But does that mean those dudes weren't committing assault? HELL no. Does my lack of trauma mean that I'm somehow "stronger" or whatever than someone else traumatised under identical or similar circumstances? HELL THE FUCK NO.
-
-
As stated earlier, I have no trauma from these events. Each time, I was annoyed at what I perceived as a guy trying it on out of nowhere - but then, I had zero literary on what constituted assault, and had internalised a lot of bullshit about what male behaviour was as a teen.
Show this thread -
I wasn't traumatised because, at the time, it never occurred to me that I was in any real danger. I had no yardstick for thinking a laughing, sheepish dude might suddenly turn violent and coercive, and I was used to the idea that guys were inherently opportunistic.
Show this thread -
And that, here, is the key word: opportunistic. In both cases, drunk dudes saw my presence as an opportunity to have sex. They initiated touching out of nowhere & persisted past my first no "just in case", but because I was a random opportunity, they were content not to push it.
Show this thread -
I don't know when "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again" became the mantra of male sexual/romantic overtures, but to me, it's this attitude that fuels the opportunism of way too many assaults. Because in my position, another person might easily have frozen in terror.
Show this thread -
The fact that I didn't freeze doesn't make me brave or strong: it means I had one of a possible range of normal human reactions to a particular incident. And the fact that I was able to get both dudes to leave me alone doesn't mean what they did was remotely OK. It was assault.
Show this thread -
The thing about laws is that they're based on ACTIONS, not reactions TO those actions. A genial person might get robbed of their liquor and cigarettes during a break-in and not be too fussed at the loss, but what happened to them is still a crime.
Show this thread -
Likewise, a person might be hit in their childhood and grow up to have a good relationship with their parents, but the fact that it worked out okay FOR THEM doesn't mean it wasn't abuse.
Show this thread -
As part of learning how to human, kids test boundaries. You tell them to stop throwing a ball, they do smaller throws instead. Tell them to stop again, they move the ball from hand to hand. If you don't react to that, they might decide you don't mind anymore and escalate again.
Show this thread -
This sort of opportunism is part of their learning process: they're learning how to ask what "no" means by testing its boundaries. Does "stop throwing the ball" mean "stop throwing it really high inside," or "stop throwing it where I can see it?" But adults KNOW what it means.
Show this thread -
Adults, unlike little kids, are able to read context cues and are eloquent enough to ask for clarification in the event of confusion or uncertainty. Like a child, an adult might not WANT to stop throwing the metaphorical ball, but they still understand what "stop throwing" means.
Show this thread -
But when it comes to vulnerable people, a great many adults regress to that childlike, opportunistic selfishness where their own wants are deliberately put ahead of what they otherwise understand.
Show this thread -
A parent who teaches their child to say "please" and "thank you" at home might easily deny those courtesies to a service worker. A bro who reacts with hostility to being hugged or touched by relatives without warning might persistently grab at unwilling girls at parties.
Show this thread -
I've wandered away from my point a bit, but to summarise: - abuse/assault are defined by actions, not traumatic reactions - selfish opportunism fuels a lot of abuse & shitty behaviour - different people react differently, but we still need common standards for law & courtesy
Show this thread -
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.