I feel this is a question long past due that desperately craves a clear answer in our #MeToo society. Where is the limit between personal culpability and abuse? At what point do you go from being someone who just made a bad choice, to becoming an actual victim, and do we throw that word around with excessive ease?
I tend to think so, but that's just my personal opinion.
I've been reading about a case rocking my home country, about a popular priest who's been accused of sexual abuse. Multiple counts. So far, nothing new under the Sun, even though the priest in question is Orthodox, which means he can get married (and is, in fact, married and has a small daughter, as I understand it). Anyway, this ought to provide some relief to man's natural sexual impulses, whose stifling, I feel, accounts for a lot of the abuses in the Catholic Church (which doesn't allow priests to marry).
I followed the case with some interest, since I'm no fan of the church as an institution. Yet, to my astonishment, I found myself disconcerted while reading the so-called testimonies from the victims. For instance, one of the first victims to come forward (ten, so far) recorded a conversation with the handsy priest following the alleged abuse. And what can be inferred from the transcripts is that this priest started groping her during confession, and she told him "it's not allowed".
Excuse me? A guy touches you in inappropriate places, and you wag your finger at him and say "that's not allowed"? In what world is that a healthy reaction to sexual abuse? Maybe it's because I'm not a believer, in the traditional sense of the world, so these priests seem like nothing but phonies to me. But it seems to me the correct reaction is kicking the cunt in the balls, and marching straight out of there. It's not sitting patiently while he gropes you, telling him that's not very nice. It's certainly not going back to chat with him again.
Another alleged victim published texts the priest sent her. Reading through them, I gotta say I felt nauseous, though not overly shocked. I think any woman has met a guy like that, with exactly the same type of manipulative, slightly coercive, yet sweetly lines. Basically, the long and short of it was he kept texting her with basic shit like "are you okay?" "you light up my life" "I carry you in my heart"...all sorts of BS. Asking her to come meet him. And what does this "victim" do? She goes and meets him, and he tried to kiss her as a result.
Now I'm sorry, perhaps I'm overly harsh. But doesn't it seem natural that if you really aren't interested in a man making obvious sexual advances towards you, you'd take active steps to avoid being near him? I know I would.
I have in the past, and if I hadn't, I wouldn't feel comfortable accusing the man of sexual assault the next day. In some situations, I realize, in retrospect, that I shouldn't have encouraged certain actions or behaviors. I've since come to change my mind about those situations, but I firmly believe they were and remain my fault.
To me, these kinds of whine-y, weak women are infuriating. As a woman, I've met my fair share of gross, grope-y, kissassy, lascivious men. Like anyone, I've gotten weird advances from guys, and text messages, obvious in their intent. Some sweet and convincing. I've met the guy who tells you shit like you light up my life. I've met the guy who God forbid, he'd never come on to you. He only wants to be your friend.
And in all of those situations, had I agreed to meet these men face to face, and had something happen to me, I would've considered myself at least partly responsible. Thinking back to my own experiences, and to the men I didn't want in my life, and certainly not in my bed, I don't think I would've been very comfortable with myself if things had played out different, and I'd try to shirk all the blame. I don't think that's healthy, and I think women need to be held accountable for what they do. None of that "she was asking for it" crap. Obviously. But I do think some behaviors invite sexual advances. Much like what happened with Harvey Weinstein. Those women agreed to go up to his room at night, what did they think was going on? That he needed a Scrabble partner, 'cause he couldn't sleep?
It seems the handsy priest really had a way with words, but to me, that seems the only crime he can be convicted of. And what are you gonna do? Lock up every half-clever guy? Good luck. There are a lot of clever tongues out there, many of them a lot smoother than this priest. But in that case, the crime becomes trying to screw a woman. And really, if the woman responds to your messages, and maybe even encourages them, is it so weird that a guy would take that to mean she's at least partly interested?
A lot of these crimes seem to have happened digitally, and it scares me that we can so easily label something that happens in the virtual world as "abuse" of any kind. If a guy is sending you lewd messages, the response seems fairly simple: you don't respond. You block him. You report him. Responding in a slightly colder voice isn't telling him no at all, it's encouraging him. It's telling him this woman might be convinced, with a little more effort. And that worries me, in turn, because such women give the rest of us a bad name.
Contrary to popular belief, it doesn't seem obvious to me that a woman should automatically be believed innocent and pristine simply because of her sex. First of all, I find it insulting. Like any quality worth its salt, that should be earned, not given freely.
I think in a truly equal world, women should bear as much responsibility as men. I don't think your sex should allow you a free pass on poor judgment. Because that's essentially what we're taxing men on now, our own poor judgment. If these women didn't have the sense to leave, to cry for help, or to avoid and report this priest, rather than going to spend yet more time with him, it seems ludicrous to me that we, as a society, pin it all on the man. Like, why didn't you notice this woman was having a poor judgment day and stop, and do what's best for her?
Because the world is not a fairytale, and it's dangerous to assume otherwise. It leaves us unprepared when real danger and atrocity strike. We should be teaching our children to be warriors, not victims.
Besides, since when is it normal to have private texts with your priest, talking about how he's your "friend"? Again, maybe it's a church thing I don't get. But to me, that's code for an inappropriate relationship just waiting to happen.
Any woman past a certain age has had at least one sexual advance made on her that she did not desire. Some know how to stop that, some condone them. Some don't know what to do. It's a harsh, unpleasant reality, but it still is reality. Yes, it would be much nicer to live in a world where that did not happen, but the current cancel culture mob is not the way to go about it. All that's achieving is getting the abusers to step up their game, not change their ways. And as long as society stagnates in this murky place, our urges and our operating system will remain the same. People will continue to hurt, maim, and rape other people.
What we're doing right now is collectively wagging our finger and telling them that's not allowed which, as the case above proves, isn't a very successful deterrence technique. Another, much much worse consequence of our present approach to sexual abuse is we're telling men they're guilty by default. Case in point, Johnny Depp. It took that guy an astonishing amount of money, time and effort to clear up his name. Because we assume the man is guilty if he so much as sent dirty texts to a woman.
Talk about dangerous. By telling men they're guilty by default, we waiver the constraint of social pressure and dignity. We annihilate the idea of "I won't hurt this other person because then society will think I'm a bad guy". Well, if society thinks you're bad already, isn't that just a by-word for free-for-all violence? I mean, if there's even the slightest possibility that a woman you encounter will report you, and then you'll become a rapist outcast, then why not at least get your money's worth?
I've long believed we're putting men in a tremendously dangerous position on the outskirts of society. And I don't think we want to see what they'll do when pushed to the limit.
Getting back to my title question, I think unless you are being physically forced or coerced (e.g. your boss threatening to fire you if you don't blow him) to do something you do not wish to do, then it's not abuse. And I think we need to stop blurring the lines between what is and isn't abuse, because how else will we know when real abuse has taken place?
Men looking at you is not abuse. Men flirting or catcalling you is not abuse. Men sending insistent, lewd texts is not abuse.
You know why? Because you remain in control as it happens. The horrible aspect of sexual abuse is that you do not have control. That you are rendered powerless over something you should always have control over, namely your own body. The fact that happens is horrifying. As is the fact that we'd ever seek to minimize it.
