Sorry for another post, but I have been thinking about this kind of stuff ever since the shooting in Santa Barbara California.
There are a lot of guys out there who are very sexually frustrated and lonely and it makes them do some awkward and at times morally questionable shizznit. I'm sure every dude on this forum knows somebody like this. I'm sure that many girls are lonely and sexually frustrated and whatever, but its different because with guys your ability to get girls is seen as linked with your masculinity and your entire identity. The chastity of women is valued by society much more than that of men, while guys are judged by their ability to "pull ladies". Thesebare double standards and all that, but thats a totally different conversation.
So when a guy has a "dry spell" it can get depressing for that person. I've had friends who have struggled hard in finding a girl and they tend to get really down on themselves to the point where it becomes a vicious cycle and self defeating. I can see people acting out of frustration when it comes to that, and they can do things they normally would not imagine themselves doing. It seems this guy is the same way.
The thing is, I'm sure if he had better "luck" with the laaaayyydies he'd act a lot differently, and I'm sure he's very depressed. So I do feel kinda bad for him. However just because you are feeling down does not entitle you cop a feel. Just because you are sad and frustrated doesn't mean you can go around touching people against their will and thinking that the world (or women) somehow owe you something because you are down on your luck. Wrong is wrong.
The fact that he is frustrated is an explanation of why he did what he did. That is very different from an excuse.
So to clear this up with Archaos again, it's only emotionally damaging if they tell you to stop and you continue. It's NOT emotionally damaging right from the start. So like, you get a free pass on the first grope, yeah? Sure, that places the woman in a position where anyone can basically touch her however they want until she tells them otherwise, but that's not uncomfortable or upsetting for her at all. Right?
It's not an assault, unless he persisted. Is it wrong? If I don't like it, yes. Then it is wrong. If I like it. Not it's not wrong.
That's my point. That if they enjoyed it, then it's NOT wrong. If you were touched, by a girl or even another guy (if you were bisexual or gay), would you consider it a sexual assault and wrong?
Depending on the attractiveness and the personality of each person, it could be either fun and enjoyable or bad and unenjoyable.
In this case, the girl found it enjoyable. Since two people find it enjoyable, is it still wrong? That's what I'm trying to say.
No, they don't get a free first pass. I'm saying that the way it turned out, it wasn't wrong. Not that the first grope is alright.
So to clear this up with Archaos again, it's only emotionally damaging if they tell you to stop and you continue. It's NOT emotionally damaging right from the start. So like, you get a free pass on the first grope, yeah? Sure, that places the woman in a position where anyone can basically touch her however they want until she tells them otherwise, but that's not uncomfortable or upsetting for her at all. Right?
Honestly, this is very case by case, and very much depends on the build up. When I first put my arm around my now-girlfriend I didn't exactly have her sign a permission slip. It built up little by little with more familiarity. And that is just us, I have seen many people get closer more quickly in bar or club environments without so much as sharing a word.
Granted it is very hard to imagine a situation comparable to the above two occurring in a crowded bus between these two people. But hey... you never know.
It's not an assault, unless he persisted. Is it wrong? If I don't like it, yes. Then it is wrong. If I like it. Not it's not wrong.
If it's a stranger and you don't have permission, you can't know if they'll like it or not until you do it. That's what makes it wrong, because you're disregarding their agency over their own body. You are saying "Sure, this person probably won't like being felt up by a complete stranger on the bus, but screw it. I'm horny."
You can stop the assault at any given time, but you can't ever take back the first few seconds or minutes of the assault. Just because a girl says "No," and you stop doesn't mean you get off scott-free.
That's like... Say you decide to touch the butt of a woman you've never met. She freaks out and tells you to stop, and you do. But that doesn't make the initial touch magically go away. You still groped a woman in public, you still touched her when she did not give consent. You still did something wrong. You just didn't do something as horrible as you could have.
What's important here is to make sure the first mistake--touching a person in public inappropriately without consent, and without asking for consent either--never happens in the first place.
