"She was violently pressured." I believe violently there is an adjective. No, I don't see a problem with that. What's the problem with it? In both examples she was pressured. If she feels that she was sexually assaulted in both examples, she was. If she doesn't, she wasn't.
But it's not. If you google the definition of pressure (@fl0at_ - Don't bother replying to this... I won't respond), you get "attempt to persuade or coerce someone into doing something. The problem is that persuade and coerce are VERY different verbs. I can get down with "don't coerce people into having sex with you" because coerce, by definition, includes force or threats. But persuade, which is defined as "provide a sound reason for someone to do something; convince" is completely different. So, to me, the degree of pressure matters. I don't see a big problem with persuasion, but there's definitely an issue with coercion.
You don't like the definition, but it is what it is. Both are pressure. The degree doesn't matter. Nukes or rifles, the villagers are dead.
[uck fay] you. This is the only response you get: Wrong. I'm fine with the definition of pressure. She just shouldn't be using the word in her tweet when talking about what constitutes sexual assault. Sexual assault is a very important issues. We should be as specific as possible. She should have used the word coerce. Your nuke the villagers example didn't make sense the first time you used it, and it doesn't make sense now. Degree absolutely matters.
English majors don't speak/type/write in the passive voice. The correct way to write that sentence is in the active voice. Something like "He/she/it violently pressured her." The problem is that two separate women in the exact same situations with the exact same man could "claim" two completely separate outcomes, and by your approach, both of them would be correct. One woman could say the man sexually assaulted her because she "feels" that he did, while the other woman could claim he didn't.
It doesn't not have to be coercion. The word used is correct, pressure. Coercion or persuasion. It is sexual assault, if the person being pressured believes it to be.
And he would have sexually assaulted the one that felt she was sexually assaulted. That is no different than verbal or physical assault. I can be hit by someone, and not feel assaulted. I can be hit by someone else, and feel assaulted. Or battered, depending on the state.
Wrong. If a man hits you, he assaulted you. It's not really up for debate, and it doesn't matter how you feel about it. He assaulted you. Now, you may want to press charges against one person and not the other, or you may be more emotionally impacted by one person hitting you than the other. But that would likely be due to different circumstances, like if one of the people who hit you was a complete stranger, while the other was your older brother. But then that's not "the exact same situation," making it different from what I proposed.
@float You're standing in your yard. Two separate white, middle aged men walk up to you. You don't know either of them and have never seen either of them in your life. Each one punches you directly in the nose with the exact same hand and the exact same force. The injury you receive from each punch is exactly the same. How can you "feel" assaulted by one man but not by the other? And, really, you've already changed my example, which proposed one alleged perpetrator and two separate alleged victims responding to the exact same situation in different ways. But you've switched it to two alleged perpetrators acting against one alleged victim. But I'm not sure if that really matters for the sake of the exercise.
Is trying to convince pressure? And if so, is that assault? And if so, then men will hardly ever have sex again. I'll admit, the wife is the gate keeper, and after 26 years, I have basically given up trying to schmooze my way in. It works 5% of the time and then we are both left feeling upset or angry. If she instigates, I'm game. Clearly schmoozing that convinced her to have sex cannot be construed as assault. Every man would be guilty of assault.
Because "feel" is a feeling, and exactly the same thing can cause different feelings. That's why they are feelings. They are arbitrary.
No, is not. If you are tackled in a football game, are you assaulted? No. But a person hit you. If you are punched in a boxing ring, are you assaulted? Not if you're boxing. If you're a trainer, maybe. If you're the ref, maybe. It's hard to say. That's why it's a choice by the person.
Yes, football and boxing are constant examples of people repeatedly assaulting other people. There's a reason they are referred to as "violent" sports. But by signing up and playing, you are accepting that you will likely be assaulted by others. There's a reason you're already having to fall back to bs examples like sports to try to prove your point. It's a poorly formed point.
No, football and boxing are not examples of people repeatedly assaulting each other. If you feel that they are, then we've come as far as we can go. Because they aren't repeated assault. Assault is a legal term.
You're almost right. I agree that feelings are arbitrary. That's why saying "If a women feels it is assault, it is" is ridiculous. But where you get off base is thinking that the action itself solely causes the feelings. If the same man does the exact same string of words/actions with two separate women, and one woman claims she feels assaulted by him, while the other claims she doesn't feel assaulted by him, their feelings aren't solely caused by his words/actions. Their feelings are heavily influenced by their own pasts and experiences, for which we cannot hold the man accountable. We can only hold him accountable for the things he does and says. And if those things don't constitute sexual assault in one instance, they can't constitute sexual assault in any instance.
We are holding him accountable for the pressure he applied. Pressure in one instance that was considered assault by the person he pressured. Had he never pressured, there would be no accounting. It is still his actions. The choice to hold those actions to one standard or another is a choice that can only be made by the person the action was done to, ie: the woman.
