What does sexually violate mean?

Sexual Violation: Use of sexual contact behaviors that are unwanted by and/or harmful to another person, but do not involve penetration.

Thread attempts to address sexual misconduct.

Here is more on that...

 

I think you can.

Let me give an example.

Maybe 6 or more months ago, I went to a Starbucks. This was well into my relationship with my fiance, and I didn't go to flirt.

But I saw a woman who I'm acquainted with. She had changed her hair. I knew full well that I didn't mean to flirt with her. I really didn't...

But in conversing with her, I commented on her hair, and its color.

Well, she is a natural blonde, and somehow innuendo ended up there by osmosis. I didn't mean to. But that's a real uncomfortable one.

If you're blonde, and the hair color is mentioned in a discourteous or overly casual way it might feel like someone is starting to ask about your other hair...

-----

I've since gone on to openly acknowledge that whether it was intentional or not, it was in poor taste. Even if I'm perfectly comfortable dodging the facts, she may feel totally exposed, and ultimately sexually violated.

Now. When is that okay?

What if it's done as a punishment? Who is doling out the punishment with sexual innuendo? A judge? A jury?

What sort of things are we comfortable subjecting someone to based on our version of justice?

 

Here is an exerpt:

I would tend to agree. I think while it's important, prolonged exposure to psychological harm or deficit is significantly counterproductive.

The perpetrators here are those public shaming. What I'm referring to is a years after-the-fact continuing of aggressive efforts to defame.

The legal system provides every remedy imaginable for sex crimes. Now though, the public has made an art of exposing and further penalizing the convicted. This has lasting, damning, and damaging repercussions; not only for the convicted, but also for those perpetrating shaming.

Spoiler: “PUBLIC SHAMING” LEADS TO 8TH AMENDMENT SEX REGISTRATION HOLDING – UPDATE FOR SEPTEMBER 8, 2017

DISTRICT COURT HOLDS COLORADO SEX REGISTRATION VIOLATES 8TH AMENDMENT
The registration systems for ex-inmates with sex offenses is state based. Congress decreed in the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) that every state would have a system, and then imposed a federal requirement on people convicted of sex offenses that they must register under penalty of law.

The public loves state registration laws, because they like to identify and shame ex-offenders for crime committed years before, running them out of housing, hounding them out of jobs, and even trying to break up their families. Sounds like punishment? The Supreme Court said not, in Smith v. Doe, which in 2004 held that Alaska’s Sex Offender Registration Act (“SORA”) was not punitive.

For a decade since it was handed down, Smith v. Doe shut down constitutional challenges to state SORAs. In the last few years, however, federal courts have been willing to recognize that the landscape has changed.

A little more than a week ago, a Colorado district court recognized what anyone who has faced the burdens, obstacles, and dangers of life on the offenders registry already knows: the punitive impact of the state’s SORA far outweighs any value it might have in protecting the public. The district judge held that Colorado’s registration statute violates the 8th Amendment by imposing cruel and unusual punishment, and violates a registrant’s 14th Amendment procedural and substantive due process rights.

The Colorado court held that Smith v. Doe’s “words ring hollow that the state’s website does not provide the public with means to shame the offender when considering the evidence in this case.” The Supreme Court “did not foresee the development of private, commercial websites exploiting the information made available to them and the opportunities for ‘investigative journalism’ or “the ubiquitous influence of social media.”

The district court noted that Justice Kennedy, who wrote Smith v. Doe, said in last spring’s Packingham v. North Carolina decision that “the troubling fact that the law imposes severe restrictions on persons who already have served their sentence and are no longer subject to the supervision of the criminal justice system is… not an issue before the Court.” But it was in front of the Colorado district court, which said, “the evidence demonstrates that the very real restraints on Plaintiffs’ abilities to live, work, accompany their children to school, and otherwise freely live their lives are not simply a result of the crimes they committed, but of their placement on the registry and publication of their status…” Colorado’s SORA looks “far more like retribution for past offenses” than a public safety regulation, the Court said.

