Was Bashir guilty of sexual harassment in season 1 with Dax?

[Timo]

I'm sure it's not how you meant it, but your description does come very close to basically saying that men should follow natures example in taking the women they desire, to hell with whether they want it or not....

What a sexist thing to say. Why men taking women, and not women taking men?

Okay, testosterone was specifically mentioned. But it's already a chore to type "him/her", so imagine how people would feel about typing "testosterone/progesterone"...

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Robert Maxwell]

All of them, obviously. After all, if the intent is to initiate a relationship, that's by (legalese) definition an attempt to get the victim to submit, and thus the first to act in any fashion is an offender. Until the point where the second to act says "No, it's fine, nothing wrong here - please put the handcuffs and tasers away", that is. But alas, it's not always his or her right to issue such a statement.

Weird, here I thought relationships were a matter of agreement, not submission. That is, one person asks another if they'd like to go out... and the other either agrees, or doesn't. It's not "submission."

And what "all of them" are you saying is illegal? So, what, nobody can date without breaking the law? Absurd. Try making statements with at least some relationship to reality.

I'm interested in specific examples here, actually. What evidence is there of Quark "pressing" for favors? Witnesses such as Mardah don't refer to such, even though today's legislation would automatically stamp them as victims regardless. As far as onscreen explicit evidence goes, Quark may be a Class A sleazebag, but he is no pimp and he is no rapist. Except of course by implicit lynching.

On at least two occasions, Quark propositions a dabo girl by suggesting she needs to give him oo-mox if she wants to keep her job. I'm rewatching DS9 and he did this quite blatantly in "Profit and Lace." Basically said straight out that, even though the woman in question was a superb employee in every other way, the fact that she hadn't sexually pleasured him meant her job was in jeopardy. He later "learned his lesson" in that episode by having to pretend to be a woman temporarily, but still. He didn't face any real consequences from this blatant bit of sexual extortion.

 

[MadeIndescribable]

What a sexist thing to say. Why men taking women, and not women taking men?

Okay, testosterone was specifically mentioned. But it's already a chore to type "him/her", so imagine how people would feel about typing "testosterone/progesterone"...

I was quoting the example given, that and specifically mentioning testosterone kind of made it one sided to begin with.

 

[Timo]

That's quite a technical problem here, I guess - no matter whom you choose as your Exhibit A, he or she is going to be a he or a she, not both...

At least as far as we know. Of course, the relatively chaste episodes may not be telling the whole truth.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[{ Emilia }]

The point is that it is up to them to decide that they are victims; I get no say in it, regardless of what I do. Worse still, third parties can decide these victims are being brutalized by my smiling at them. Love is hate when you speak legalese.

This is completely nonsensical and has zero connection to the real world. This stuff isn't rocket science either.
Context matters: Try your pickup line on a patron in a bar, not on the waitress who will struggle to tell you off if you become annoying because you're a client and she has to deal with you.
Context matters: Don't try and flirt with people who are just trying to do their jobs in a professional environment.

The idea that people feel brutalized because you smile at them is fucking absurd. If you get that reaction, you should think about whether you fucked up reading the context or have been pushing too much.

All of them, obviously. After all, if the intent is to initiate a relationship, that's by (legalese) definition an attempt to get the victim to submit, and thus the first to act in any fashion is an offender.

Again nonsense. Flirting isn't a zero sum game. I'm so fucking tired of people who think flirting is a game they can win and who are implying that the other person loses. Like they're tricking somebody into having sex with them.

Obviously some sort of a balance between the conflicting pressures, as it would never come to dating becoming wholly illegal and it would never come to the society totally losing interest in regulating dating.

You're seeing issues where there aren't any. Regular people go out, meet somebody and flirt with them in the right context, which ideally is one where the other person isn't under some sort of professional pressure to please you.
The other person is either interested or not, agency is respected, and the evening either ends up alone watching TNG on Netflix or with amazing sex.

The hand-wringing over how hard dating is in this society is something I usually read from people who have never done any dating. Women or men aren't going to kill you for trying to flirt with them in a non-aggressive way, especially not when it happens in an appropriate context.

 

[MadeIndescribable]

After all, if the intent is to initiate a relationship, that's by (legalese) definition an attempt to get the victim to submit

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Weird, here I thought relationships were a matter of agreement, not submission. That is, one person asks another if they'd like to go out... and the other either agrees, or doesn't. It's not "submission."

I'm totally seconding the idea that relationships are about agreements, not submission. If there is a "victim" in a relationship, then that relationship is abusive.

This is why Fifty Shades of Grey is not healthy....

 

[{ Emilia }]

The idea that my interest in a guy who flirts with me is an act of submission to his interests is so hilarious, I can't get over it.
It's called agency, not submission. If I'm interested, I'm winning, too. I get what I want just like he gets what he wants.