I think there is a communication problem going on. People like myself who live in the States would use the term "assault" in this case without hesitation, but the connotation can be very different for someone who does not speak English as a first language. I'd imagine people can view that word as describing something along the lines of battery or rape. I suspect that is what @Archaos (who is not form an English-speaking country) imagines when he hears the term "assault". From what I gather he is saying it is "wrong", which is describing whether or not something is moral or immoral, while seeing "assault" as measuring the magnitude of a wrongdoing. Its like "hot" vs saying something is "boiling" or "smoldering".
Eh, that wasn't what I meant actually. I'm not saying that an assault is not wrong. It is, by all means. I'm saying that it might be wrong but in this case, it wasn't a sexual assault in the strictest sense. It would be wrong if he persisted and was being forceful. That is definitely wrong.
Let's get back to square one. He touched a girl, she liked it. Is it wrong now?
Not generally groping people. Not sexually assaulting them without any doubt.
Was this specific case wrong?
I would agree that generally touching strangers is wrong. But. If I am touched by a girl, is it wrong? If I like it because she's attractive?
Does the act itself turn from wrong to not wrong for guys and girls?
I'm kind of trying to analyze it and get to the root of it.
Is the act itself wrong, or is the perception of each person that makes it so?
For example, some consider sex before marriage to be wrong. Is it wrong itself, though?
@booinyoureyes That might be true, though I think my English is quite good. Sure, some people would consider even touching to be an "assault".
But that's like saying that being tapped on the cheek counts as a slap. It's not an appropriate word and it's too extreme for mild cases.
What it could most likely be described as, is a sexual harassment, not a sexual assault.
Without any permission whatsoever. Which is wrong. That is the end of the story. What happened afterwards does not matter. He disregarded her agency and took what he wanted, to hell with how she might feel afterwards. Her enjoying it was a lucky break. It does not justify him doing it in the first place.
Also, is it emotionally damaging or isn't it? Make your mind up.
@Glam_Vrock It's wrong and she enjoyed it. So it's still wrong even though both liked it and noone was hurt in any way? It's a wrong act that later became a not so wrong act, then?
That's what I'm trying to say.
An example: Stealing is wrong. Stealing and giving it to the poor, is still wrong? Killing is wrong. Killing to survive from starvation or to defend yourself, is it still wrong? Understand where I'm going with it?
It was a Chaotic act but it was not an Evil act. It was not a Good act either. I define wrong as Evil, in DnD terms.
It was inappropriate, creepy and impolite but it was not malevolent or benevolent.
That's where we disagree, I think, on the definition of right and wrong.
Others consider anything that isn't Lawful Good to be absolutely wrong.
@Archaos@Glam_Vrock its not wrong if it's consensual. That's the same as getting picked up in a bar or whatever, and going home. If they want to go at it like Romeo and Juliet, that's their thing. What happened here, though, when it comes to consensuallity, is a grey area. Was her lack of response consent, tolerance, or fear? She didn't say no, but she(as far as we know) didn't say yes either. It quite the grey area. The only way to really resolve that issue is to talk to the woman, and I don't see that happening.
I thought this was a great twist. I did not expect that poll. I did not expect my answer either. I want more like this. @Demonoid_Limewire, your answers were pretty well done.
It's wrong and she enjoyed it. So it's still wrong even though both liked it and noone was hurt in any way?
The fact that nobody was hurt was PURE LUCK. Again, he displayed a total disregard for the other person's agency. At that point, he has done something wrong. What happens afterwards is irrelevant.
Stealing is wrong. Stealing and giving it to the poor, is still wrong?
Giving to the poor is good. Stealing is not. Two separate acts.
Even if they weren't, this is a completely different situation anyway. In this case, you're doing something wrong knowing that something good will come of it. You do not know that when you grope a stranger on the bus.
@meagloth From what the OP described, it seemed like she enjoyed it, making it consensual. She did lean towards him and she did seem disappointed after what happened. That doesn't strike me as tolerance or fear.
It strikes me as "I wasn't expecting that and it's weird but I like it". So how do you judge that? Right or wrong? That's the complex part.
