Non-consensual physical contact poll

[Guest]

1 minute ago, NightSG said:

So what is the inverse?  I've been grabbed there by women I didn't know on two occasions I can remember.  

Generally, I just take it as confirmation that all the cycling is doing some good.  Now if I could get the same type of action toward my abdomen, rather than people patting it for good luck...

It is inappropriate, but not as serious, if a woman grabs a man's rear end without consent, because there is generally no implied threat of rape or control that is involved.  The element of fear/control is missing.  

Edited November 21, 2017 by DoctorLemon

[mordorbund]

30 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Look at racial terminology. Sixty years ago certain terms were considered less offensive than they are now. If you want you can still use slurs and tell racist jokes in 2017. You don't have to change with the culture. And when you ruin your life and lose your job because you grab a female on the butt or tell a really offensive racist joke-just tell everyone that "Back in my day these terms/actions were more acceptable, so I don't see the fuss." Tell me how that works for you. 

We agree, sometimes the changes like you mentioned in the Twilight Zone or Sesame Street are incredibly silly. But sometimes the changes society makes in regards to how we treat women and minorities is progress. 

I think something may have been lost in our conversation. The argument "it was acceptable back then" contextualizes the comment in the time it was given. If a character in a book refers to another character as N-- Jim, I would conclude that the character was racist - unless that book was written in the 1800's (I'm sure you're aware of the Mark Twain reference here).

BLM can rightly say they don't want help from anyone who has said such things as "I'm concerned about the plight of the Negro", as such an appellation is no longer kosher. But you can bet they have no objections accepting help from Jesse Jackson who has said similar things - back in the 60's. 

My point is that saying "it was acceptable back then" is a valid argument if it really was acceptable back then. It's not a valid argument for doing or saying the same thing today (you are correct about that), but it is a mitigating factor that should be considered when discussing the past.

[Guest MormonGator]

16 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

I think something may have been lost in our conversation. The argument "it was acceptable back then" contextualizes the comment in the time it was given. If a character in a book refers to another character as N-- Jim, I would conclude that the character was racist - unless that book was written in the 1800's (I'm sure you're aware of the Mark Twain reference here).

Every 8th grader should be aware of that reference. We agree totally that the argument "it was acceptable back then" does hold some merit. That's one of the many reasons I think banning Huck Finn is asinine.

18 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

BLM can rightly say they don't want help from anyone who has said such things as "I'm concerned about the plight of the Negro", as such an appellation is no longer kosher. But you can bet they have no objections accepting help from Jesse Jackson who has said similar things - back in the 60's. 

Yup, agree totally. 

18 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

My point is that saying "it was acceptable back then" is a valid argument if it really was acceptable back then. It's not a valid argument for doing or saying the same thing today (you are correct about that), but it is a mitigating factor that should be considered when discussing the past.

For sure. That's why in my view your great grandmother who is 90 years old isn't necessarily a racist when she uses terms that would be very offensive today. It's more because she was raised with them and like you said, they were acceptable back then.  

[mrmarklin]

The actions you describe are the crime of battery. Therefore five is the only reasonable choice. 

[mordorbund]

On 11/20/2017 at 1:38 PM, Anddenex said:

I am a 5, but I would exclude "rear end", partly due to my involvement in sports. I would argue there is a big different between "breast" and "genitals" than butts. Now if you take the swim suit, don't touch where the swim suit covers -- g-strings -- place butts no longer in that phrase.

 

On 11/20/2017 at 1:58 PM, Anddenex said:

True, context/consent, are important, and that is part of sports. I was more thinking of "attaboys" from teammates and coaches

If the buttocks were involved, then no matter who it came from it would have to be the same. For example, hottie (male) at school in hall pinches buttocks of girl. Shocked at the first pinch she looks behind sees the hottie and smiles and then continues walking. Scenario 2: Same girl walking hall, shocked by the pinch of her left buttocks looks back and sees "creepy" guy who smiles giving evidence he pinched her left buttocks. She presses charges.

Then again, maybe I am biased and impartial to the rear end because in my high school slapping buttocks and pinching buttocks was a very common thing. For a time, my buttocks was pinched enough times that after a while it was like, "Eh, someone pinched my buttocks again." And I kept walking without looking back to see who it was this time. (now it would be unfair for me to not admit, probably 100% of the time it was a girl a knew).

