Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What Bush did was a crime--sexual assault. In all likelihood it wouldn't result in a prison sentence--even if prosecuted successfully, but that does not change the fact that it was criminal conduct.
People are entirely capable of differentiating between Bush's conduct, Woody Allen's conduct, Bill Cosby's conduct, and Harvey Weinstein's conduct. You are fretting over a non-issue.
More nonsense. What he did was not a crime. It is covered by no criminal statute. Virtually all will require some demonstration of intent to achieve sexual pleasure or some such and that is not present here. He is not attempting something for sexual reasons - period.
Then differentiate. Calling all sexual assault is nonsense and does not differentiate.
Pls read Post 104. No one is saying all infractions are the same, that doesn't even make sense.
We are in the midst of a tornado and when the dust settles, hopefully, most people will have a better understanding about illegal and/or selfish and/or lecherous behavior.
We all know what PRIVATE BODY PARTS are and no one has the right to help themselves to someone else's. Period, Full stop. Not complicated.
Nor do they have the right to threaten to affect another persons career, for good or bad, if that person doesn't comply with unwanted physical interaction.
For the life of me, how in the heck can people intentionally complicate such a simple issue????
104 says nothing interesting..
The difficulty is that the present discussion is not differentiating. "Sexual Assault" equates a huge range of behaviors for no good purpose. It in fact lowers the ugliness of the worse offenses by equating them to the lesser.
And I don't think there is any lawful way to prevent the impact of refusing sexual advances on a career. While it would be nice for that not to happen it will be in the social and not legal field.
My Secretary some years ago had a wonderful deep voice and tried to make it as a folk singer in her late teens. She declined any rolling on the casting couch. She now thinks it may well have cost her the career. She does not claim any assaulted her...just that the opportunity was presented and she declined. And that is how it mostly works.
More nonsense. What he did was not a crime. It is covered by no criminal statute. Virtually all will require some demonstration of intent to achieve sexual pleasure or some such and that is not present here. He is not attempting something for sexual reasons - period.
Then differentiate. Calling all sexual assault is nonsense and does not differentiate.
Umm . . . you should take a look at, for example, California Penal Code section 243.4(e-g). Law section
Every State will have a similar statute. In California it is misdemeanor sexual battery.
lvmensch - you are still not comprehending what is happening even though some of us are trying to help with that.
You want this large and multi-faceted situation fully described and identified NOW and in the most particular way. We - aren't - there - yet. It is still unfolding. How many times does that need to be repeated?
There is more to come and then we have to sort through it all to discern the appropriate descriptors, remedies and punishments. Meanwhile, you don't get to diminish the inappropriate intrusions that some have experienced. It's still not complicated. (Frankly, I'm sensing a guilty conscience. Your excuse-making is giving it away.)
Priscilla Vanilla - you provided the answer to your own frustration. "The rest of us "ordinary folks" have to deal with these situations privately and we can't go running to the media." That is correct. Because the media wants to get ears and eyeballs paying attention to their reporting and ordinary people aren't nationally known names so they won't cover you.
But, you want to blame the ladies that DO have recognizable names??? That's absurd and selfish. You should be thanking them and chastising the media for not raising h*ll about what regular folk endure. The results of those women coming forward may help prevent that junk from happening to you again. You should thank them.
More nonsense. What he did was not a crime.It is covered by no criminal statute. Virtually all will require some demonstration of intent to achieve sexual pleasure or some such and that is not present here. He is not attempting something for sexual reasons - period.
Then differentiate. Calling all sexual assault is nonsense and does not differentiate.
What he did - admitted to doing - is inappropriate, everyone needs to keep their hands to themselves. It is not difficult, even for old people. Intentional, unwanted touching of others' private areas (including butts and breasts) is always inappropriate and likely always a crime.
While criminal, no, it's not as serious as being raped. But, as someone who's been groped, it doesn't feel good at all and is highly inappropriate. It IS technically criminal, though many don't file charges or report it at all - but, many rapes go unreported as well.
What he did - admitted to doing - is inappropriate, everyone needs to keep their hands to themselves. It is not difficult, even for old people. Intentional, unwanted touching of others' private areas (including butts and breasts) is always inappropriate and likely always a crime.
While criminal, no, it's not as serious as being raped. But, as someone who's been groped, it doesn't feel good at all and is highly inappropriate. It IS technically criminal, though many don't file charges or report it at all - but, many rapes go unreported as well.
This.
This is exactly what it is.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
Umm . . . you should take a look at, for example, California Penal Code section 243.4(e-g). Law section
Every State will have a similar statute. In California it is misdemeanor sexual battery.
It is a shame none of you folk ever bother to read your own cites. Here is the meat of the CA statute...
243.4.**
(a)*Any person who touches an intimate part of another person while that person is unlawfully restrained by the accused or an accomplice
****Nope****
(b)*Any person who touches an intimate part of another person who is institutionalized for medical treatment and who is seriously disabled or medically incapacitated, if the touching is against the will of the person touched, and if the touching is for the purpose of sexual arousal,
****Nope****** ****Nope*****
(c)*Any person who touches an intimate part of another person for the purpose of sexual arousal, sexual gratification, or sexual abuse, and the victim is at the time unconscious of the nature of the act because the perpetrator fraudulently represented that the touching served a professional purpose, is guilty of sexual battery.
****Nope*** ***Nope****
(d)*Any person who, for the purpose of sexual arousal, sexual gratification, or sexual abuse, causes another, against that person’s will while that person is unlawfully restrained either by the accused or an accomplice, or is institutionalized for medical treatment and is seriously disabled or medically incapacitated, to masturbate or touch an intimate part of either of those persons or a third person, is guilty of sexual battery.
****Nope***** ****Nope*****
(e)*(1)*Any person who touches an intimate part of another person, if the touching is against the will of the person touched, and is for the specific purpose of sexual arousal, sexual gratification, or sexual abuse, is guilty of misdemeanor sexual battery,
^ How can YOU know his intentions? If he has done this to multiple people, he must enjoy it in some way. What is the purpose of grabbing what are considered people's private, sexual areas, if you're not doing so for sexual purposes? He could have touched her anywhere, but he chose her butt.
What he did - admitted to doing - is inappropriate, everyone needs to keep their hands to themselves. It is not difficult, even for old people. Intentional, unwanted touching of others' private areas (including butts and breasts) is always inappropriate and likely always a crime.
While criminal, no, it's not as serious as being raped. But, as someone who's been groped, it doesn't feel good at all and is highly inappropriate. It IS technically criminal, though many don't file charges or report it at all - but, many rapes go unreported as well.
Agree, but again, Ive said this 5 times in this thread. If he has dementia its a whole different situation, that doesn't lessen the severity of the issue either.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