@Glam_Vrock It was an analogy and an example in DnD terms to explain my point. I don't base my morality on the DnD alignment. Again, don't put words in my mouth.
Name-calling and insults only make your points less solid.
It strikes me as "I wasn't expecting that and it's weird but I like it". So how do you judge that? Right or wrong? That's the complex part.
I honestly think you're overcomplexing a not-so-complex situation.
I agree a lot with @Glam_Vrock. If the girl gave her consent after the fact, then cool, good for them, but it still shouldn't have happened in the first place. He disregarded a total stranger's privacy for his own gain. Imagine how many times he might have done this with women who weren't okay with his advances? Even if they said no, and he didn't persist, he still touched her without asking, and he can't take that back.
But like @meagloth said, it's tough because we really don't know. We don't know for certain if he asked her first or what she was really thinking at the time (we're not mindreaders). We're basing these opinions off of a second account. It's impossible to play the morality game with a definite yes or no based on such little, perhaps bias, evidence. It's the uncertainty at play that makes this needlessly complex, not the act itself. We can all agree that groping women on the bus without asking is wrong (or at least, I'd like to hope so).
So how do you judge that? Right or wrong? That's the complex part.
No. No, it's not. There is nothing complex about it. If you do something wrong, you are not retroactively justified when there just happen to be no negative consequences.
@Glam_Vrock It was an analogy and an example in DnD terms to explain my point. I don't base my morality on the DnD alignment. Again, don't put words in my mouth.
You literally just said you define wrong as evil in D&D terms. D&D is a fantasy swordy dungeon game. How did I put words in your mouth?
Nevermind. I grew tired of this argument. I could go on but it's getting late here and I really cannot think straight or have the courage for it.
My point all along, was that while it was wrong in general as an act, nothing bad came out of it in this specific case. Noone was forced or hurt. And since it was consensual, even after the act, it didn't demand someone to stop them.
Yes, doing it on random strangers left and right is wrong and he shouldn't be doing it and I would personally try to stop him, like I said, if I saw that the girl was not comfortable. I'm not taking his side.
But, after she apparently liked it I would be "Meh, they both like it. Who am I to judge or stop them." Just like if I saw some people having sex in an alley or something.
Though apparently the other girl didn't realize that hence her actions.
@Glam_Vrock And the whole wrong=evil thing is probably a bad example. What I meant was that "wrong" is so generic as a description that anything could be made to be wrong and I tried to narrow it down to something more clear and specific by using DnD terms.
I'm not basing my morality on the absolute, black and white alignment system of DnD.
You know, I am of two minds about this. First off, as to the comparison of "groping someone on the bus" versus "groping someone on the dance floor". At least if you are dancing with someone, you have asked their permission to dance- they can say "no". Walking up behind someone on the bus and just touching them out of the blue is not even in the same category. You are touching them without asking permission. There is no way that these things are even close to the same. There is also a difference between touching someone by accident (and saying, "Oops" or "sorry!" or whatever) and deliberately deciding to grope/touch someone without their permission.
Secondly, yes a woman groping a man on the bus is just as bad as a man groping a woman in the same situation. If it happens, it's an assault, and it's not right from either direction.
Third, as a woman, I probably have a different opinion on this than some men. Okay, as a woman, you always have to be scared, because people have ideas about sexual molestation and rape. It's never "OMG, this happened and this is horrible!" Rape and sexual molestation is the one crime that people excuse on *what the victim is/was wearing*. The "she was asking for it", and "She should be grateful" (if the victim was unattractive/old/fat/whatever) and "He couldn't control himself" (which brings down ALL men- do you really want women to think men are hormonal beasts who become slavering monsters they see a sexy/beautiful woman and just *have* to rape her/have sex with her/somehow sexually assault her simply because she is there and tempting him? Women as well as men inhale these attitudes as they live in our society. Women hope that the men we interact with aren't going to take it into their heads to pull off and assault us if we happen to be out on a date with them or to rape us- its a fear most women live with- is this guy we're with a really good guy to is he is just conning us until he can get us into a position where we are vulnerable? Because if something does happen and we get raped, and we were dressed nice to go out, we're going to be the ones to be blamed. "She was out with him and dressed like that, what did she think was going to happen?" Not the man, we get the blame. If we have sex, we're sluts, if we refuse to have sex, we're frigid bitches, and if we refuse to have sex after the man took us out and spent money on us, we are "teases" (I'll let you figure out what word/words are usually put in front of that one.) Many men think that women owe them sex if they are nice to us or compliment us. But the thing is, that women can tell when you are being nice just to get sex. We're not the vending machine into which you put "niceness coins" and sex with us comes out the other end. Women are people, too, and they can make choices as to who they interact with.