 

On 11/20/2017 at 8:25 PM, Anddenex said:

So the "buttocks" (butt) is free in this case if the man or woman is wearing a thong? Gotcha, just wanted to clear the air.

All right forum, weigh in again. (hopefully @NeuroTypical finds this in the spirit of the OP)

Anddenex has carved out an "open game" area that was included in the original list. No one has called him on it (well, I think 1 person did in passing). Does that mean that we're okay with a heinie pat as a form of flirtation? Or has @Anddenex marked himself as the forum creep? Or is this a gray area that is not so well defined culturally?

[NeuroTypical]

We humans try hard to have good laws and systems of justice and whatnot.  We try to have punishments fit the crime, we try to take into account the severity of harm done when looking at this stuff.  We try to take into account intent of the patter/grabber.

Very valid points here, that a bum pat/slap/grab affects different recipients in different ways.  Put all the recipients of such un-consented-to attention in a room, and they can organize themselves into different groups.  On one end are the flattered folks, feeling good about receiving the attention even though they didn't ask for it, the pat literally made them feel special for for an entire week.  In the middle are people who could care less, and had forgotten it happened within minutes.  On the far end are folks who find it a traumatic experience, develop PTSD over it, and a simple touch like that ends up negatively impacting their entire life.  

I suppose one thing it would be good if we all understood, is that far end group exists.  People do get traumatized over something like that.  It can be a life-changing negative.  Folks in this group (and I've known several) often wish they were NOT in this group.  They are not happy they have waking nightmares because of something so stupid.  If they could choose to not get nauseous or wrestle with anxiety and be triggered by various random things that remind them of the incident, they would gladly so choose.  

Think about this group.  From where I'm standing, if your thoughts are along the lines of "oh, grow up" or "NT is making this way more melodramatic than it really is", then perhaps you have some areas to grow in knowledge, wisdom, empathy, and love for thy neighbor.   

I'm all for well-meaning people doing well-meaning things that folks don't mind, or even appreciate.  It doesn't make sense to criminalize such things.  I'm against ill-meaning people trying to traumatize some poor fragile innocent soul.  It makes total sense to criminalize such things.  

Human justice is a poor, poor substitute for God's perfect blend of justice and mercy, where all hurts can be made whole and all sins can be totally washed away.  

[Anddenex]

3 hours ago, mordorbund said:

Anddenex has carved out an "open game" area that was included in the original list. No one has called him on it (well, I think 1 person did in passing). Does that mean that we're okay with a heinie pat as a form of flirtation? Or has @Anddenex marked himself as the forum creep? Or is this a gray area that is not so well defined culturally?

I am not sure any of my comments "mark" me as the forum "creep," or even fair to allude such. The points I made were valid. The last paragraph would make me the forum "joker," as the analogy of swim suits now becomes antiquated with different types of swim wear men/women wear now. You get a kid that takes "all" things literal, "Don't touch wear the swim suit cover," and a girl/guy is wearing a thong (which is now more common than any other generation -- mainly women) and the kid doesn't think they did anything wrong because they did not touch where the the swim suit covers.

EDIT: And yes, I was one of those kids that took words "literally." Example, when I was first taught the notion of "petting" I though I would have to talk to the bishop if I touched any girls hair on her head.

Edited November 22, 2017 by Anddenex

[mordorbund]

28 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

I am not sure any of my comments "mark" me as the forum "creep," or even fair to allude such. The points I made were valid. The last paragraph would make me the forum "joker," as the analogy of swim suits now becomes antiquated with different types of swim wear men/women wear now. You get a kid that takes "all" things literal, "Don't touch wear the swim suit cover," and a girl/guy is wearing a thong (which is now more common than any other generation -- mainly women) and the kid doesn't think they did anything wrong because they did not touch where the the swim suit covers.

EDIT: And yes, I was one of those kids that took words "literally." Example, when I was first taught the notion of "petting" I though I would have to talk to the bishop if I touched any girls hair on her head.

