Shades Of Sexual Misconduct
Researchers in the field of biological classification (taxonomists) are sometimes referred to as either “splitters” or “lumpers” depending on whether they prefer many groups of species with narrow inclusion criteria for each group or whether they like lesser numbers of groups, each with wider criterion for group inclusion.
In general, I would classify myself as a “lumper”, as, in my opinion, the less groups one has to memorize, the better. HOWEVER, contemporary American society appears to be faced with a situation in which some “splitting” is direly needed. The “lumping” situation I’m referring to is the ever widening category called “sexual misconduct”.
In today’s America, the term “sexual misconduct” can apply to everything from violent rape to the casual remark: “You look great in that dress.” Now it’s true that this wide spectrum can arguably be CALLED “sexual misconduct” semantically, because all of it pertains to something sexual and all of it can be considered a type of misconduct. The problem, however, is that in today’s America, perpetrators ANYWHERE on the spectrum get lumped together, and, as a consequence, may be subject to societiy’s maximum wrath. They may face societal opprobrium, civil law suits, career ending dismissals, criminal prosecutions, and more. The trouble is, that in cases of sexual misconduct, one size does NOT FIT ALL. Some thoughts on this matter:
1) A (sexual) proposition is NOT “sexual misconduct”. It is a REQUEST. The woman (or man, in the case of a homosexual proposition) is asked for sexual favors. She or he can say “yes”, “no”, or “I’ll think about it.” Only if and when a “no” is ignored and a woman’s refusal is not respected does it becomes misconduct. The proposition may be presumptuous, embarrassing, or ill advised, but it isn’t misconduct, per se. If, however, there is a veiled threat attached to the propisition, or if it comes with implied quid pro quo, that’s a different matter. So a distinction should be made between one time “propositioners” that make no threats and apply no coercion versus chronic offenders and those that threaten or coerce.
2) In most cases, statements like “You look great in that dress”, should NOT be considered sexual misconduct. I suspect that the majority of such comments are perceived as “appreciative” or flattering, and are welcomed by the recipient. If, however, a woman, for what ever reason, doesn’t feel comfortable with the remark and says so, it behooves the man to cease and desist. If he does not, one could appropriately claim “sexual misconduct”. Once again, a distinction should be made between a well meaning compliment and continued unwanted efforts to enlist an unwilling sexual partner.
3) In regard to sexual intercourse, it’s clear that a woman’s right to refuse, at ANY point, and for ANY reason, MUST be respected. However, a distinction should be made between “date rape” where a hopeful male may, with charm, cocktails, voluntary (NOT hidden) drug use or even with just extraordinary persistence, coaxes an ambivalent woman into something she’s not 100% “on board with”, versus an assailant in the park who drags a woman into the woods for a violent rape. Both are clearly sexual misconduct, but the severity of the latter dwarfs the former, and the two should NOT be lumped together. A distinction MUST be drawn between ardent persuasion and violent attack.
In conclusion, I would argue that in regard to the topic of “sexual misconduct”, some “splitting” is in order. The nature of the “misconduct” in the examples above, can be very different from case to case, and, as a consequence, they should NOT be lumped together. Classical philosophers would say that by discerning the nuances discussed above, we would be correcting what is traditionally recognized as a common epistemological error: “a difference without a distinction”.