This decision joins similar court ruling in Alaska, Maine, Michigan, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, and Pennsylvania. Given the significance of SORNA and the state schemes, Supreme Court review within the next few years is probable.

Millard v. Rankin, Case No. 1:13-cv-02046 (D.Colo., Aug. 31, 2017)

– Thomas L. Root

------

While I myself am not a convicted sex offender, I have been publicly targeted. I have had my fair share of sexual encounters, and though mostly mundane, some of you may recall the less consensual nature of one offense in partcular; the NASA daughter.

Today I wonder why everywhere I turn there is something completely unscientific sporting a NASA logo. But perhaps it's a figment of my imagination. Incidentally, no comment from NASA on why their logo is at Old Navy. I guess it's a marketing thing...

Here we have an interesting set of circumstances. The two of us were not the same ethnicity (she's lily white, and I'm sort of tan-ish) but given the context of dance culture that isn't unusual. We weren't under the influence of any substances; maybe we were drinking... but this was in 2004, and I don't remember.

I implemented a toy. Without asking. And that's against the law.

While there were no objections, I knew that was wrong.

Later, she went to college in Hawaii, which I had suggested, for film or multimedia or something. Now she works construction for festivals; I only know this from looking for her on IG and email (years ago... before I met my fiance).

-----

Well, even if there was no verbal objection, the objection is implied by default - I needed to ask, but I didn't...

And now? Now I'm being publicly harassed. A lot. By everyone. It's not beyond me to make very visible what I interpret as happening. But when I'm tired of fighting reality, the options begin to blur. Should I hit someone? Will that drive home the point?

No. It won't.

But it would probably feel better than the blatant violation of character and credibility that is fairly consitently perpetrated.

California, I'm looking at you.

 

Decades old, my crime is still fresh... why is this still a part of life?

Salience bias.

Members of society, who I've termed the court of public opinion (which is misleading; sometimes it's an isolated individual seemingly promoting an agenda of chastity or something) seemingly provoke through symbolism and their obstinate and aggressive non-verbal posturing & communication either focal aspects of the community that they want to prominently acknowledge, or sometimes things you may otherwise forget to openly acknowledge or choose to sweep aside or relegate to your subconscious in favor of focusing on happy frivolous banter, & your personal achievements rather than your shortcomings...

Well, perhaps they can learn to instruct my psyche into upward mobility, achievement, and success.

I have chosen to move on with my life. I mean to move on and forget my transgressions. =|

There is a prevalent (in my area? locally?) cross-section of society that likes to remind you... Salience bias.

I feel like it's psychological warfare... the sort of "not so fast" attitude about the behavior of others which I am objecting to is the sort of assertion that for whatever reason the individual (or group) deems relevant (crime? transgression?) you are incapable of forming a proper conclusion.

Is there a missing part in the evaluation segment of my neuro pathways? Is it due to an imbalance in my brain chemistry that I'm moving forward without guilt? Do I need to be held to account because I'm unable to do so myself?

Or am I just moving on with my life. Is there evidence that I'm not truly moving on? Would they like to expose that little fragment of truth? That I'm harboring "sin"? or hiding something from those I purport to "love"?

 

"Please use the poll!"

I got a new job! And low and behold... something's fishy.

I began to suspect something when non-verbal communication began to dominate the day... This is a form of communication that allows its user (or abuser; you can arguably use non-verbal communication in a very positive way) to convey an attitude or discourage a behavior without saying a word...

Well, day one went well. And I'm satisfied with the pay. But this is my boss. Doing something weird without saying anything.

When we talk it's professional (because I might be wearing a wire?). Then, just as was about to leave there were words...

"XXX" came out of his mouth somehow in a pseudo-PC context... I had to laugh at that because who doesn't love a good porn innuendo at work?! (literally, I had to laugh to keep from puking). But maybe he's heard of my exploits and I've garnered enough infamy (somehow... wtf, I don't know this person).