And I can't stress the importance of context enough: I've never felt brutalized by a guy smiling at me in a club. Now when recently a photographer tried to hit on me during a shoot, that was rather different and much more uncomfortable (I ended up walking out of the shoot.).
Again: Not rocket science, is it?

 

[Timo]

The idea that people feel brutalized because you smile at them is fucking absurd. If you get that reaction, you should think about whether you fucked up reading the context or have been pushing too much.

Life is fucking absurd. I may not have personal experience in being prosecuted for smiling, but I do have experience of others being prosecuted for smiling.

It's not automatically a case of the "attacker" being a creep, it's just as easily a case of the "victim" being a creep. Law is just as easily abused from the victim position as from the offender one.

Again nonsense. Flirting isn't a zero sum game. I'm so fucking tired of people who think flirting is a game they can win and who are implying that the other person loses. Like they're tricking somebody into having sex with them.

What on Earth are you talking about? I never described games. I described abuse, where the "victim" abuses the "offender" either for malevolent pleasure or comparable gain or because he or she is just plain nuts. Or, in the worst case, where a third party does this. What actually happens during the flirting, objectively speaking, is irrelevant to this.

You're seeing issues where there aren't any. Regular people go out, meet somebody and flirt with them in the right context, which ideally is one where the other person isn't under some sort of professional pressure to please you.

And then either things go fine, or then legal abuse ensues - and the latter can happen because the law covers everything from "fine" to "gory mess" under the sexual harassment umbrella, out of argued practical necessity. The issues definitely exist, even if they aren't statistically significant enough to make headlines every morning.

The hand-wringing over how hard dating is in this society is something I usually read from people who have never done any dating.

This is about as dubious as all that "research" about how often men/women/hamsters think about sex. How would you know?

Women or men aren't going to kill you for trying to flirt with them in a non-aggressive way, especially not when it happens in an appropriate context.

False. But fortunately not often. Which isn't much consolation when "not often" happens, though.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Timo]

The idea that my interest in a guy who flirts with me is an act of submission to his interests is so hilarious, I can't get over it.

Just goes to show how profound the lack of empathy in human beings can be sometimes. It's a classic case of words having power: flipping a few creates instant crime.

And I can't stress the importance of context enough: I've never felt brutalized by a guy smiling at me in a club.

It's not about you specifically, though...

Again: Not rocket science, is it?

If it only were. Rocket science never killed nobody. (Except in WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Middle East etc.) Juridical science goes a bit farther.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Life is fucking absurd. I may not have personal experience in being prosecuted for smiling, but I do have experience of others being prosecuted for smiling.

Bullshit. I'm not even going to ask for an example, because this is so absurd on its face I'm comfortable calling it what it is.

It's not automatically a case of the "attacker" being a creep, it's just as easily a case of the "victim" being a creep. Law is just as easily abused from the victim position as from the offender one.

What on Earth are you talking about? I never described games. I described abuse, where the "victim" abuses the "offender" either for malevolent pleasure or comparable gain or because he or she is just plain nuts. Or, in the worst case, where a third party does this. What actually happens during the flirting, objectively speaking, is irrelevant to this.

What are you talking about?

And then either things go fine, or then legal abuse ensues - and the latter can happen because the law covers everything from "fine" to "gory mess" under the sexual harassment umbrella, out of argued practical necessity. The issues definitely exist, even if they aren't statistically significant enough to make headlines every morning.

Are you speculating about Star Trek here or trying to talk about real-life laws? I can't tell.

This is about as dubious as all that "research" about how often men/women/hamsters think about sex. How would you know?

I'll take the word of someone who's studied it over a random forum poster, at least.

False. But fortunately not often. Which isn't much consolation when "not often" happens, though.

What terrifying hellscape are you posting from?

Timo Saloniemi

 

[{ Emilia }]

Life is fucking absurd. I may not have personal experience in being prosecuted for smiling, but I do have experience of others being prosecuted for smiling.

I love anecdotal evidence. Even if that happened on very rare occasions that would not be indicative of a systemic problem.
And "prosecuted for smiling"? Riiiight...

Law is just as easily abused from the victim position as from the offender one.

I'm just quoting this to make sure it's preserved for eternity as abstract performance art.
Apart from that it makes no sense to me.

I described abuse, where the "victim" abuses the "offender" either for malevolent pleasure or comparable gain or because he or she is just plain nuts.

You were talking about flirting in general and how the very concept of it allegedly (according to you) involves forcing yourself on a victim.
I explained how this is a rather warped view on dating.

And then either things go fine, or then legal abuse ensues - and the latter can happen because the law covers everything from "fine" to "gory mess" under the sexual harassment umbrella, out of argued practical necessity.

