Sexual Harassment--What is it Really?

(note: these are my beliefs, which may not always coincide with actual reality)

Respectable, innocent members of our society are being intimidated into social paralysis and isolation due to the intimidation they experience because campus administrators, campus police, and public police persecute them on the grounds of alleged 'sexual harassment', without understanding what sexual harassment is in the first place.

Whatever system it is that trains these administrators and police has apparently failed; seems whatever system it is, has simply instilled them with: a guilty until proven innocent mentality; a general prejudice against men; a general prejudice against heterosociality; an unreasonably high level of respect for complainants; an unreasonably high level of contempt for those complained about; and a harsh irritable capricious attitude.

Certain rule-books are reasonably interpreted as proclaiming that sexual harassment consists on one party visiting 'unwanted attention' upon the 'victim' party.

This idea that unwanted attention in and of itself constitutes 'harassment', is incorrect, and results in social paralysis, with everyone afraid to find out whether some other party is interested in being social. Realistically, the only way for one individual to find out if another individual wants to be social, is for the socially inclined extraverted individual to socially proposition the other individual.

Similarly, a few years ago, an organization came up with an eccentric definition of spam: it defined 'spam' as 'unwanted email'. This definition of spam had the effect of unreasonably inhibiting communication. People do not know if their email is 'unwanted', until they find out it is unwanted. If it becomes necessary to telephone, or speak in person with the potential email recipient first to find out if they can be emailed, the result is that the potential email recipient is burdened with a hassle that is even greater than the hassle of getting an unwanted email.

At least one campus cop has proclaimed: if you email a woman, and she fails to respond to the email, and then you contact the same woman you emailed again a second time, you become guilty of harassment.

This campus cop's idea that contacting an unresponsive individual a second time, when put into effect results in a social paralysis that psychologically and emotionally damages society. Often even when a woman wants to marry the man who contacts her, she will not respond to the first email, or message on the answering machine, or letter. Therefore the declaration that a man must abstain from communicating with a woman who fails to respond to the first communication, can result in the abortion of marriages, and at minimum, unnecessary emotional distress in the male whose first communication is not responded to by the woman who wants to marry him.

By way of contrast, a relatively reasonable sexual harassment rule that I found in a university rulebook, declared that if a woman notifies a man that she is not interested in socializing with him, and yet he persists in attempting to seduce the woman into such socialization, then the man becomes guilty of harassment of a type.

When persons in authority adhere to invalid definitions regarding what 'sexual harassment' is, they conflict with the book which amongst books is the most important foundation of our legal system, the Bible.

The Bible states: 'Open rebuke is better than secret love' (Proverbs 27:5). Translation: it is better to reveal your love to someone you love, and get rejected, than it is to keep your feelings of love secret.

The Bible states: 'Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened' (Mt 7:7-8).

Persons adhering to a fallacious definition of harassment, clash with scientific understanding of differences between male and female behavior with regards to courtship. Modern science understands, that females are naturally 'coy' in their relations with males (see, Google search: men women courtship coyness; Google search: females males courtship coyness).

It's too bad, that given an atmosphere that intimidates men, featuring scary persons in authority who do not understand what 'harassment' is, running around persecuting men for alleged 'harassment', women fail to adapt to the new conditions by becoming more extraverted and initiating communication with men who they are attracted to. The end result of such female failure to adapt, can be: aborted marriages, aborted relationships, aborted children, physically/emotionally/financially damaged men.

©2011 David Virgil Hobbs

detention sections of defense appropriations bill seem unreasonably extreme

There has been an outcry in the internet media, regarding sections 1031 & 1032 of S1687 the Defense Appropriation Bill.

Upon reading the text of controversial sections, my initial reactions:

1-- Why am I the only person who understands what the sections are saying with regards to US citizens? The sections declare that when the United States Armed Forces detain suspected persons prior to deciding how they are to be 'disposed of', the United States armed forces are obligated to hold persons who are not citizens or lawful resident aliens in the military custody of the armed forces of the U.S; however the U.S armed forces are not obligated to detain U.S citizens, prior to deciding how they are to be 'disposed' of, in military custody of armed forces of the U.S.

2-- Why is the language of the sections so extreme? Apparently, if you are merely suspected of non-violently helping an organization that is suspected of being associated with Al-Qaida, this is enough to make you an appropriate target for detention.

3-- Why is the type of detention prescribed so severe? Apparently, the section gives the President the right to use the U.S armed forces to send you off without trial, to be held by any foreign entity whatsoever, for any length of time.

When I consider the possible alternatives to the legislation endorsed by the U.S senate, I feel as if the wording of the the controversial 1031 & 1032 sections is much too harsh and extreme.

Here, for example, is a possible rewrite of the sections:

Subtitle D—Detainee Matters (Revised DVH version)

SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN QUESTION & SEARCH PERSONS GUILTY OF INFECTING THE UNITED STATES WITH WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION

(a) IN GENERAL.—Congress affirms the authority of the President to order the United States Armed Forces to detain, question & search residents of the United States suspected of infecting the United States with Weapons of Mass Destruction.

(b) LENGTH & TERMS OF DETENTION --

(1) Those detained shall not be detained for more than three weeks.

(2) The US Armed Forces shall have the right to search the possessions of those detained while they are detained.

(3) Evidence uncovered by way of said detention & search, shall not be used to prosecute detained person for crimes other than crimes involving infecting the United States with weapons of mass destruction.

(c) LIMITS TO REPEAT DETENTIONS

(1) No person shall be detained pursuant to this section, more than once every five years

(d) LIVING CONDITIONS OF THE DETAINED

(1) Those detained shall enjoy as far as possible, a standard of living equal to that enjoyed by the average college student.