So we find Herman Cain being officially accused of sexual harassment. Some are taking Bialek's account to be that of a case of sexual assault. However; her story doesn't pass the sniff test, the hear test or most tests that you throw at it. Mind you it's not that I get any pleasure from defending Herman "Let me Upgrade ya" Cain but the "assault" angle has me disturbed and perturbed and needs to be dealt with.
Let us understand that legally assault is any physical contact that does not have consent of the touched. The key point being consent. Sexual assault is clearly assault of a sexual nature. In each case establishing consent is key to whether there is an assault or not. When we look at the events as relayed by Bialek we find that using the term assault is unfounded. Let me explain.
There is this
Simpsons episode where college Marge was infatuated with a college professor who was trying to score co-ed booty. They were in his office where he declares that he would like to hug Marge and if she was OK with that. Then he went on to verbally ask permission to kiss her. The entire scene is an example of the ridiculous lengths the "consent" argument can go. In real life consent is not always explicitly verbal but is situational and implied through actions and counter actions. For example in the movie Hitch, Hitch advises his client about the 'jingly keys" phenomenon. In effect Hitch tells his client that if a woman is standing at her door and jingling her keys then it is a delay tactic meant to signal that she wants a kiss. Never mind that she hasn't said so, Hitch's client needs to "be a man" and pucker up and move "9-10ths" of the way in.
Really.
Now think about that for a minute. Imagine that upon following this advice (or seeing this film) a man gets a woman to her door and she's jingling the keys because she has a lot of them and perhaps can't make out the right one but because he's been told that such jingling is a "universal unspoken invite" to a kiss, he leans in and goes for it. Now imagine said woman being of the mind that she doesn't want a kiss and says "whoah buster...not!" Has he assaulted her? He *thought* he had consent because he was going by what he perceived were consenting cues that it was OK. The fact is that people in the course of normal human interaction read and misread cues all the time.
So let's take this to Cain. According to Bialek, she met Cain at some company event while she was an employee of the company. If I recall correctly she said that they talked regularly for the 2 day event. She made no mention of Cain making any inappropriate remarks or doing anything 'inappropriate" at that time. Later she is fired from the company. Later while seeking employment she cold calls Cain. Herman Cain who apparently had a sexual interest in this woman seizes the moment. This is not unusual in the least bit. a former employee is fair sexual game. We're going to ignore the fact that he is married for the duration of this piece.
Let's make it clear. If a person is going to refer one for a job the only thing he or she is going to need to see is your resume. Then perhaps have a formal interview, likely at the place of future employment, perhaps a business lunch followed by a yea or nay. Keep that in mind.
Herman Cain, as far as Bialek's account goes, does not ask for a resume or anything of the like that would be required by a human resources department. He immediately invites her to DC. When she arrives in DC she finds that her hotel suite has been upgraded. This is what we call a "red flag". Once Bialek determined that it was Cain and not her "boyfriend" who had upgraded her room she should have known that Cain's interest was not professional. The upgrade was "an offer", a sexual advance. Grown women should know this and know how to act accordingly.
Next Herman Cain takes Bialek to dinner. Really? This is red flag number two in my book. Again I don't see the professional reason to have dinner with Mr. Cain. I see having a business lunch but not a dinner. This was another "sexual advance". Mr. Cain is laying out the "typical" "wine and dine..then fuck" scenario. A scenario I'm sure he's done or has seen done many many times.
At this point Ms. Bialek knowing what time it was should have done the "Oh it's getting late and I need to go." Or maybe the "Oh wow...I'm not feeling so well." Or any of the other myriad excuses that women have used for years to brush off a man who is clearly in want of "dessert".
What does Bialek do? After dinner she accepts an offer by Cain to go see the location.
Really?
Why not go there the next morning?
Right.
So Bialek says that Herman Cain, after parking some distance from said building reaches over to put his hand up her skirt while pulling her head to his crotch.
BOOOOOOLSHIT.
As a commenter on Facebook pointed out, how exactly does that work?
Now we don't know what kind of car Herman Cain was driving. Did it have bucket seats or a bench seat? Do yourself a favor and attempt to reach up a leg that is next to you with your LEFT hand while taking your RIGHT hand to push a head towards your crotch.
Not easy right?
Now try that with a center console, found in many upscale cars, between the seats.
I'll wait.
Right.
So clearly Cain could not have physically done what was described *as* described. Now he could have done a double move. That is he could have first put his hands on Bialek's leg and motioned up towards her genitals. But here's the problem: Bialek said that she said "Oh I have a boyfriend."
Really?
A man has just put his hands up your skirt and your FIRST response is "I have a boyfriend"? You had a boyfriend when your room got upgraded. You had a boyfriend when you got taken out to dinner rather than a professional lunch. Didn't seem to be a problem then.
Now that sounds foul but it is what it is, when you start taking gifts that are clearly predicated on future sexual behavior that man is going to follow through because he takes the acceptance of these things as implied consent. And yes, implied consent is a legally recognized concept. For example, when you sign on the dotted line for one of those smart electric meters you have given implied consent to have your electricity use monitored and reported to law enforcement. Driving down a public street gives the police implied consent to observe anything you do in your vehicle that is in clear view. We give implied consent all the time. THIS is why describing the events as related by Bialek as assault is incorrect.
But back to the car. Anyone who has had an affair or knows of persons who have had affairs knows the "I have a wife" and "I have a husband" comment. It is generally speaking not a "no." but a "I'm kinda conflicted but I'd like to fuck" comment. Generally speaking that kind of comment becomes "oh fuck it...". Sometimes it doesn't. In Bialek's case, it became a "no".
What did Herman Cain do when he was told no? After giving his dickhead response of "you want a job right?" he stopped. Exactly what he was supposed to do when told "no". This is a clear cut case of a man who thought he had "consent" finding out that he did not and immediately reversing course. Had Cain not been a dick by trying to get sex for a job offer, he would be THE poster child of how a man is supposed to act when he is told "no".
This is an example of honoring the "no means no" regardless of how much you spent or where you took her to eat.
But was it harassment?
From what I read, Bialek was not an employee of Mr. Cain or the company he worked for. Nor was she in the process of a formal job interview. Bialek was someone who "lucked up" on a douche of a man while seeking employment who ignored all the red flags indicating that there was only one kind of "job" being offered. Cain was not some random guy on the street who made a sly brush of her buttocks. He wasn't a random guy on the street who yelled out sexual commentary to a woman he does not know and therefore has no reason to think he has consent.
Was Cain aggressive? Certainly. Personally I operate on the hands off rule. I don't touch, hug or otherwise make contact with women who have not either first done so with me or have given me explicit invite or I have a previous understanding with. But I am very much aware that this rule does not apply to everyone. I am very aware that there are some women who like and "appreciate" an aggressive man. There are even those who deem that unless a man is aggressive he is not in fact being a man. I'm not going to judge these people. What I will say is that given these varied attitudes towards sexual aggression it is unfair to project those onto other people and then judge them by our own personal value system.
Does this mean that Cain did not assault or otherwise harass women that he worked with? Of course not. When those stories come out they should be evaluated on their own merits, but this one? Booooolshit.
Posts