False accusations are a statistically irrelevant problem compared to the many many real cases that go unreported, unprosecuted or unpunished.
The systemic problem is harassment and rape, not victims being overly sensitive. Nor is "victims abusing the law" to use one of your gems.

 

[{ Emilia }]

Also:

In before somebody complains that dating has become impossible (because women will not put up with entitled guys' harassment anymore). Life got so much more complicated for many people when it turned out that women are human beings with agency, too!

 

[MadeIndescribable]

The idea that my interest in a guy who flirts with me is an act of submission to his interests is so hilarious, I can't get over it.

Just goes to show how profound the lack of empathy in human beings can be sometimes. It's a classic case of words having power: flipping a few creates instant crime.

A. I just can't even.
B. Pot, kettle, black?

 

[Timo]

I love anecdotal evidence. Even if that happened on very rare occasions that would not be indicative of a systemic problem.

But if that happened on merely rare occasions rather than very rare, it would be. After all, most things don't happen to most people. But they matter to the people they do happen to.

And "prosecuted for smiling"? Riiiight...

It's deceptively easily done when all hinges on say-so.

I'm just quoting this to make sure it's preserved for eternity as abstract performance art. Apart from that it makes no sense to me.

Again, it's not about you or your shortcomings. It's about things like date rape and whether X was it or not.

You were talking about flirting in general and how the very concept of it allegedly (according to you) involves forcing yourself on a victim.

What I am trying to make clear is that it can be described as such. And not in "abstract terms" or meaningless online wind-blowing, but in court.

What's particularly relevant about it is the fact that it takes no effort. Just flip those few words and say "I didn't like it" (or "He/she did like it") and all hell breaks loose.

I explained how this is a rather warped view on dating.

And I want to make clear that this is the exact problem I have here - that views on dating can so easily be warped.

False accusations are a statistically irrelevant problem compared to the many many real cases that go unreported, unprosecuted or unpunished.

Sure. But the law explicitly declares itself erring on the side of caution to protect those "irrelevant" people. When it factually does not, there's a crime being committed.

The systemic problem is harassment and rape, not victims being overly sensitive.

The real systemic problem here would seem to be that you think solving one requires throwing the others to the wolves. That's not how law absolutely has to work - indeed, that's explicitly how law is not supposed to work. Yet it often does, because it can't get too casuistic and as the result sometimes has to ignore the rights or plights of minorities.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Robert Maxwell]

But if that happened on merely rare occasions rather than very rare, it would be. After all, most things don't happen to most people. But they matter to the people they do happen to.

Damn, how do you split hairs so finely? Do you give classes?

It's deceptively easily done when all hinges on say-so.

In which jurisdictions is smiling a crime? I'll wait.

Again, it's not about you or your shortcomings. It's about things like date rape and whether X was it or not.

Well, I'm pretty sure "smiling" isn't date rape.

What I am trying to make clear is that it can be described as such. And not in "abstract terms" or meaningless online wind-blowing, but in court.

You must be working from a very strange definition of "flirting."

What's particularly relevant about it is the fact that it takes no effort. Just flip those few words and say "I didn't like it" (or "He/she did like it") and all hell breaks loose.

No. Someone not liking something doesn't mean a crime has been committed, and it's disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

And I want to make clear that this is the exact problem I have here - that views on dating can so easily be warped.

Problem is, you are helping to warp them in this instance, acting as if dating is an impossible-to-navigate minefield where the "aggressor" (usually male) must watch out lest his life be ruined by some evil bitch who didn't like the pick-up line he used. Try joining us back here in reality.

Sure. But the law explicitly declares itself erring on the side of caution to protect those "irrelevant" people. When it factually does not, there's a crime being committed.

If you are saying that the law too easily lets sexual predators get away with it, then I agree.

The real systemic problem here would seem to be that you think solving one requires throwing the others to the wolves. That's not how law absolutely has to work - indeed, that's explicitly how law is not supposed to work. Yet it often does, because it can't get too casuistic and as the result sometimes has to ignore the rights or plights of minorities.

That's not what she is saying at all. Currently, the law overly favors sexual predators--the burden for bringing charges and obtaining convictions is very high, at least in the US, which is why the vast majority of sexual assaults never see a perpetrator jailed. Going too far in the other direction would, of course, be bad, but I've never seen Emilia promote anything other than a just system in which the guilty are punished and the falsely accused are exonerated.

 

[{ Emilia }]

But if that happened on merely rare occasions rather than very rare, it would be. After all, most things don't happen to most people. But they matter to the people they do happen to.

The thing is that getting into trouble for smiling at somebody is such an absurdly rare occasion that it shouldn't keep anybody from dating any more than the fear of being struck by lightning keeps people from leaving the house.
You're trying to paint this as a systemic problem when millions of people manage to flirt and date just fine in the right context.

