I don’t see how it’s relevant, either. It’s not as if straight women find all sexual contact with men more okay than lesbians do. In fact, most women find unwanted sexual contact from men to be frightening as well as violating. It is the norm for straight women to experience sexual contact as risky as most men are significantly stronger than most women.
I just got a similar news alert. I don’t care that his statement is whiney. I’m happy to see he stepped down.
In his own words, in English:
How is the “sexual nature” of the conduct defined or established?
By the facts of the case and the surrounding circumstances, as well as precedents that have considered different issues, like the one mentioned above.
Here’s the extract from the headnote in R v Chase, one of the early cases interpreting the offence:
Sexual assault is an assault within any one of the definitions of that concept in s. 244(1) of the Criminal Code which is committed in circumstances of a sexual nature, such that the sexual integrity of the victim is violated. The test to be applied in determining whether the impugned conduct has the requisite sexual nature is an objective one: “Viewed in the light of all the circumstances, is the sexual or carnal context of the assault visible to a reasonable observer”. The part of the body touched, the nature of the contact, the situation in which it occurred, the words and gestures accompanying the act, and all other circumstances surrounding the conduct, including threats which may or may not be accompanied by force, will be relevant. The accused’s intent or purpose as well as his motive, if such motive is sexual gratification, may also be factors in considering whether the conduct is sexual. Implicit in this view of sexual assault is the notion that the offence is one requiring a general intent only. In the present case, there was ample evidence before the trial judge upon which he could find that sexual assault was committed. Viewed objectively in the light of all the circumstances, it is clear that the conduct of the respondent in grabbing the complainant’s breasts constituted an assault of a sexual nature.
That’s why it’s a systemic problem. It may be so much a part of his culture and his upbringing that he honestly doesn’t understand what he did wrong.
I think any woman, straight or gay, would probably be repulsed by this behaviour, particularly the crotch-grinding and the head-grabbing forced kiss, both displays of dominance. I assumed a lesbian would be even more repulsed. No? My bad. Maybe something got lost in translation.
Which is why some punishment is required, to communicate broadly that even though such had been normal accepted behavior within the culture of the past, it now is not such, it is now recognized to be a criminal act.
This being high profile makes it the perfect vehicle for that purpose. But, again, too harsh and public sympathy tilts; the message does get received.
Why? Because a straight man in that situation would be repulsed? If so, that’s probably got less to do with the fact that the man isn’t attracted to the perpetrator’s gender in general, and more to do with the way that patriarchy enforces a fragility on masculinity that convinces men that being the victim of this type of act strips them of their masculinity.
It’s difficult to separate these concepts since they’re so intertwined in our culture. But think about this - would a gay man be less upset about this than a straight man just because he might be attracted to other men?
What’s been a part of Spanish culture for the last 20 years has been acknowledgement that a significant number of Spanish men have been abusing women and that it’s no longer okay. You’d have to have lived under a rock (or in a kind of closet) all this time not to be aware of it.
That may read as confirmation that it’s a systemic problem, but my point is that, within the context of the last 20 years of awareness, his denial, his attempts to turn the tables and his refusal to do the right thing are all on him. Considering that he’s been a high-profile figure of authority, he should have known better and his punishment should be exemplary.
Nonetheless, I’m willing to concede that he does in fact look like something you’d find living under a rock.
Agreed. Finding a balance is necessary.
Good question. Consent is consent, regardless of the recipient.
No doubt some people are more psychologically robust than others, some would be more traumatized by sexual assault than others. But I really don’t think it’s appropriate to speculate that a sexual assault is “worse” for one category of victim, because that inevitably implies that it is “better” for another category.
I don’t think your intention was to do either of these things, but your suggestion that “maybe she’s gay and that makes it worse” enables two harmful narratives:
On the one hand you run the risk of validating something like the “gay panic” defense, the bigoted view that a sexual advance from the non-preferred gender is somehow traumatizing even it is appropriate and respectful. Here you enable a narrative that maybe there was nothing wrong with what Rubiales did, it was not assault at all, instead the problem is that she’s overreacting to physical contact with a man because she’s gay.
Concomitantly, you are inevitably implying that a sexual assault is somehow less criminal and traumatizing if the assaulter is the preferred gender of the victim.
That’s not what I was suggesting AT ALL, but thanks for sharing your opinion. I was trying to put myself in her shoes and empathize with how she might have felt. That’s all.
I made clear that I didn’t think you intended these narratives. I’m just pointing out why you need to be very careful with this.
We have a history of male bigots justifying anti-LGBT violence because they claim that even being in proximity to gay men or trans women is traumatizing to them; while (by projection and other toxic assumptions) a woman who rejects their sexual advances could only conceivably be explained by her being gay.
Will you be withdrawing this line of argument now that the linked video shows its basis to be false?
Yes, I have, but that isn’t carte blanche for any man to take liberties that would be off limits in any other context. When I greet/meet a man, I’ve learned to move forward with my hand well extended showing the kind of greeting I want.
I’m curious how many years in prison many posters here might think this man should have gotten?
In light of that video, this is worth revisiting.
- I have engaged in sports and team activities.
- I regularly engage in an activity where hugs are common, and sometimes take place between people who don’t know each other well. In fact, I routinely hug men i have only just met at the event.
- Despite the plethora of hugging, everyone knows that a few participants prefer not to hug, and folks are pretty careful about initiating hugs in a way that can be rejected, not just grabbing people.
- I’ve never seen a celebratory kiss in that kind of context. Hugs and kisses are very different. I wouldn’t let any of those participants kiss me on the lips.
- I sure as hell have never seen someone restrain sometime else so as to kiss them. If it happened at an event i organized, that person would be spoken to if we thought they’d stop, but would probably just be uninvited from all future events. Maybe escorted out right away.
- How do you feel about the pelvic grind that immediately preceded that kiss? He initiated what looked like a regular hug, until he jumped into her arms and smashed his crotch against her.
This question is just as misleading as the thread title, since it is loaded with an implied straw man that somebody has suggested that Rubiales deserves “years in prison”.