This is a good discussion about the concept of "sexual harassment" by @hilzoy.bsky.social and @kevinmkruse.bsky.social. I want to add one point, though:
In the context of sexual abuse, language is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition. Victims often are reluctant to use labels that exist. 1/
This is something that's hard to grasp in retrospect. I was sexually harassed as an undergrad, by which I mean things from a prof grabbing my breast at a party to another asking me to spend the summer with him. I was repulsed by this, but *we had no concept of 'sexual harassment at the time.*
For example, E. Jean Carroll avoided calling Trump's attack on her "rape." That word is culturally charged and many people who have been sexually assaulted do not want to think of themselves as "rape victims." The same is often true with victims of sexual harassment. 2/
There isn't a consensus for why many people are averse to saying they were "raped," "sexually assaulted," or "sexually harassed." Yet, it is well a well-documented phenomenon in surveys and interviews. Sometimes, victims even use exculpatory language such as "boys being boys" rather than "rape." 3/
This often presents a problem in the legal system where lawyers and jurors expect victims to use certain "magic words." And I think that's a reason why the jury in the Carroll case returned not responsible for "rape" but not "sexual assault." 4/
There is no easy answer to this problem. But, for certain, the blame should not lay with the victims. The simple fact is that the US public is uncomfortable talking about sexual abuse. Even when adequate language exists, there is a reluctance to use it. And, there is reluctance to punish it. /end
I think some of the resistance is a dominant narrative that rape or sexual assault is the “worst thing” that could happen. What capable person wants to be told they are supposed to be ruined for life. (And I don’t think it’s true)