Men no more want a woman they don't like/aren't attracted to coming up to them on the bus and groping their package than women want men they aren't attracted to coming up to them on a bus and touching or groping them unasked for. It's not right, no matter who is doing it, and while it's sad for this guy, he stepped over the line to assault (it doesn't have to be violent for it to be considered an assault). Yes, men being sexually assaulted in this way is sometimes used as comedy fodder, but I don't think it's funny, either. (Keep in mind, it's seen as funny because it is so contrary to reality- it's generally women who this happens to, not men, so the turnaround should somehow seem "fish out of water" amusing. But it's not.) This "background", where women get groped, raped and assaulted, and basically are viewed as prizes to be won and walking sex objects to be had, is why women are going to have a diametrically opposed view of this stuff.
You say that the woman appeared to enjoy it. Maybe she was just afraid and didn't want to say anything. Maybe the sigh after the other woman said something was one of relief- now she didn't *have* to say anything. After all, if she really did like it, she could have spoken up when the other woman did to tell the other woman that she was enjoying it. But… she didn't. Just because the first women didn't speak up or say something doesn't mean she was enjoying it. She may have been too shy or didn't want to make a scene. Her slumping forward may have been an "Oh, no, not again, why do these men keep doing this to me" kind of motion/reaction. It's true, we don't know. And short of time travel and mind reading (to go back and see what she was really thinking), we will never know. But keep in mind, silence is not consent. Just because someone doesn't say something doesn't mean they approve or even want what is happening to them. Because getting assaulted like that is disorienting and frightening. "Is this really happening? Please make it stop! I can't say anything because if I make a scene he'll hurt me…" is something that may have been going through her mind. Me, if someone groped me, I'd probably freeze because of the "I can't believe this is happening" reaction, then lash out with an elbow when that reaction wore off. But that's just me. And I have been assaulted/groped. As a child when the drunken father of a kid I was looking after grabbed my breasts as he was putting his daughter on my back for a piggy-back ride. It was shocking and the "I can't believe this is happening" kicked in full force. But there was no way to lash back- this guy was much bigger and stronger than I, and I had the sense that he would have liked to overpower me if I even tried. And so I did nothing. That experience still lives in me and shapes some of my reactions to this day.
Many men think that women owe them sex if they are nice to us or compliment us. But the thing is, that women can tell when you are being nice just to get sex. We're not the vending machine into which you put "niceness coins" and sex with us comes out the other end. Women are people, too, and they can make choices as to who they interact with.
@booinyoureyes Thanks. I didn't want to go off and be all rantypants, because this really did incite a strong reaction in me. Women in our society have to tamp down on how we really feel because we are expected to be nice and play nice- even if we don't feel that way. Especially women in service professions, like a waitress or bartender. I once got trapped in my car by a patron at the library who *LIKED* me and followed me out there when I just wanted to go home and eat dinner, and he wouldn't let me go. He loomed over me and just admired me in a particularly passive-aggressive way and it was extremely uncomfortable for me. As I read in a post from a woman who gives a class on equality in college, she starts out the class asking men and women, "What preparations do you take every day so that you aren't put in a position to be raped?" Men almost never have to think about this. Women do.
Sorry, I'm drifting off into rantypants territory again. Suffice to say, this is an issue close to my heart.
Sorry, I'm drifting off into rantypants territory again. Suffice to say, this is an issue close to my heart.
