In article <1pkkidINNsrj@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes: > >In article <1993Mar30.181636.22756@pmafire.inel.gov>,  >cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook) said: > >> A real world data point: A person has a much stronger legal claim for >> harrassment (sexual or otherwise) if they make it clear to the >> offender that their behaviour is unwanted.  If the behaviour persists, >> harrassment is much easier to demonstrate, due to the fact that the >> offender knew that the behaviour was unwanted. > >No argument here... my original query regarded the question of why the >_first_ sexual proposition made by Person A to Person B would be >considered to be sexual harassment by some/many people.  (Assuming, of >course, that there does not exist a power relationship between A and B >such that the proposition carries strong implications of extortion right >from Word One.)  I can only say that those people are wrong. The word harass means to  irritate or torment persistently; I'd hardly consider one time to fall under the definition of persistent.  Additionally, there is no basis to assume the behaviour is unwanted, unlike an illegal proposition. > >> Of course, I think the original question of offering money for sex is >> inarguably harrassment, because the activity is illegal, and could be >> presumed to be unwanted by the average citizen. > >I have to take issue with this viewpoint... given that (a) prostitution >is a victimless crime and (b) there are literally millions of Americans >who participate in some sort of victimless activities which the state >has defined to be criminal (e.g., prostitution, obscenity, gambling, >using certain recreational drugs, having non-mercenary sex with persons >not one's spouse in certain states, having "unnatural" sex with people >regardless of marital status or exchange of money in certain states, >etc.), I'd have to say that the idea that an activity may be presumed to >be unwanted by the average citizen merely because it is illegal is the >sort of sophistry that only a judge could indulge in with a straight >face.  (He said, speaking as a law student who's read his share of >judicial opinions in which reality was not only denied but, in fact, >actually inverted in order to make the universe conform to the writer's >politics.)  I was speaking from a legalistic viewpoint.  What you say is true, but the law, in order to make what little sense it manages to make, has to make *some* assumptions.  Assuming that an illegal activity is unwanted by the average citizen I think is reasonable.  Certainly, I would need a preponderance of evidence on the side of the propositioner that there was a reasonable belief that the proposition was welcome.  The number of people who participate in "victimless" crimes notwithstanding, the fact reamins that under the law, the activity is illegal.  To presume that the proposition *is* welcome simply because a large number of people indulge in it is the type of sophistry only a lawyer could indulge in with a straight face. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ...Dale Cook    "Any town having more churches than bars has a serious                    social problem." ---Edward Abbey The opinions are mine only (i.e., they are NOT my employer's)