded, malicious allegations of rape or sexual harassment  (Duke University and others) should require jail time and restitution, the life situation or experiences of the victim notwithstanding. We are all aware of male school teachers (recently some female predatory teachers have surfaced) who are charged with statutory rape.  Even if the charges are unfounded the teacher’s career is toast.  The dishonest “victim” should pay for that damage until it hurts.  Then there is the charge (felony in some places, misdemeanor in others) of making a false 9-1-1 call.  Happily, in the case of Duke, the prosecutor who salivated on his way to judgment was fired and disbarred.  Probably wrote a book and is richer now than ever before. I do not recall that the young "woman" who made the false charges ever was brought to suffer much - but I don’t know that.

Mr. CLINTON GOES to WASHINGTON from ARKANSAS

Bill Clinton is the most godawful predator in recent times.  Because politicians ALWAYS protect others in the same political party, the democrats in the Senate would not remove him from office despite the House convicting him.  His guilt is no longer questioned, except by Hillary, who is still wandering in a daze, trying to figure out “What Happened.”  The only reason she stayed with him is prostitution - she hoped to ride his coattails to the presidency and was willing to sell her reputation, but not her big ego, for that trip. We know he is guilty if for no other reason than he paid Paula Jones $800,000 and he would not have done that for a birthday gift. He must have been uncharacteristically careless with his good bud Paula.  The other women he molested would simply NOT be heard by his adoring media.  Some of that media is now saying they regret that.  Thanks, but he got to stay in office for 8 painful, predatory years. Your criticism of Clinton now is, without excuse, too late. (BTW, I had an awful sister who once told me the only reason I was critical of Clinton was because I was jealous.) And, the feminists have admitted that he was an awful man BUT because he supported feminists as a voting and power bloc, they would leave him alone. Leave him alone they did. No problem tossing a few women under the bus, telling them, “ya just gotta take one for the team.”  I once endured (just barely) a class in sexual harassment (and used that information later to stop harassment in my own work unit so something good came of it) taught by, yes, a feminist whose father was a state senator so she “just happened” to pick up this assignment to build and deliver such a class.  Generally her points were valid and not inflammatory and I believe her analyses and lecture were true, but two things stood out to me. She said that any group (read “men”) who were not “normally” victimized by sexual harassment would have a hard time proving charges in court.  In her digest, “the complainant must be a member of a group more typically aggrieved by this behavior (read “women”). Repeating, the charge  would be more difficult to make if the complainant (read “male”) were not a part of a group (read “women”) who were more commonly the victims of sexual harassment.  A few questions came to me later.  What if a gay was being harassed by another gay?  What if a gay was being harassed by a female?  They are both “victim” classes.  Whose “eyes” are we to use?

And, I stated, I did not ask, that if I committed Bill Clinton’s atrocities, I would be fired.  She acknowledged that...not with some measure of wrath I would have liked to see (because he was the darling of the feminazis to which she belonged).  But she did agree.

HOW ARE WE DOING SO FAR?

So, now we know, if you are willing to believe my assertions, these things:

1) A  woman can lead a man to near orgasm, yell “no,” the man continues and he can be charged with rape (I do not know the final disposition of that case; Google was no help;I do know that many thought it was unfair he was charged.)

2) A gay can harass a gay but the standard of sexual harassment might not be the one applied if a straight male harasses a straight female..

3) It does not matter if politicians are sexual harassers or criminals (or enablers, Hillary) since one must “look at the balance sheet to see if in the net s/he is good for women as a power bloc.” A few sacrificial lamb are just what the doctor ordered.

4) A woman can make a false sexual harassment charge and ruin someone and face no consequences (I believe it was a Duke University female “professor” who had the gaul to add later: “yes, but they might have done it elsewhere; it happens to women.”  Gag me with a spoon.