I'm trying to find a line here, or at least an admission of fuzziness. Responders to the OP have come in with a hard line (as have you) about grabbing a woman's breast or the groin of either sex. If you came in and posted your comments and replaced "butt" with "crotch", I think the forum would have called you out a real cad. It looks like there's almost universal agreement on that (except for some exceptions that @NeuroTypical noted earlier (I think I may make a subsequent post on that)). But you carved out a niche from the OP and said, this is actually okay.

I wanted to get a feel from the forum what the cultural consensus is on that. If a butt grab is akin to squeezing a breast, then you are a creep. But it doesn't look like anyone thinks that it is. Or, if it is and we're not calling you out on it, then we are contributing to a rape culture that @DoctorLemon mentioned earlier. It may be that it is so obviously harmless, like an unsolicited hug, that no one feels the need to pipe up to justify it. Or it may be that our culture hasn't drawn a clear line here. That there's something about it that makes us uncomfortable, but we don't want to come down too hard against it because it may indict those that we don't consider creeps - people like our good friend Anddenex.

I don't know. So far, there's mostly been silence (except for NT saying there's some in every camp - I took a page out of his book and "like"d his post since it was a response to mine (seriously, look at how generous he is with likes on a thread he starts)), so I'll ask again:

Where do we stand on rump-pats as a form of flirtation? Has its time past? Was it never appropriate? Do we need to be more vocal in opposing it so the line is clearer? Is it largely harmless fun? Is it an appropriate way to flirt with someone who is passing by too quickly to make eye contact?

[Anddenex]

42 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

I'm trying to find a line here, or at least an admission of fuzziness. Responders to the OP have come in with a hard line (as have you) about grabbing a woman's breast or the groin of either sex. If you came in and posted your comments and replaced "butt" with "crotch", I think the forum would have called you out a real cad. It looks like there's almost universal agreement on that (except for some exceptions that @NeuroTypical noted earlier (I think I may make a subsequent post on that)). But you carved out a niche from the OP and said, this is actually okay.

I wanted to get a feel from the forum what the cultural consensus is on that. If a butt grab is akin to squeezing a breast, then you are a creep. But it doesn't look like anyone thinks that it is. Or, if it is and we're not calling you out on it, then we are contributing to a rape culture that @DoctorLemon mentioned earlier. It may be that it is so obviously harmless, like an unsolicited hug, that no one feels the need to pipe up to justify it. Or it may be that our culture hasn't drawn a clear line here. That there's something about it that makes us uncomfortable, but we don't want to come down too hard against it because it may indict those that we don't consider creeps - people like our good friend Anddenex.

I don't know. So far, there's mostly been silence (except for NT saying there's some in every camp - I took a page out of his book and "like"d his post since it was a response to mine (seriously, look at how generous he is with likes on a thread he starts)), so I'll ask again:

Where do we stand on rump-pats as a form of flirtation? Has its time past? Was it never appropriate? Do we need to be more vocal in opposing it so the line is clearer? Is it largely harmless fun? Is it an appropriate way to flirt with someone who is passing by too quickly to make eye contact?

If we were to make a rump grab, pat, pinch "akin" to grabbing, patting, pinching breasts, then this opens a whole can of worms:

1) All sport "attaboys" now can be criminally charged. Coaches who perform an "attaboy" are now under the realm of "pedophilia" and can be prosecuted as such and placed under SO lists. Teammates who perform an "attaboy" can now be criminally charged also for sexual assault.

2) Parents now are under the same law. If a father were to rump pat their son or daughter they are now sexually assaulting their child and are classified with "pedophilia." If a father was seen patting his daughters "breasts" he would be prosecuted for sexual assault. A father that performs an "attaboy" is now under criminal charges also if the rump is akin to "crotch" or "breasts."

The rump, as to me, is not akin to "crotch" and "breasts"; however, I believe @NeuroTypical made a very valid point though with rump grabs, "I'm against ill-meaning people trying to traumatize some poor fragile innocent soul.  It makes total sense to criminalize such things."

 

[zil]

54 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

Where do we stand on rump-pats as a form of flirtation? Has its time past? Was it never appropriate? Do we need to be more vocal in opposing it so the line is clearer? Is it largely harmless fun? Is it an appropriate way to flirt with someone who is passing by too quickly to make eye contact?