Then some comment about "nudity". I thought that was passe, but I guess not. It wasn't in my salient memory...

Salience Bias - Biases & Heuristics | The Decision Lab

 

"So... we're anonymous, eh?"

Does the fact that no one is stopping us from looking deteriorate society? Do we have salience bias about the internet? Does that influence marketing and advertising, retail clothing, and politics of the constituent? Are we reaping only what we sow when we turn to entertainment, flip on the tube, go to a movie, search on Google?

What is stopping us from killing? stealing, raping, and murdering? Is the term "raping" more salient? or is workplace harassment? Well, the discussion is called "What does sexually violate mean", so this isn't totally about salience bias then... But it's also a poll.

The poll poses a question for the participant:

Can you violate someone's social boundaries and have it be sexual in connotation and innuendo? Or is that limited to the physical sphere?

I will try to tell you some time why this conversation is important, if I ever catch my breath.

 

I highly recommend the Tesla (model 3? I think that's what it's called. Yeah, I'm sure.)

That, and their space program is bound to be more interesting than whatever NASA is trying to sell at Old Navy...

The moon landing, the Mars rover, and all the telescopes and satellites you've never heard of. Or whatever is more salient from your point of view... These are famous accomplishments. But they don't seem to be the focus of this branding, no...

 

with or without quotation marks?

I like it with... more official*

THAT little tidbit is actually on point with where I'm going to take this...

I think this particular quote (the Decision Lab, not "Date Rape") is talking about the sound your car makes when you put in the wrong gasoline.

艺术家画笔梅花... by soulcompromise posted Jan 3, 2022 at 4:47 AM

FFXV Ignis Menu by soulcompromise posted Jan 1, 2022 at 7:02 PM

 

Penal Code 287 PC - Oral Copulation With a Minor (shouselaw.com) The penalties for PC 287 oral copulation with a minor depend on the ages of both the defendant and the “victim” at the time when the oral sex occurred.

In my arrest the age difference was 2 or 3 years. In other instances, more like 9 years (they are 33, 34, and several others, I'm 42). Is that grounds to say I'm a pedophile? I don't think I am. But you may conclude anything you want. I will stand my ground and maintain that I didn't care about their ages.​

To summarize, three months after I turned 19, I was arrested with my mistress (I had a gf, but this wasn't her...) under the influence or coming down from speed. She was 16 and would be turning 17 that next month.

The age difference wasn't dramatic, but the police charged me with sex with a minor, and this: PC 287, which is California's penal code for engaging in oral sex with someone who is under the age of consent.

It wasn't the only time I was with someone who was younger than me, and to be very direct about, I have been with women who were younger than that when I was older than that. The ages aren't important, and the statute of limitations is expired. The crimes are extinguished from recent memory and the only reason it's coming up now is because harassment continues; be it for this or other reasons, on the 101 freeway in California.

Am I making it up? Am I being paranoid? come for a ride along. Look at my GoPro. Decide for yourself. Any police I've ever tried to tell have told me to go wave the flag somewhere else.

The court of public opinion is no longer welcome in my life. I have made all the amends I'm going to make. I'm not atoning now, nor will I try to atone any more. The courtroom isn't going to charge me with anything other than reckless driving or speeding when I'm trying to illustrate for anyone in the vicinity that this treatment is unacceptable.

Should I celebrate? No. Should I live in your or anyone's shadow? Also, a resounding NO.

----
Today, I have a young fiance. Age is a factor for us; actually, much more a factor than ever it was with any of the other 4...

My fiance, who I call my wife, is a very close friend and we've known each other for 2 years; since early 2020 around April. I expect that the harassment will continue.

I saw this article about Anderson Cooper's young (22 mo.) son Wyatt, and Kelly Ripa's 20-year-old daughter and I was instantly reminded... not of PC 287, but of the difference in age between myself and my wife.

I'm ready to move on from this, but I would argue the rest of California (who ALL seem to be aware) is hanging on... Why?