So, Hillary, Gloria Steinem, Eleanor Smeal, what is happening in the world of predatory behavior? This is not rhetorical, I really don’t know.  It seems the chronology is something like this (I realize I am missing pieces but am not deliberately excluding any):

1. Anita Hill lies, screaming sexual harassment charges trying to make sure Clarence Thomas was not seated on the Supreme Court. Fortunately he was and is a magnificent justice. This is the first criminal sexual behavior allegations fiasco to which I paid attention.
2. The Bush’s escape charges beyond having a drunk daughter.  
3. Clinton goes after all the babes he wants, both before and after election.  The feminazis form a “human” shield for him and he escapes punishment, save for living with a horrid woman. About the same time, Bob Packwood, a Republican Senator from Oregon becomes toast and resigns because of verified sexual misconduct. The feminazies went after him with bared teeth. He did nothing different than did Bill Clinton, literally, nothing different.  Feminazies have no shame. Toss a few innocent women under the bus, unseat conservative Republicans, while Clinton has his way with women...feminazis uber alles..
4. More recently  accusers name Donald Trump as a harasser. Some even claimed rape. It just does not seem like these accusations gained much purchase.
5. Bill O’Reilly gets tanked.  I assume he is guilty of at least some of the charges though I understand he may be coming back to Fox. He may also be suing some of the accusers though that is very quiet.
6. We have little wienerschnitzel and others “pop up” but nothing big until Harvey Weinstein. Let’s not talk about Hollywood but that swamp makes even DC look like a desert.  Then Spacey. Let us not forget grandfatherly Bill Cosby, previous to some of these previously listed.
7. Somewhere around here Judge Roy Moore comes in.  My understanding is that at the time of my article, none of the accusations have been found to be true (and if that slug wrote in her own yearbook the words she ascribes to Roy Moore she ought to be on the hook for serious jail time and libel damages).  The democrat opponent in Alabama apparently is a socialist so I do not know how this one will play out.  Ethics and behavior are my number one rating category for any politician and if he is guilty of harassment (but, what if it really was 40 years ago??? I acted in ways 40 years ago I would not now.) I probably would not vote for him.  I did not vote for an excellent Republican candidate for state legislator in Washington because he got caught registering his cars in Oregon where the fees were much less. I was very disappointed.  I wanted him in office.  Ethics First!
8. Since Moore we now have Charlie Rose, Charlie Rangel (who used TAX DOLLARS to pay off his accuser), possibly  even Oliver Stone.  Oh, and we do have a recent flock of female teachers having sex with underage males.

THE READER’S FODDER for HATE MAIL

All of this leads me to questions and observations.

