A Bridge Too Far

First let me clearly state that any unwanted sexual activity is unacceptable and immoral. It is despicable behavior that should be eradicated from all areas of human endeavor. But I think in the current era of #Metoo, we have gone too far in defining exactly what is and isn’t assault.

Last Sunday morning I saw a CBS News interview with 87 year old actress, Angie Dickinson. In response to a question about the #MeToo movement - she said she was unhappy about it. Surprised by that answer, the reporter asked why? Ms. Dickinson replied that a man opening his robe in front of a woman is not assault. 

I agree that it is sick behavior. It might even be shocking to a woman who witnesses it.  But people that do that kind of thing have a mental disorder called exhibitionism. They need psychotherapy. But I agree with Ms. Dickinson. They have not really assaulted anyone.

That being said, I agree with the #MeToo goal of having a zero tolerance policy for any inappropriate sexual behavior. No matter how innocuous. But shouldn’t we look at each case individually and evaluate the severity of the offense? Should every type of offender be treated the same way and shunned for life? Is exposing oneself - for example - the same as rape? Not in my book. The former requires therapy and should kept private... and the latter deserves public exposure and prison time!

What about verbal assault? How far do we go with that? Is commenting on how beautiful a co-worker is a verbal assault? What about complimenting how she dresses? What about telling her how sexy she looks? What about asking a fellow female employee if she wants to join him for dinner? More than once? Is that harassment?

What about touching a co-worker? Leaving aside Halachic issues, does an unexpected but innocuous touch mean a woman was assaulted? What kind of touch crosses the line? What about an unexpected but platonic hug? What about a pat on the behind? 

Where does one draw the line? The truth is that it might be hard to draw a line between what is inappropriate or even sick behavior but relatively harmless - and behavior that crosses the line into physical or mental harm. But I believe that in a just society we ought to try and find that line and draw it.I do not believe we are anywhere near that in the current climate of #MeToo.

It seems to me that a culture like ours that extols the virtue of sexual freedom and its attendant permissiveness  has generated a lot of this type of behavior. Behavior that was once taboo is now considered normal male-female interaction. Until it isn't anymore. Which brings me back to Duke and to re-ask: What exactly did those 48% of female undergrads define as assault?  And why was there a spike in that number since 2016?

One answer might be that because of #Metoo - what used to be the common practice of victims not reporting assault - is today more freely reported. But I would argue that in addition to that, #MeToo has redefined what sexual assault is to include any inappropriate behavior  no matter how minor it is. So that what was once simply shrugged off is now seen as an assault. Again, I’m not saying any of it is appropriate. But I don’t think it is assault either.

A non-threatening verbal comment should not be considered assault. Telling a woman that she looks beautiful – or even sexy is not assault unless it is followed up with unwanted physical activity. Furthermore, even an unwanted pat on the rear - inappropriate though it is - is not the same thing as rape or even sexual assault.

I think we ought to take another look at what is and isn’t assault and focus on real predators like Larry Nasser, Bill Cosby, Harvey Weinstein, and R Kelly. Or on child abusers that have ruined the lives of their victims. Not on innocuous exhibitionists like Charlie Rose for example. He needs therapy. Not public ridicule. They should not be treated the same way. People like Rose need not have been publicly exposed (no pun intended); their reputations ruined; and suffer ridicule and public disgust for the rest of their lives. They should get the therapy they need and be left alone.

And another thing. In part because of #MeToo, the media has become overly obsessed with exposing inappropriate sexual behavior no matter how innocuous it might otherwise be. Especially if is by a prominent individual. Case in point: 77 year old widower and New England Patriots owner, Robert Kraft. 

He has apparently been caught paying money for sex. It is all over the media. True - the women involved might be victims of sex traffickers. But why is that his fault? He probably had no idea about that. Why should a lonely 77 year old man like Kraft be exposed that way? The sex was consensual. Why is it anyone’s business what this man does in his private life? 

Was it illegal? Sure. I suppose it was if he is being charged with solicitation. But considering how widespread prostitution is… which is practically ignored by law enforcement, why should this man now suffer the indignities he will no doubt suffer for the rest of his life for a private consensual act of sex?  I do not condone his behavior. But why is this front page news? Why should this man’s reputation now be ruined?

Just to be absolutely clear. I am not talking about Halacha. That is an entirely different subject. Judaism has its own standard of sexual conduct that need not always apply to secular society. Again, inappropriate sexual conduct is never OK. But at the same time I think Ms. Dickinson is right. We have gone a bridge too far in reacting to it as if it were all the same.