I'm glad you were rantypants. You voiced everything that I--and many others--feel about issues like this and more, in better words than I could have ever mustered. *beaming admiration, hope that's not awkward* ^_^
I think people are missing out on one huge factor here, it's PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION. This isn't a bar or anything like that, it's a bus or a train. Now some people here need to take public transportation to be able to get to work, school or other important things. It's a vital part of their life that they experience several times a day.
That guy was lucky as hell that she enjoyed it, what if she hadn't? What if that woman had actually gotten frightened and didn't dare to speak up? So many bad things could have happened. She might grow to fear being in situations like that, a 'small' thing like that for the offender could traumatize the victim, causing problems for her in the future.
So what does happen when that poor girl needs to get to work the next day? She still has to get onto that public transportation because it's a part of her life at the moment, wake up, jump onto the bus and get to work. So she'll have to force herself to get onto the bus and will probably end up suffering the entire ride, because some idiot couldn't understand what is morally wrong and right.
You chose to go to a pub or other places where you're very intimate with strangers, you don't chose to use the public transportation, some people have to.
@elminster my definition of unsavory is rather broad and more or less consists of people who annoy me in some way or other (intentionally or otherwise). It includes people who use headphones/earphones yet still play their crappy music loud enough for the rest of the world to hear. Extremely common. Headphones/earphones were invented so only the user had to listen to crappy music you know...
My brother once told me that he rode a bus with a guy eating a can of fancy feast (cat food).
This argument has dipped a bit into the issue of consent, and comparisons have been made with bars and dancefloors. This sort of issue is usually covered by implied consent rather than explicit verbal or written consent. Ouside of horny teenagers I can't actually see someone asking "can I touch your boob?", and if you're opting for written consent then you're likely a pro-sportsperson afraid of a honeypot.
Let's use the dancefloor example. Two people are dancing together, but may not necessarily have spoken. If one person moves a bit closer and the other person smiles and seems to appreciate it, this could be interpreted as implied consent to, say, place a hand in the small of their back (It's an example of normal folks here, not Handsy McGroperson). It's a stepwise thing based on body language, and consent can be revoked at any point. It could lead any number of places from the above example, but the principle of implied consent is the same.
The difference in the OP's example is that this: a) Took place on a public bus, rather than a bar which is something of a liminal zone - certain behaviours, such as being approached by strangers with the intention of flirting, are more expected and tolerated in bars. b) Unless there was some prior communication between them the guy could not have had either explicit or implied consent for what he did before he did it. Fondling someone in public is not inherently wrong, but doing it without implied permission *before the fact* is. Being in a relationship might give you the implied permission, depending on the relationship, but could still be revoked at any time. Plus, feeling up your significant other on public transport is not exactly a sauve or courteous move.
I'm no Lawful Good type, but irrespective of her response, this type of thing is not okay with me. Having been subjected to physical harassment, (from classmates, bosses, coworkers, and others), too many times to count in my life, it's not okay with me to go around touching strangers. I find it disrespectful and inexcusable. But I suppose personal experience colors my opinion. Edit: But I don't think he should suffer, just stop doing it, before he runs into more serious consequences.
Comments
There are a lot of guys out there who are very sexually frustrated and lonely and it makes them do some awkward and at times morally questionable shizznit. I'm sure every dude on this forum knows somebody like this. I'm sure that many girls are lonely and sexually frustrated and whatever, but its different because with guys your ability to get girls is seen as linked with your masculinity and your entire identity. The chastity of women is valued by society much more than that of men, while guys are judged by their ability to "pull ladies". Thesebare double standards and all that, but thats a totally different conversation.
So when a guy has a "dry spell" it can get depressing for that person. I've had friends who have struggled hard in finding a girl and they tend to get really down on themselves to the point where it becomes a vicious cycle and self defeating. I can see people acting out of frustration when it comes to that, and they can do things they normally would not imagine themselves doing. It seems this guy is the same way.