1. I believe proving sexual harassment allegations should be the burden of the accuser, even if the accuser is a child.  AND, yes, if you wear a prostitute’s wardrobe around the office I do believe you are soliciting attention that you should not later be able to say you did not want. Men and women are attracted to each other for different reasons.  Men seek beauty, with a dash of sanity, brains, heart and stability.  It is the beauty, or lack of, that anyone first notices (unless one is blind and that is not a “flip” comment to make)  Men see seductive wardrobe as an invitation to chase. The guy sitting in the cubicle next to a subtly dressed woman, may enjoy her company and her contribution to the work product.  The man sitting in the cubicle next to a woman whose breasts are showing over her tight blouse, has different thoughts on his mind. Quite natural, genetically programmed. It really does matter how women dress. Years ago the feminazies found friends in legislatures nationally who disallowed any pictures of woman showing seductive clothing at a sexual harassment or rape trial.  The next point seems irrelevant but it isn’t.  Many years ago in a study, the details of which I cannot recall, a school gathered a group of kids for an alleged field trip.  The kids were encouraged to dress “down,”  jeans, t-shirts.  Then the same kids at another time took another field trip but this time they had to dress subtly and professionally.  The conductors of the study documented that the kids behaved differently based on how they were dressed.  To say that women who dress inappropriately, especially seductively for the setting are blameless for male attention they do not want is flawed.  Men, on the other hand, seem to attract more attention when “impeccably,” conservatively dressed.  The sharp dressed man will get more female attention, partly because he is probably handsome but also because he has a look of success. Women do look for physical attributes but they place more importance on the value of a well-dressed man’s likely ability to provide for and protect his family. The well-dressed man conveys those attributes.  My experience in my working years was that when I dressed nicely I tended to receive more attention than when I dressed “down.”  (I dressed very casually most of the time. Good thing I keep my own company well.) The most comprehensive information I have found in lay terms is David Buss: The Evolution of Desire. I suspect it is a college text and he makes the same points repeatedly. To me they hit true.
2. Why is all of this happening now?  I really don’t get it. All political, gender and race spectra are being dragged into the mud.  I am waiting for Steven Hawking to be accused. I know the Left wants to get rid of Roy Moore to tip the senate balance for the Left but he doesn’t even seem to be the prime target at the minute. Be fun to see how Charlie Rangle defends himself (read: “race”)
3. Ah, Hollywood, the land of the insane and incomprehensible.  I loathe the Hollywood culture; I have never visited even to see “cultural” features. Men haters are going to love this, but I do not believe all young women who leave the heartland to become a star in LaLa land are totally naive. If you have beauty and want to become the next Jennifer Lopez, someone, somewhere probably told you that you are going to have to pay a price for that.  And, sex -  prostitution - is a commodity, legal in several states.That means sex has economic value.  That means that one can “sell herself” to get ahead in the glamor industry, “paying” with sex..  That is the price! If you don’t like it, go back to the heartland and raise corn or join ANTIFA, anything, but DON’T stay in Harvey Weinstein’s bed.
4. Men are genetically programmed to chase.  Women should be able to say “no” and have it obeyed but the victim must avoid double messages and men should not be vilified simply because they chase but only if their behavior is embarrassing in public or egregious in private or public. Again, rape is not a part of this discussion.  We are talking about what is going to attract men to women.  If you want him to come for your brain ladies, cool; but make sure dress and attitude are consistent with that aim and not to physical attraction (you can do both). Ladies, if you are wearing skinny jeans and showing midriff  you are not blameless for the attention you get which you later claim was unwanted. I love skinny jeans and midriff on women. Are you a victim if I can’t stop looking at you? Why do women bartenders wear seductive outfits?  THEY GET BETTER TIPS. Is that sexual harassment?  Think about Hooters.  Janet Reno hated that restaurant but who can blame her.  Is Hooters really going to hire Twiggy?  Not very likely. And, there is absolutely nothing wrong with their business decision. If a busty woman who works at Hooters doesn’t like male attention, she is in the wrong business. (Thank you to my wife for help with paragraph 4 and 5; I struggled with confusing "touch" and "harassment" and she straightened it out for me - twice).
5. Touch and “leering” are different forms of attention.  Equating the two is not possible but even within the one area “touching,”  Al Franken proudly cupping a sleeping woman’s breasts with his hands is not the same as flirting with a waitress and then gently touching her as she walks off.  Some touching borders on assault but some at the worst, is simply bad taste.  I was once pinched on the rear by a female supervisor.  It startled me but I did not find it offensive or frightening.
6. What are we going to do about government, which, without exception, holds itself above its citizens under law?  My answer?  Shut it all down...forever; it is not fixable. I admit that is my overall wish for Federal government; that is my sincerely-held fix for any of its failures I read a story today about the process it takes a victim filing a complaint against a Federal elected official.  Appallingly, the alleged victim is on his or her own until settlement, while the elected official has paid legal representation.  I nearly bit my tongue off when I read that one.  Then there is some wonderful Federal commission that hears these complaints and rarely finds in favor of the complainant.  The complaints are NOT aired publicly. Certainly there must be strict guarding of the treasury.  I don’t want frivolous complaints bought off with my tax dollars. Certainly guidelines can be adopted prescribing evidence and  retribution (AND UNDER THE LAW, NO CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENTS; THE PUBLIC HAS A RIGHT TO KNOW). let me repeat, if a government agency devotes time to an investigation and/or pays out a settlement, the names of BOTH the accuser and perpetrator become public information. As of this article, legislation is being considered that would require this agency to make all settlements public.

SHIP THE BAD ONES TO IRAN REASONABLY CATEGORIZE THE HARMLESS

I have real anger with rape and pre-pubescent statutory rape - whether consensual sex with a 16 or 17 year old is statutory rape should be decided case by case.  I  believe both of the first two are violent assault and short of murder should be classed as the most serious felonies. He said/she said verdicts, however, should not be slanted in favor of women, or even children.

I am tame.  I am 71. That probably explains it.  However, the only way I will likely stop looking at women is if I lose my eyesight but for the most part I treat women of any age as equals and human beings.  Not sex objects.  Unless of course she serves me a drink in her skinny jeans then I may sneak a peek as she walks away. Probably won’t touch though; I bruise easily.

Get a grip, you miserable jerks in the media.  Go after the rapists and bad boys and girls who go after illegal or non-consensual sex.  Quit mining for villains where they don’t exist.

Have a great holiday season and a super 2018.

*&*&*&*&