Y. The Issue Is Deep
When it comes to sexual harassment, there are deep and difficult social and psychological complexities that are, now, not being generally considered. For instance, according to reliable social science, many if not most women have rape fantasies. (This is not, in any way, shape, or form to trivialize or to excuse rape, which can be such a calamitous crime that the Bible deems it a capital offense; and, I, the author, wholly respect Biblical standards.)
There are theories why women have such disturbing sexual thoughts. One is that woman with sexual hang-ups can, via the fantasy of rape, achieve sexual fulfillment due to their being able, in their minds, to maintain an innocence about their sexual involvement due to their being, in a rape, forced.
Additionally, I speculate that rape fantasies could be related to self-esteem (if this same theory has been elsewhere espoused, please, let me know so that I can give credit). After all, if a man, risking it all, loses his sanity to the point of animalistic rape, such an object of attention—that is, the woman—must be very desirable.
When it’s love, if it’s not rough, it isn’t fun.
With that stated, and in the manner of being careful about what you wish for (that is, recognizing the power of positive thought), women with rape fantasies surely send out clues, subconscious perhaps, about their mental interior to men in the environment. Therefore, should these factors be considered when analyzing cases of sexual harassment? And, are the women with such fantasies the same ones who are less likely to scream?
Of course, and again, all the previous is not to say that sexual abuse and harassment of women is not awful. It is awful. However, women (and men) in the workplace, who have been told that equality is the only way to go, do not seem to understand that there are sometimes vast differences between women and men to the degree that all-out equality between the two, for reasons described, cannot be fair! Rather—and while men and women are equal in that both sexes need to breathe oxygen and to eat food—men and women are of a sufficiently paired design so that such a complementary-but-not-always-equal nature must be reflected in law so to be fair to everyone.
Years ago, I was the de facto rabbi of the leftist, protest movement, Occupy Wall Street (OWS). [For those interested in social-science history: there, I was, due to heading OWS’s Principles of Solidarity group, the single person in charge of distilling all the movement’s list of demands. However, OWS never publicly published such a list because I was eventually forced to leave the crusade due to an unacceptable level of violence among enough Occupiers. (The New York Post falsely reported that I suddenly quit for another reason.)] Once, during our time of protestor, when we were camped out at Manhattan’s Zuccotti Park, I got into a debate with a fellow Occupier, who was a loud, female, down-with-the-patriarchy ultra-feminist. However, even this woman I reached with the following approach:
Women need more space to urinate. Therefore, it is unjust if separate toilets for males and females do not take this innate, species-wide consideration into their building designs. Consequently, to be fair, governmental laws should require that women’s toilets be allocated more space or more stalls so that both males and females could be served equally.
To conclude by returning to my friend Marina (although, to be honest about her forthcoming summary of these last, four segments, the paragraphs about Biblical jealousy rules, the penis’ delicacy, Saint Paul’s comments, a woman’s obligation to scream, why some Western women may want to defect to “ISIS,” Marilyn Monroe, and rape fantasies were not in the draft sent to her):
“AHA. The importance of EQUITY so that all can be served EQUALLY. This, to me, is the most successful theme that you convey in this excellent piece. (YES—I liked it quite a bit even though I argued with it a lot! HA! You see, we are of the same mind in that we agree: FAIR behavior/treatment is not always EQUAL.”)