Today's Thought
I've been reading through the comments on a lj post about a particular exercise in physical contact at a recent fandom con. It has, unsurprisingly, led me to think. I am, of course, sympathetic with the position of theferrett: our culture likes to wrap up the human body in claims that it's a sexual thing, even though it doesn't have to be so, and that claiming it is so leaves more people thinking it *is* so.
Comments like this one make me ponder the nature of sexual harassment. For one, there's the basic point: asking a woman if you can touch her boob is sexual harassment. This makes me wonder: what is an "unwanted sexual advance", anyhow? Asking google led me to a Slate Article which, while interesting, was unhelpful. In fact, every hit I could find talked about it pretty much as "unwanted sexual advance BAD", rather than providing any real definition to the term. So if someone can toss me a bone here, I'd appreciate it. Is sexual intent required? (Example: gay man asks woman if she'll pose naked for him... does his homosexuality make it not sexual harassment?) Or is it based on the feeling of the recipient? (Example: target has foot fetish... does asking said person about his/her shoe size then carry the weight of asking a "normal" woman her bra size?) Or is it based on some "common person" standard? (Example: since most people are straight and most people consider boobs sexual, lock that queer artist up!)
But since "unwanted" seems only definable in the feelings of the target, is there any way to discuss sex at all? After all, it's reasonable that just because someone let you touch them yesterday doesn't mean they'll let you touch them today. It stands to reason that this also applies to words... what someone was comfortable with hearing last night may bother them tomorrow morning.
What then, of the construct, "would me asking if I could kiss you be an unwanted sexual advance?" If that question can be defined as an unwanted sexual advance, aren't any and all interactions (that meet whatever legal standard of "sexual" there is) potential harassment? How can one express a openness to some sexual interaction in a way that would not be taken as an unwanted sexual advance to others? (Given the legal wranglings involved, having a button that signifies in a not-in-your-face-way, "I am open to being *asked* to be touched, but not to being touched without being asked" seems like an acceptable means to me.)
Of course, all this may be spurious: as far as I can tell "sexual harassment", as defined in legal codes in the US, refers only to workplace or educational situations. It'd be interesting to determine where in the US asking someone if you can touch them is a crime. (The closest I can find in law for my current state of residence is M.G.L. Chapter 272, Section 16: "A man or woman, married or unmarried, who is guilty of open and gross lewdness and lascivious behavior, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than three years or in jail for not more than two years or by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars.")
Another comment on the post had me thinking a great deal about objectification. I may well have asked this before, but I'll hit it up again: if wanting to touch (or even just view) a stranger is physical objectification, isn't wanting to talk with them mental objectification? If I want to talk with them on a particular topic, isn't that limiting them even more? Why is physical objectification worse than mental objectification? More to the point, why is it that society casts a desire for the physical as objectification, but not other limited-interaction forms? (The only argument I can envision is that bodies are not really part of a person, and that people are just minds. This mind-body dichotomy bothers me to start with, since it ignores the many non-social ways in which our bodies affect our lives.)
More generally: to me, the idea that asking person a yes/no question once can be a crime is strange. Even things like "can I punch you in the face" or "can I pay you $50 to get out of this ticket". It can certainly be rude, or in poor taste... but I think it's best people have the right to be rude and to have poor taste.
Comments like this one make me ponder the nature of sexual harassment. For one, there's the basic point: asking a woman if you can touch her boob is sexual harassment. This makes me wonder: what is an "unwanted sexual advance", anyhow? Asking google led me to a Slate Article which, while interesting, was unhelpful. In fact, every hit I could find talked about it pretty much as "unwanted sexual advance BAD", rather than providing any real definition to the term. So if someone can toss me a bone here, I'd appreciate it. Is sexual intent required? (Example: gay man asks woman if she'll pose naked for him... does his homosexuality make it not sexual harassment?) Or is it based on the feeling of the recipient? (Example: target has foot fetish... does asking said person about his/her shoe size then carry the weight of asking a "normal" woman her bra size?) Or is it based on some "common person" standard? (Example: since most people are straight and most people consider boobs sexual, lock that queer artist up!)
But since "unwanted" seems only definable in the feelings of the target, is there any way to discuss sex at all? After all, it's reasonable that just because someone let you touch them yesterday doesn't mean they'll let you touch them today. It stands to reason that this also applies to words... what someone was comfortable with hearing last night may bother them tomorrow morning.
What then, of the construct, "would me asking if I could kiss you be an unwanted sexual advance?" If that question can be defined as an unwanted sexual advance, aren't any and all interactions (that meet whatever legal standard of "sexual" there is) potential harassment? How can one express a openness to some sexual interaction in a way that would not be taken as an unwanted sexual advance to others? (Given the legal wranglings involved, having a button that signifies in a not-in-your-face-way, "I am open to being *asked* to be touched, but not to being touched without being asked" seems like an acceptable means to me.)
Of course, all this may be spurious: as far as I can tell "sexual harassment", as defined in legal codes in the US, refers only to workplace or educational situations. It'd be interesting to determine where in the US asking someone if you can touch them is a crime. (The closest I can find in law for my current state of residence is M.G.L. Chapter 272, Section 16: "A man or woman, married or unmarried, who is guilty of open and gross lewdness and lascivious behavior, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than three years or in jail for not more than two years or by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars.")
Another comment on the post had me thinking a great deal about objectification. I may well have asked this before, but I'll hit it up again: if wanting to touch (or even just view) a stranger is physical objectification, isn't wanting to talk with them mental objectification? If I want to talk with them on a particular topic, isn't that limiting them even more? Why is physical objectification worse than mental objectification? More to the point, why is it that society casts a desire for the physical as objectification, but not other limited-interaction forms? (The only argument I can envision is that bodies are not really part of a person, and that people are just minds. This mind-body dichotomy bothers me to start with, since it ignores the many non-social ways in which our bodies affect our lives.)
More generally: to me, the idea that asking person a yes/no question once can be a crime is strange. Even things like "can I punch you in the face" or "can I pay you $50 to get out of this ticket". It can certainly be rude, or in poor taste... but I think it's best people have the right to be rude and to have poor taste.