The thing is, I'm sure if he had better "luck" with the laaaayyydies he'd act a lot differently, and I'm sure he's very depressed. So I do feel kinda bad for him. However just because you are feeling down does not entitle you cop a feel. Just because you are sad and frustrated doesn't mean you can go around touching people against their will and thinking that the world (or women) somehow owe you something because you are down on your luck. Wrong is wrong.
The fact that he is frustrated is an explanation of why he did what he did. That is very different from an excuse.
"Wrong" and "assault" are two different things.
It's not an assault, unless he persisted.
Is it wrong? If I don't like it, yes. Then it is wrong.
If I like it. Not it's not wrong.
That's my point. That if they enjoyed it, then it's NOT wrong.
If you were touched, by a girl or even another guy (if you were bisexual or gay), would you consider it a sexual assault and wrong?
Depending on the attractiveness and the personality of each person, it could be either fun and enjoyable or bad and unenjoyable.
In this case, the girl found it enjoyable. Since two people find it enjoyable, is it still wrong?
That's what I'm trying to say.
No, they don't get a free first pass. I'm saying that the way it turned out, it wasn't wrong.
Not that the first grope is alright.
Granted it is very hard to imagine a situation comparable to the above two occurring in a crowded bus between these two people. But hey... you never know.
To assault a person is considered wrong.
You can stop the assault at any given time, but you can't ever take back the first few seconds or minutes of the assault. Just because a girl says "No," and you stop doesn't mean you get off scott-free.
That's like... Say you decide to touch the butt of a woman you've never met. She freaks out and tells you to stop, and you do. But that doesn't make the initial touch magically go away. You still groped a woman in public, you still touched her when she did not give consent. You still did something wrong. You just didn't do something as horrible as you could have.
What's important here is to make sure the first mistake--touching a person in public inappropriately without consent, and without asking for consent either--never happens in the first place.
I suspect that is what @Archaos (who is not form an English-speaking country) imagines when he hears the term "assault". From what I gather he is saying it is "wrong", which is describing whether or not something is moral or immoral, while seeing "assault" as measuring the magnitude of a wrongdoing.
Its like "hot" vs saying something is "boiling" or "smoldering".
Eh, that wasn't what I meant actually. I'm not saying that an assault is not wrong. It is, by all means.
I'm saying that it might be wrong but in this case, it wasn't a sexual assault in the strictest sense.
It would be wrong if he persisted and was being forceful. That is definitely wrong.
Let's get back to square one.
He touched a girl, she liked it. Is it wrong now?
Not generally groping people. Not sexually assaulting them without any doubt.
Was this specific case wrong?
I would agree that generally touching strangers is wrong. But.
If I am touched by a girl, is it wrong?
If I like it because she's attractive?
Does the act itself turn from wrong to not wrong for guys and girls?
I'm kind of trying to analyze it and get to the root of it.
Is the act itself wrong, or is the perception of each person that makes it so?
For example, some consider sex before marriage to be wrong.
Is it wrong itself, though?
@booinyoureyes
That might be true, though I think my English is quite good.
Sure, some people would consider even touching to be an "assault".
But that's like saying that being tapped on the cheek counts as a slap.
It's not an appropriate word and it's too extreme for mild cases.
What it could most likely be described as, is a sexual harassment, not a sexual assault.
Also, is it emotionally damaging or isn't it? Make your mind up.
It's wrong and she enjoyed it. So it's still wrong even though both liked it and noone was hurt in any way?
It's a wrong act that later became a not so wrong act, then?
That's what I'm trying to say.
An example:
Stealing is wrong. Stealing and giving it to the poor, is still wrong?
Killing is wrong. Killing to survive from starvation or to defend yourself, is it still wrong?
Understand where I'm going with it?
It was a Chaotic act but it was not an Evil act. It was not a Good act either.
I define wrong as Evil, in DnD terms.
It was inappropriate, creepy and impolite but it was not malevolent or benevolent.
That's where we disagree, I think, on the definition of right and wrong.
Others consider anything that isn't Lawful Good to be absolutely wrong.