I have to go. I'm not trying to push this dilemma on anyone, but rather offer my situation as food for thought, and express my frustration.

-SOulC


Here is Anderson's son with Kelly Ripa's daughter. The article I saw said they're "in love". I had to roll my eyes, but it's true love for me and my wife; despite the significant age difference. :

Anderson Cooper's Wyatt, 22 Months, Is 'In Love' With Kelly Ripa's Daughter Lola - YouTube

 

< --- This video is about schizophrenia, and it incorporates "salience" into the way we interpret and understand "schiz" disorder.

 

And sexual harassment in CA is protected (in its non-verbal form but without physically touching someone) by these laws in the PC criminal conduct legislation:
California Codes: Codes Tree - Penal Code - PEN

• Lewd Conduct – PC § 647(a)

• Criminalizes lewd or dissolute conduct in public places.
  
• While this statute typically applies to physical acts, courts may consider non-verbal gestures if they are sexually suggestive and offensive.
• Harassment – PC § 653.2 Criminalizes harassing behavior
• that a reasonable person would find seriously alarming,
• annoying, tormenting, or terrorizing.

If the gesture was intended to offend, provoke, or disturb, it could be examined under harassment statutes.Indecent Exposure Precedent –

• PC § 314
• Spoiler: Use of Windows + .

  ∑∝ & ♀♂ & ╫ & ╥ or "⊰ + ⊱ = ⊵"

Criminalizes willful exposure of genitals in a manner intended to offend or sexually gratify.
While this statute does not directly cover nonverbal gestures, it establishes legal precedent for offensive sexual conduct in public.

Sexual Misconduct & Harassment – California Criminal Law
​

CALIFORNIA LAW RECOGNIZES SEXUAL INTIMIDATION AND HARASSMENT (WHETHER IT IS AS SOCIAL COMMENTARY ABOUT MASTURBATION OR REPETITIVELY REFUSING TO STOP A BEHAVIOR THAT SOMEONE HAS EVALUATED AS TRIGGERING SEXUALLY) AS FORMS OF CRIMINAL MISCONDUCT. IF THE GESTURE WAS SEXUALLY SUGGESTIVE (INTERPRETATION BY ETIQUETTE) AND UNWANTED,

(AS DETERMINED ON A PERSONAL BASIS BY “TRIGGER” CONVERSATIONS, IN A THERAPEUTIC SETTING, MEDICALLY AS TRIGGERING A PSYCHOSOMATIC SYMPTOM, OR BY SIMPLE COMMON SENSE, AS WITH GESTURING ABOUT MASTURBATING A PHALLUS WITH YOUR INDEX FINGER AND THUMB),

IT COULD BE EXAMINED UNDER HARASSMENT PROTECTIONS!

 

What I'm not telling you though is that if I'm a cop, and our department and any interagency application I've ever seen of PC § 647(a) has been to prosecute or to cite in cases of unwanted sexual touching and/or grabbing, then it does something stupid to legal precedent (thus at the expense of legal protection?) going forward if and when I write up a non-verbal, non-physical, sexual harassment allegation. I'm not supposed to do that, and if I do, I had better be prepared to explain it to the sergeant/watch commander, etc.

If I so much as breathe, the District Attorney will rewrite the entire constitution; lawyers will use any change of its application in future cases to demonize anyone who blinks their eyes excessively as sexual harassment, in the workplace, in Canada, in a bathroom, or in the buttocks! :-\

The more appropriate charge for any totally AND COMPLETELY reasonably UNWANTED sexual innuendo or gesture (as an example, requested to be stopped) sexually themed bullshit is PC § 653.2.

