What is an “unwelcome sexual advance”? Under the Obama Administration, this thing, this “unwelcome sexual advance” was considered, by definition, harassment. That is, it constitutes harassment plain and simple without any other aggravating factors. Make an unwelcome “sexual advance” on someone and you are in trouble. Big trouble.
Not clear? Think of a “welcome” sexual advance. What is it? Is it when a woman or a man says, “please touch me or kiss me or oogle me”? Did you ever do that? Put it into words, or writing, in advance? You are out on a date with someone and you say, “why don’t you give me a kiss?” Or is it more likely that you will lean in and give him or her a kiss, without a formal announcement or invitation.
You will not know if it was welcome or not until it is too late. If it is unwelcome, you have committed an unwelcome sexual advance. You are guilty of harassment.
Everybody thinks they know what it means. No, you don’t. What is a sexual advance in the first place? It is an action that is intended to evoke a response from the subject that might indicate receptivity to sexual activity with this person. That’s what an “advance” is, of a sexual nature. It is not the sex itself though it is “sexual”. It is not intercourse. It’s not nothing, sitting on your hands waiting to see if something happens. It’s an “advance”– a tentative move forward to explore, test, provoke.
You won’t like an advance if you don’t like the person doing the advancing. But that’s the point: if your advance meets resistance, you back off. If you don’t back off– I agree with the mainstream here– you are committing an offence.
Nor is it usually a verbal question. It’s a move, a hand on a knee, leaning in, touching, sitting on someone’s lap, even patting a bum (before you object, I can tell you it happened to me, and it was exactly what I thought it was). It’s lots of things, most of which, if attributed to a politician, will elicit squeals of horror from the sanctimonious. You monster! You must be punished! You must show me that you are totally contrite before you may be allowed to resume your career.
The Obama Administration played around with phrases: “unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature”. Here’s some shocking news: “conduct of a sexual nature” does not just apply to “why don’t we go sit in the back seat for a while, honey”. It applies to, “Tommy is such a brat, let’s chase him” and “why don’t you come join me on the couch” and “could you walk me home?” and “you are so mean to me” and “you want to hang out together” and I know how to improve my tips 30%: shorten my skit and undo the top button of my blouse.
I think the general public operates as if it believes that there is a very clear, thick demarcation between conduct of a sexual nature and conduct that is not of a sexual nature. But, like, allegedly, gender identity, I believe it is more like a continuum, and that it can sometimes be very hard to draw that line, and I know that a lot of us are very hesitant to admit it when our own behavior does cross the line. There is no way to determine, objectively, whether any of a myriad of teasing, provocative, funny actions is conduct “of a sexual nature”. The phrase is absurd. There is no clear, definitive line between many social behaviors and many sexual behaviors.
Flip it over for a minute: what is a “welcome” sexual advance? If we claim that we know what an “unwelcome” sexual advance is, then we must know what a “welcome” sexual advance looks like. More importantly, we better know what the difference is. But how can we, until it’s too late? We can’t.
How would you know it was welcomed if you hadn’t received a “sexual advance” to begin with, or in return? Step closer to a person you like– what if he or she leans towards you? Should I bring my lawyer along on this date?
[whohit]The Unwelcome Mat[/whohit]