Even if they weren't, this is a completely different situation anyway. In this case, you're doing something wrong knowing that something good will come of it. You do not know that when you grope a stranger on the bus. This is just a thought but maybe you shouldn't define real life morality based on a fantasy swordy dungeon game. And consent needs to happen beforehand, not after the fact.
That doesn't strike me as tolerance or fear.
It strikes me as "I wasn't expecting that and it's weird but I like it".
So how do you judge that? Right or wrong? That's the complex part.
@Glam_Vrock It was an analogy and an example in DnD terms to explain my point. I don't base my morality on the DnD alignment. Again, don't put words in my mouth.
Name-calling and insults only make your points less solid.
I agree a lot with @Glam_Vrock. If the girl gave her consent after the fact, then cool, good for them, but it still shouldn't have happened in the first place. He disregarded a total stranger's privacy for his own gain. Imagine how many times he might have done this with women who weren't okay with his advances? Even if they said no, and he didn't persist, he still touched her without asking, and he can't take that back.
But like @meagloth said, it's tough because we really don't know. We don't know for certain if he asked her first or what she was really thinking at the time (we're not mindreaders). We're basing these opinions off of a second account. It's impossible to play the morality game with a definite yes or no based on such little, perhaps bias, evidence. It's the uncertainty at play that makes this needlessly complex, not the act itself. We can all agree that groping women on the bus without asking is wrong (or at least, I'd like to hope so).
My point all along, was that while it was wrong in general as an act, nothing bad came out of it in this specific case.
Noone was forced or hurt. And since it was consensual, even after the act, it didn't demand someone to stop them.
Yes, doing it on random strangers left and right is wrong and he shouldn't be doing it and I would personally try to stop him, like I said, if I saw that the girl was not comfortable.
I'm not taking his side.
But, after she apparently liked it I would be "Meh, they both like it. Who am I to judge or stop them."
Just like if I saw some people having sex in an alley or something.
Though apparently the other girl didn't realize that hence her actions.
@Glam_Vrock And the whole wrong=evil thing is probably a bad example.
What I meant was that "wrong" is so generic as a description that anything could be made to be wrong and I tried to narrow it down to something more clear and specific by using DnD terms.
I'm not basing my morality on the absolute, black and white alignment system of DnD.
Secondly, yes a woman groping a man on the bus is just as bad as a man groping a woman in the same situation. If it happens, it's an assault, and it's not right from either direction.
Third, as a woman, I probably have a different opinion on this than some men. Okay, as a woman, you always have to be scared, because people have ideas about sexual molestation and rape. It's never "OMG, this happened and this is horrible!" Rape and sexual molestation is the one crime that people excuse on *what the victim is/was wearing*. The "she was asking for it", and "She should be grateful" (if the victim was unattractive/old/fat/whatever) and "He couldn't control himself" (which brings down ALL men- do you really want women to think men are hormonal beasts who become slavering monsters they see a sexy/beautiful woman and just *have* to rape her/have sex with her/somehow sexually assault her simply because she is there and tempting him? Women as well as men inhale these attitudes as they live in our society. Women hope that the men we interact with aren't going to take it into their heads to pull off and assault us if we happen to be out on a date with them or to rape us- its a fear most women live with- is this guy we're with a really good guy to is he is just conning us until he can get us into a position where we are vulnerable? Because if something does happen and we get raped, and we were dressed nice to go out, we're going to be the ones to be blamed. "She was out with him and dressed like that, what did she think was going to happen?" Not the man, we get the blame. If we have sex, we're sluts, if we refuse to have sex, we're frigid bitches, and if we refuse to have sex after the man took us out and spent money on us, we are "teases" (I'll let you figure out what word/words are usually put in front of that one.) Many men think that women owe them sex if they are nice to us or compliment us. But the thing is, that women can tell when you are being nice just to get sex. We're not the vending machine into which you put "niceness coins" and sex with us comes out the other end. Women are people, too, and they can make choices as to who they interact with.