Spoiler: A bunch of stingrays

(as revenge for his high school girlfriend)

PC § 314 (is this a punny pie-in-the-face or π ≈ 3.14 law?) - is not applicable to a situation of reasonably unwanted, rationally unexpected given norms and etiquette plus any training about or relating to sexual harassment by innuendo, hostile environment by gesture, or gesticulating about sex, (That would be if someone whipped out their dick and pissed in the parking lot at Trader Joe's! ),

but it provides a reference. There is a social norm for exposure-oriented matters that there is application of prudence. We expect a known behavior for this category. We know we are supposed to exhibit nothing of this sort non-verbal or otherwise. So, is non-verbal sexual anything fair game? Maybe as comic relief?

As an example, the video for onboarding an employee to a retail environment explicitly includes elements of the expectation around sexual imprudence, verbal, physical, or otherwise, and the victim from the video is there blinking their eyes (Blink Blink) after the incident left them shaken; there she stands, affected and hesitant.

The Supreme Court would likely find relevant PC § 647(a), or PC § 653.2 as for California (so be careful with the precedent as we'll use it for future reference) and cite similar laws (PC § 314 I'm looking at you) and also federal laws beyond the state (this is not only in California, but state laws differ and as we know in such cases federal law is the standard) as relevant to the issues present if only to use commonality as reference for a jury or to cite as demanding context.

 

As it pertains to sexual harassment the fourteenth amendment offers a significant basis for understanding how law may be leveraged in a criminal court because it offers substantial authority to explicitly due process and equal protection, thus representing both private actors and the public irrespective of status ailments:

Fourteenth Amendment | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

The Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution contains several notable rights and protections,

such as applying due process and equal protection to State law. Moreover, the Fourteenth amendment includes citizenship, state action, privacy rights, apportionment, disqualification for rebellion, debt, and the enforcement clause, among other rights.

The Fourteenth Amendment contains five sections in total.

Section One includes citizenship, privileges or immunities clause, due process clause, and equal protection clause.

Section Two deals with the apportionment of representatives to Congress.

Section Three forbids anyone who participates in “insurrection or rebellion” against the United States from holding federal office.

Section Four addresses federal debt and repudiates debts accrued by the Confederacy.

Section Five expressly authorizes Congress to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment “by appropriate legislation.”

The states ratified the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868 in the immediate aftermath of the American Civil War, along with the other Reconstruction Amendments, the Thirteenth and Fifteenth.

1 - The Citizenship Clause, also known as the Naturalization Clause, is contained in Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment. The clause conferred U.S. citizenship at birth to all individuals born in the United States and State citizenship to the State the individual was born in.

In Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857), the Supreme Court held that African Americans were not U.S. citizens, even if they were free. However, the Fourteenth Amendment overturned Dred Scott by guaranteeing that everyone born or naturalized in the United States and under its jurisdiction is a United States citizen. It also ensured that federal citizenship was also made primary, which meant that states could not prevent freed slaves from obtaining state citizenship and thus federal citizenship. As such, the Fourteenth Amendment effectively overturned Scott v. Sanford.

2 - Native Americans. In contrast, Elk v. Wilkins (1884), the Supreme Court held that children born to members of Native American tribes governed by local tribal governments were not automatically granted citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment. Congress, however, granted citizenship to Native Americans in 1924 when it passed the Indian Citizenship Act.

3 - State Action. The State Action Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prevents discrimination or any other violations of a person’s rights/protections by state agents or government entities, but not private actors.

In the Civil Rights Cases (1883), the Supreme Court ruled that the Civil Rights Act of 1875, which prohibited racial discrimination in public accommodations, was unconstitutional because it tried to regulate private actors.

(private actors means for instance a wedding cake with same sex figurines at the federal level protected for an individual requesting such a cake made by a business for wedding cakes or as protecting a business who does not wish to furnish the cake by principle and refuses from litigation - both or either are protected by the fourteenth amendment as private actors who may or may not be constrained by laws in a definitive way to socially engineer or indoctrinate one outcome as opposed to the preferred one. And if we have to choose? We should be cautious about precedent here.)

