Luxor4u

It appears to be open season for "outing" people in the public eye for past sexual indiscretions.....or worse. Hollywood stars, politicians....maybe sports personalities next?

What to make of it all?

Sexual assault is a serious matter and the lives of victims of it can be ruined. Society's view of what constitutes assault has varied over time and we live in an age when any "inappropriate behaviour" might be deemed a criminal offence. Perhaps rightly so. Ignoring, laughing off, or, worse, accepting as "normal", misogynistic behaviour can lead to serious problems within society.

But has the wheel turned too far? Anyone can, with anonymity, name and accuse someone of an alleged offence, sometimes committed many years ago. No corroborating evidence is required. In many cases there will be no evidence or the evidence is so nebulous that it would never stand up in a court of law. It's usually the classic 'he said/she said' situation.

One argument - and it's a powerful one - is that by coming forward with an essentially unprovable allegation, you might encourage others to come forward and picture of a serial sexual abuser emerges.

But what of the rights of the accused? Innocent until proven guilty is a tenet of most legal systems. How many accusations without evidence should constitute adequate proof?

The accused usually has no right to anonymity. The playing field is anything but level. He ( or she) might be able to sue for slander/libel...but often faces the same problem as the accuser. Lack of evidence that the accuser's claim was without merit and malicious. Counter-suing a false accusation claim may simply drag out the matter....and it's the accused who has more to lose in these situations.

Meanwhile....a trial by social media and the press is conducted with gusto. A trial whose predictable outcome is to cast, at the very least, a cloud of suspicion over the accused....and, in some cases, will result in the total ruin of their reputation and career.

There seems to be a lacuna in the system of natural justice.

I am sure that most women have some form of unwanted attention in the past. I remember in my first job my employer tried to kiss me one day at a Christmas party. It never went any further than that and was just seen by me as a silly drunken incident. If he had been famous now would I be "outing" him. I think not.
I am sure that many people have done or said things in the past that they didn't see as being sexist or unacceptable at the time.

carrie wrote:I am sure that most women have some form of unwanted attention in the past. I remember in my first job my employer tried to kiss me one day at a Christmas party. It never went any further than that and was just seen by me as a silly drunken incident. If he had been famous now would I be "outing" him. I think not.
I am sure that many people have done or said things in the past that they didn't see as being sexist or unacceptable at the time.

Indeed Carrie.....particularly if they've had a few (not that that's much of an excuse for boorish behaviour).

If I'd pinched my secretary's bottom at the Christmas do, any judge would have put it down to temporary insanity (think Hilda Ogden....sans makeup).

Nowadays I'd be facing an industrial tribunal...or the local justices.

What surprised me about one recent allegation is that the 'victim' was "traumatised"...and yet went for an outing with the accused the following day!

Give me a break.

Traumatised by the possibility of a fat out-of-court settlement more likely.

On the other hand, perhaps the current furore will lessen the incidence of crass behaviour by people who should know better. No bad thing.

Trump has been remarkably quiet on the topic. But then coming over all holier-than-thou might be a bit much even for him.....a self-confessed fanny-grabber.

Its a difficult one this. Just a few misguided words can quite easily destroy lives. I personally think that any allegation without absolute proof should not be pursued by the courts. Its not only the media that jumps onto the money grabbing headlines, but the likes of solicitors, more than willing to take a new clients word that this, that or the other happened several years ago but its taken this long to pluck up the courage to come forwards. Cash flow matters. If anyone has been assaulted, then they must report it immediately to the police, if they are that interested in seeing justice being done towards the perpetrator.

I know from personal experience what is possible from a person with a warped mind controlled by bitterness, I also know how devastating such allegations can be. I also know that the police automatically show more interest in the accuser than the innocent accused, I also know that no apologies are given when they realize the accused is the victim and I also know that there is no recourse other than forgetting about it and start getting back to your ''normal'' life.That is all the wrongly accused can do. Most so called victims are entitled to free legal aid if it is required, but the accused, once receiving notification that there is no case to answer and the matter will not be pursued any further, has to pay out of his/her own pocket as legal aid will not except the case, only under exceptional circumstances. Its a very one sided system. I think that a five year cap should be placed on any historic incidents such as these.

It will just get to the state men will ignore women. Makes you wonder who is to blame for this rubbish.

The issue of harassment of women is a result of current societal norms (though not in all societies) getting ahead of evolutionary imperatives.

In evolutionary terms, we, as a species, are only a few seconds away from our ape ancestors where the gene-based drive to reproduce is manifested in family groups dominated by an alpha male. Physically stronger than the female, the males of ape species reproduce at will, by force if necessary. The only concession given to the females is that they are only in receptive breeding condition periodically and, when not so, are of no interest to the males.

The human female is, almost uniquely in the higher mammal world, permanently receptive. In genetic terms we have only a few points of difference to the great apes.

You don't need to travel back in time much more than a century to find that women were regarded by society generally, and by law, as the property of their husband, father or brother. It is still the position in some societies.

It comes as no surprise to me that the, largely Western/developed world, drive towards complete equality of a woman's position in society is a struggle.

It's a case of societal norms getting way ahead of deeply ingrained genetic impulses.

I think it's a contest which has many years, possibly centuries, to run.

Genetic impulse perhaps, but we a continually evolving species, and with that evolution comes a higher intelligence and way of thinking. No way can what men use to think of a woman's place a hundred years ago be excepted in today's level of thinking. We continually move with the times as we see each day a more exceptable path lay open before us. I am no better, or important, than any woman, I see them as my equal and the rest of the planet should adopt the same attitude, no more so than this county and others like it.

Dusak wrote:Genetic impulse perhaps, but we a continually evolving species, and with that evolution comes a higher intelligence and way of thinking. No way can what men use to think of a woman's place a hundred years ago be excepted in today's level of thinking. We continually move with the times as we see each day a more exceptable path lay open before us. I am no better, or important, than any woman, I see them as my equal and the rest of the planet should adopt the same attitude, no more so than this county and others like it.

In principle I agree.

My point was that the evolution of basic sexual urges is far slower that the evolution of societal norms.....norms which evolve through education, moral/ethical concepts and even, perhaps, religion

It's not only sexual urges which remain with us. We'll still kill members of our own species for food, land, power etc. despite the generally held moral concept that it's wrong

I recommend reading Richard Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene". We remain, despite our well developed brain, slaves to distant evolutionary/genetic processes. If our minds are actually evolving to counter these more basic instincts, I see little sign of it.

It's really only in the last 100 years that the concept of female equality has even been considered. As a species we've been around for about 200,000 years and, notwithstanding the technological advances, there's no reason to believe our level of intelligence has altered.

I agree, the libido, or the instinctive sexual urge of any living species will never change, but we humans, unlike any other living species, have the ability of control and also know and understand the consequences of flagrantly ignoring the others accepted levels of behavior.

I was a youthful chorister destined for Westminster,
No-one even tried to interfere with me once, "what's wrong with me ? 'I never got to Westminster....
I nearly did get arrested for elbowing a perv in the face in the ABC cinema, trying to stroke me knee when I was 13,
but my mates backed me up....
Even my mates Catholic visiting priest Father Moore never tried it on with us,
even us all knowing he was 'bent as 9 bob note'
Such are the riggers of youthful sexual experiences...'I can remember my first but not her name....