Men no more want a woman they don't like/aren't attracted to coming up to them on the bus and groping their package than women want men they aren't attracted to coming up to them on a bus and touching or groping them unasked for. It's not right, no matter who is doing it, and while it's sad for this guy, he stepped over the line to assault (it doesn't have to be violent for it to be considered an assault). Yes, men being sexually assaulted in this way is sometimes used as comedy fodder, but I don't think it's funny, either. (Keep in mind, it's seen as funny because it is so contrary to reality- it's generally women who this happens to, not men, so the turnaround should somehow seem "fish out of water" amusing. But it's not.) This "background", where women get groped, raped and assaulted, and basically are viewed as prizes to be won and walking sex objects to be had, is why women are going to have a diametrically opposed view of this stuff.
You say that the woman appeared to enjoy it. Maybe she was just afraid and didn't want to say anything. Maybe the sigh after the other woman said something was one of relief- now she didn't *have* to say anything. After all, if she really did like it, she could have spoken up when the other woman did to tell the other woman that she was enjoying it. But… she didn't. Just because the first women didn't speak up or say something doesn't mean she was enjoying it. She may have been too shy or didn't want to make a scene. Her slumping forward may have been an "Oh, no, not again, why do these men keep doing this to me" kind of motion/reaction. It's true, we don't know. And short of time travel and mind reading (to go back and see what she was really thinking), we will never know. But keep in mind, silence is not consent. Just because someone doesn't say something doesn't mean they approve or even want what is happening to them. Because getting assaulted like that is disorienting and frightening. "Is this really happening? Please make it stop! I can't say anything because if I make a scene he'll hurt me…" is something that may have been going through her mind. Me, if someone groped me, I'd probably freeze because of the "I can't believe this is happening" reaction, then lash out with an elbow when that reaction wore off. But that's just me. And I have been assaulted/groped. As a child when the drunken father of a kid I was looking after grabbed my breasts as he was putting his daughter on my back for a piggy-back ride. It was shocking and the "I can't believe this is happening" kicked in full force. But there was no way to lash back- this guy was much bigger and stronger than I, and I had the sense that he would have liked to overpower me if I even tried. And so I did nothing. That experience still lives in me and shapes some of my reactions to this day.
Sorry, I'm drifting off into rantypants territory again. Suffice to say, this is an issue close to my heart.
*mashes Like button*
That guy was lucky as hell that she enjoyed it, what if she hadn't? What if that woman had actually gotten frightened and didn't dare to speak up? So many bad things could have happened. She might grow to fear being in situations like that, a 'small' thing like that for the offender could traumatize the victim, causing problems for her in the future.
So what does happen when that poor girl needs to get to work the next day? She still has to get onto that public transportation because it's a part of her life at the moment, wake up, jump onto the bus and get to work. So she'll have to force herself to get onto the bus and will probably end up suffering the entire ride, because some idiot couldn't understand what is morally wrong and right.
You chose to go to a pub or other places where you're very intimate with strangers, you don't chose to use the public transportation, some people have to.
This situation could have been so much worse.
By the way, I voted like this just because I wanted to see the results.
My brother once told me that he rode a bus with a guy eating a can of fancy feast (cat food).
I better quit this rant before it gets serious.
Let's use the dancefloor example. Two people are dancing together, but may not necessarily have spoken. If one person moves a bit closer and the other person smiles and seems to appreciate it, this could be interpreted as implied consent to, say, place a hand in the small of their back (It's an example of normal folks here, not Handsy McGroperson). It's a stepwise thing based on body language, and consent can be revoked at any point. It could lead any number of places from the above example, but the principle of implied consent is the same.
The difference in the OP's example is that this:
a) Took place on a public bus, rather than a bar which is something of a liminal zone - certain behaviours, such as being approached by strangers with the intention of flirting, are more expected and tolerated in bars.
b) Unless there was some prior communication between them the guy could not have had either explicit or implied consent for what he did before he did it. Fondling someone in public is not inherently wrong, but doing it without implied permission *before the fact* is. Being in a relationship might give you the implied permission, depending on the relationship, but could still be revoked at any time. Plus, feeling up your significant other on public transport is not exactly a sauve or courteous move.
Edit: But I don't think he should suffer, just stop doing it, before he runs into more serious consequences.