If you're gonna go there, you're probably gonna have to agree that there's a difference between hitting someone with an object (flicking a towel, slapping with a book), poking with an object, poking with one or more fingers, using the back of the hand, slapping with the front of the hand, pinching, and actual grabbing.  As they probably vary in their offensiveness, and that's not even counting the other variables regarding the parties involved and the circumstances.  A spreadsheet probably isn't gonna cut it - we likely need at least 3 dimensions for this.

I don't wanna go there.  Personally, I think people should keep their hands to themselves unless invited (and even then, they might ought to keep their hands to themselves).

[zil]

Meanwhile, how does everyone feel about rump roasts?

 

 

 

Sorry, couldn't resist.

[NeuroTypical]

If a rump roast patted my behind and looked like this, I'd press charges.

[Guest MormonGator]

1 hour ago, mordorbund said:

Where do we stand on rump-pats as a form of flirtation? Has its time past? Was it never appropriate? Do we need to be more vocal in opposing it so the line is clearer? Is it largely harmless fun? Is it an appropriate way to flirt with someone who is passing by too quickly to make eye contact?

You can still flirt of course-it's pretty easy to flirt without making physical contact. Physical contact is just totally different. You really shouldn't be slapping someone on the butt who you already don't have a very personal/romantic relationship with. It's a no-go. 

Most coaches would give a fist bump or a shoulder grab instead of the butt slap of encouragement. When I "played" (I sat the bench 90% of the time) sports I never saw coaches do that to anyone. 

Edited November 22, 2017 by MormonGator

[Anddenex]

2 hours ago, MormonGator said:

Most coaches would give a fist bump or a shoulder grab instead of the butt slap of encouragement. When I "played" (I sat the bench 90% of the time) sports I never saw coaches do that to anyone. 

I am going to say you live in a very secluded area, that isn't the norm. Most coaches actually give "butt slaps" (attaboys). These happen all the time from coaches, the majority of coaches and players, in high school, college, and pros. I have been receiving butt slaps from coaches since I was in middle school.  Here is one, pro with the ref (just type in sport butt slap and see all the coaches and players giving butt slaps):

 

Edited November 22, 2017 by Anddenex

[Guest MormonGator]

1 hour ago, Anddenex said:

I am going to say you live in a very secluded area, that isn't the norm. Most coaches actually give "butt slaps" (attaboys). These happen all the time from coaches, the majority of coaches and players, in high school, college, and pros. I have been receiving butt slaps from coaches since I was in middle school.  Here is one, pro with the ref (just type in sport butt slap and see all the coaches and players giving butt slaps):

 

I'm sure you are right. My experience in sports consisted of "Hey, we are up by 40 points with two minutes left. Even Gator can't screw this up. Let him play." 

[JohnsonJones]

Now days, I probably wouldn't be comfortable with people slapping someone else's rear, but times have changed since I was young.  Today, as I mentioned earlier, if someone did so, I'd probably laugh at them and wonder if they were crazy (I'm not exactly the bloom of youth here).  If they did it to my wife though...that would be enough for me to go nuclear on them.  Big difference.

Now when I was young, it was STILL in appropriate to do touch women, and any man who pinched or slapped a woman's rear was considered crude and definitely no gentleman.  It was one to be avoided by girls at all cost.

However, with us guys, in the locker rooms we had very brutal towel fights.  We would try to hit the other guys butt or back with at towel flick, and if you could leave a mark the better.  It was in fun, but probably not something acceptable today, or even thirty years ago.  It was a long time ago prior to that and I think things were seen as different back then (probably before at least half of you if not more were even born).  Now days, I'd probably be very uncomfortable with behavior of that manner, and would advise any young man from participating in it.  However, depending on the circumstances, I don't think it would necessarily be a crime.

In some instances, absolutely though, as it would fall under bullying and intimidation in some instances today.  In addition, if it is truly undesired, that's not just inappropriate but could be considered assault.  However, if it was similar to what we did as kids many many many decades ago...I'd say it was more youth foolishness rather than wanting to cause someone to be charged with a crime.

I'd say the same probably applies to the butt pats that @Anddenex is referring to in my opinion.

Edited November 23, 2017 by JohnsonJones