What's particularly relevant about it is the fact that it takes no effort. Just flip those few words and say "I didn't like it" (or "He/she did like it") and all hell breaks loose.

Help me out here, you really think trying to chat somebody up in the appropriate context leads to "all hell breaking loose" even if you stop after they tell you that they're not interested?

I'd hazard a guess and say the opposite is much more common: People not stopping even though they're told to stop seems much more common than all hell breaking lose after somebody has respectfully approached somebody and then retreated once they were told there's no interest.

The real systemic problem here would seem to be that you think solving one requires throwing the others to the wolves.

No.
What I said merely shows that I'm able to see systemic problems and can tell them from occasional rare problems. That doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't address the rare problems but you will never have a perfect legal system.

 

[Timo]

No. Someone not liking something doesn't mean a crime has been committed, and it's disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

It is absolutely crucial to cases on the subject whether consent exists, and "I liked it" vs. "I didn't like it" is where it pivots. A crime is born at the moment lack of consent is expressed, and the problem stems from whether it is expressed falsely.

Problem is, you are helping to warp them in this instance, acting as if dating is an impossible-to-navigate minefield where the "aggressor" (usually male) must watch out lest his life be ruined by some evil bitch who didn't like the pick-up line he used. Try joining us back here in reality.

There's a big issue here that strikes me as rather heartless. You speak of statistics. I speak of the very real specific cases that cause serious harm to a small minority. The law exists to protect the minority - not that the majority needs no protection, but it can get its protection without the carefully balanced legislation that the minority desperately needs.

If you are saying that the law too easily lets sexual predators get away with it, then I agree.

So far, I haven't actually said such a thing, but consider it said here. Now can we get back to the issue of the law too easily labeling people as sexual predators?

That's not what she is saying at all. Currently, the law overly favors sexual predators--the burden for bringing charges and obtaining convictions is very high, at least in the US, which is why the vast majority of sexual assaults never see a perpetrator jailed. Going too far in the other direction would, of course, be bad, but I've never seen Emilia promote anything other than a just system in which the guilty are punished and the falsely accused are exonerated.

Except in the language of the above posts, I fear. I mean, she's literally speaking of statistics and the irrelevancy they establish.

I mean, I get it that nobody here at TrekBBS is a monster. It's just that our net personae can express monstrous thoughts at times, for polemic reasons, and nevertheless balk at the "opposition" doing the same. Using the extreme "smiling" scenario to highlight the existence of the problem is one thing - but is it balanced by callously stating that statistics render the problem irrelevant? May be. Dunno. But it's different from saying that the problem is being tackled, adequately or at least eagerly.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[{ Emilia }]

Now can we get back to the issue of the law too easily labeling people as sexual predators?

My reaction to your post:
First I remembered how hard it is for victims to get anybody to even listen to them. Then I remembered how much victim-blaming there is still going on in these cases. Then I remembered how hard it is for victims to get this stuff persecuted. And then I remembered how many sexual predators get away with their crimes.

My reply to your post:
Which world do you live in?

And as an addendum you'll also get:
Tell me again how a guy got into legal trouble for smiling at a woman. Or for trying to chat her up and then retreating when she told him she's not interested.*



* You're welcome to swap genders around here.

 

[Timo]

You're trying to paint this as a systemic problem when millions of people manage to flirt and date just fine in the right context.

Yes. Millions is peanuts, not compared to the billions on this planet, but to the hundreds who suffer. After all, it's the suffering that needs to be addressed, not the not suffering.

Help me out here, you really think trying to chat somebody up in the appropriate context leads to "all hell breaking loose" even if you stop after they tell you that they're not interested?

In certain contexts, yes. If X tries that on a number of people (out of whom some may actually be interested, but nobody cares about them) and one raises the issue afterwards, the multiple tries may sadly count negatively for character assessment even when all of them went the way you describe.

I'd hazard a guess and say the opposite is much more common

Agreed, of course. But not the problem I feel needs to be addressed - after all, the opposite problem is being addressed, and powerfully and I dare say almost adequately so, and this is lamentably part of the problem at hand.

What I said merely shows that I'm able to see systemic problems and can tell them from occasional rare problems. That doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't address the rare problems but you will never have a perfect legal system.

I'm fine with that. It's just a bit unsettling that the subject of this thread is whether Julian Bashir is a creep and a criminal for one of those dating acts of his where his sometimes dubious professional integrity wasn't even a factor, and the defense just plain rests.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Nakita Akita]

I'm sure it's not how you meant it, but your description does come very close to basically saying that men should follow natures example in taking the women they desire, to hell with whether they want it or not....

Well if both Peole are not allowed to ask the other one out, in the end nothing will happen.
Everyone remains and dies virgins, no more humans.....☹