The Court also handled a number of cases dealing with racial discrimination by private actors. In Shelley v. Kraemer (1948), the Supreme Court held that the judicial enforcement of a private restrictive covenant that prohibited non-white occupants violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth amendment. In Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority (1961), a restaurant which leased space in a public parking garage was found to engage in racially discriminatory practices.

The Supreme Court, influenced by the fact that the garage was used for public parking, ruled that the restaurant was closely tied to the state in such a way that the discrimination could be considered state action. As such, the Supreme Court decided that the restaurant's discrimination unconstitutionally violated the Equal Protection Clause.

4 - The Equal Protection Clause refers to the fact that all persons within the United States are guaranteed equal protection under the laws of the United States. Equal Protection within the fourteenth amendment applies these protections to the individual States.

When a statute or ordinance, or other State action, discriminates against an individual or a class of individuals based on suspect

(we could not think of a different word - did we mean "Suspect"?)

classifications, the court will apply one of three levels of scrutiny to the law in question:

a. Rational Basis - This is the lowest level of scrutiny imposed.

b. Intermediate Scrutiny - This is an intermediate level of scrutiny imposed (typically used for laws which discriminate on the basis of gender, disability, or illegitimacy)

c. Strict Scrutiny - This is the highest level of scrutiny imposed (typically used for laws which discriminate on the basis of race, national origin, alienage, or religion, as well as for laws which infringe on fundamental rights)

d. Enforcement Against Private Parties - In the Civil Rights Cases (1883), the Court ruled that Congress did not have the power to legislate against discrimination by private individuals, (really?)

because Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment only applies to actions committed by a state or state agents. (Who? I always forget what we're talking about when it doesn't describe this part).\

However, if the private party (it said private actor, but ok)

discriminates (in an official capacity? how do we allege discrimination against a protected class if it isn't the official position of an entity but appears discriminatory either at an interpersonal level but as a function of a person representing a company by default of their having hired him or her?)

while engaging in public action (such as a private university which accepts federal funding)

Spoiler: affirmative action

(discriminatory application of funding is vague such that we can say that, but we then have a situation of disabling and determining and qualifying as an example affirmative action)

then that party would be subject to the Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection and due process).

In a number of cases, the Court has continued to limit state action claims against private individuals.

In Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co. (1974), the Supreme Court ruled that Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment does not apply when electric utilities stop service to customers. (Why not?)

The Court also determined in Flagg Brothers, Inc. v. Brooks (1978) that there was no Section One liability for a warehouse-workers selling stored property to make good back payments. (What?)

What are we talking about? This is the main thing: if we are providing this fairly, the same processes apply. Here we can see there are limitations to its intended scope as with Jackson vs. Metro, and Flagg Brothers, Inc. vs. Brooks.

But the point is we cite, hear, and try each person or business by means of the same processes in the executive function of law. In matters where jurisdiction makes the same application debatable, we can and do examine the due process clause in the appropriate jurisdiction, and in the correct court accordingly.

You may have previously heard, "that is a civil matter" when reporting what you determined was in breach of expectation by a company.

 

Though no cop ever has said that in the context of sexual harassment...

Unless by accident... We as cops tell people with regularity "that is in Civil jurisdiction",

and sexual harassment is protected in both jurisdictions.

You could say it is up to the interpretation of the officer, but if it's me I'll take it to the District Attorney's desk and he'll ask the Chief of Police why we aren't training on this, as a function of the 14th Amendment.

My noise cancelling headphones exhibit a wind noise and are creating noise instead of cancelling it. Since the business did not break the law (we hope), my headphones can either be replaced (did I lose the receipt?) or handled in small claims court. It is well accepted, understood, and protected, but criminal law is a different jurisdiction.

Due Process Clause - The Due Process Clause of the fourteenth amendment guarantees that states will enforce the laws of government fairly and through just procedures. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments both contain a Due Process Clause, although the Fourteenth Amendment applies explicitly to the states. The Supreme Court has interpreted the Due Process Clauses in both articles as having the same meaning. Due process is generally understood to contain two concepts:

procedural due process and substantive due process. (definitions there)