Photographer Accuses Miguel Sano Of Assault

I realize you only linked to the article and didn't necessarily endorse it (all of it) but I'm curious about what you (or anyone) think of this snippet:

"Supporting Bissen should be easy, and right now, that’s the best we can do. But if it comes to turning against the Twins, I know that will be hard for many. But remember, if you don’t, you’re saying that powerful men can do whatever they want, and that violence against women is okay."

If you're going to be this sensational, you'd better pack a whole lot more substance to back it up than what he does (even if you read the whole article) if you want to be taken seriously. That being said, I agree with him.

I am not a huge fan of Garrison Keillor and certainly am on the opposite end of the political spectrum from Al Franken..  I do not know or particularly support the many individuals who have been publicly accused of various levels of sexual assault.  I am however; very concerned about the current practice of assuming guilt and punishing without any level of due process.  If a crime has been committed, allow the legal process to play out. If it falls short of a crime, allow the civil process to run its course. if neither of the above holds true, then trust the electoral process or pressure from advertising dollars to do their part.  My concern is that, if not already in place, there will be an instance of a woman accusing a man of a sexual assault that did not take place; who knows why, but anything from vindictiveness to financial gain to some level of notoriety could be the case.  With the pubic insistence on immediate action fueled by the current need for instant answers, that individual's life will be destroyed.

I do not know the female photographer involved, but lean towards believing her story (or at least parts of it) based on statements from those that do.  I do not know Miguel Sano, but based on many statements from those around him throughout his career, it would not surprise me if he is indeed the typical athlete suffering from extreme entitlement.  That being said, no action should be taken unless or until the appropriate processes have run their course. I have to believe that the Twins front office, managerial staff, and players know Sano's character very well. If he is the jerk that is displayed in this story, not only will his time in MN be short lived, but so will his career.

Those accused of such actions certainly have the right to step out of their public positions if they wish to avoid the public outcry; but if they wish to continue in their role, they should not be forced out until whatever process involved runs its course. 

As of now, friends of the photographer should support her and leave the conviction and punishment to others. 

Until then, these pages should be focused on Miguel Sano's leg healing, controlling his weight, cutting down on his strikeouts, and finding a defensive role that he can handle.

I am however; very concerned about the current practice of assuming guilt and punishing without any level of due process.  If a crime has been committed, allow the legal process to play out. If it falls short of a crime, allow the civil process to run its course. if neither of the above holds true, then trust the electoral process or pressure from advertising dollars to do their part. 

 

That being said, no action should be taken unless or until the appropriate processes have run their course. I have to believe that the Twins front office, managerial staff, and players know Sano's character very well. If he is the jerk that is displayed in this story, not only will his time in MN be short lived, but so will his career.

 

Those accused of such actions certainly have the right to step out of their public positions if they wish to avoid the public outcry; but if they wish to continue in their role, they should not be forced out until whatever process involved runs its course. 

 

What this thread and others like it are about is individuals (and twins daily members collectively) reacting to the news of allegations against Miguel Sano. We are not responsible for his due process. I am allowed to pass whatever judgement I want in my own mind against any other person or organization. 

I will allow the legal and civil processes to play out; I can do nothing to disallow them. What of the electoral process? What of advertising dollars? So they are. I will respond to this news in a way that I can. I will say what I think. I will direct my attention, appreciation, and money where I choose. I will even dare to suggest what I think it might be best for other individuals or organizations to do. I am both capable of and limited to these types of actions. Legal, civil, electoral, and advertising actions are beyond my control. It is within my control to add my voice to those who might pressure bodies who are more directly influential. In this case, that would be the Twins and MLB. I would add that because of how serious this case is and because of the Twins and MLB's precedence for responding inappropriately to similar incidents, it is especially important for those of us who care to voice our opinion as strongly as we are, if not even more strongly. 

Why do you trust the Twins to handle this appropriately? Hosken Bombo Disco quoted from an article linked to by another user which lays a pretty good case against the Twins ability to handle the present situation appropriately without pressure from fans/consumers. 

Why? Because it's not harassing? Or because it's not sexual?

It isn't "harassing".  It is rude and obnoxious.  It is uncalled for.  But it isn't "harassment".  

It isn't "harassing".  It is rude and obnoxious.  It is uncalled for.  But it isn't "harassment".

 

Harassment is usually done repeatedly, but it doesn't have to be. Here's the definition per a dictionary: "uninvited and unwelcome verbal or physical behavior of a sexual nature."

It is all the things you say, but it's also sexual harassment.

But it is. Yell that to your coworker in an office and you're going to get nailed for sexual harassment. And it does not have to be done in the workplace or to a coworker for it to still apply.

Harassment is usually done repeatedly, but it doesn't have to be. Here's the definition per a dictionary: "uninvited and unwelcome verbal or physical behavior of a sexual nature."

It is all the things you say, but it's also sexual harassment.

The fact that you can be fired from your job for saying that has nothing to do with sexual harassment and everything to do with employment by will.  The actual "crime" or probably more accurately tort of sexual harassment is a much more defined issue.  If you tried to sue a coworker because they asked you to "show your *****", once, you would lose even if you had 100% proof.

In our most historically famous sexual harassment suit, if all of the evidence that Paula Jones had was Clinton took her up to a hotel room and dropped his trow, she would have lost.  That was why Bill Clinton's perjury about Monica Lewinsky and other women was not jsut a matter of "sex".  Jones needed that evidence to demonstrate sexual harassment.  And even if she could have gotten the evidence of those issues, she still had a weak case because she had little evidence that her career was impacted.

The fact that you can be fired from your job for saying that has nothing to do with sexual harassment and everything to do with employment by will. The actual "crime" or probably more accurately tort of sexual harassment is a much more defined issue. If you tried to sue a coworker because they asked you to "show your *****", once, you would lose even if you had 100% proof.

 

In our most historically famous sexual harassment suit, if all of the evidence that Paula Jones had was Clinton took her up to a hotel room and dropped his trow, she would have lost. That was why Bill Clinton's perjury about Monica Lewinsky and other women was not jsut a matter of "sex". Jones needed that evidence to demonstrate sexual harassment. And even if she could have gotten the evidence of those issues, she still had a weak case because she had little evidence that her career was impacted.

Asking someone to do something of a sexual nature (showing them something that's treated as a sexual body part), is and always will be sexual harassment if it is not wanted. I do not know of another way to explain that more plain and simple than that. The definition of sexual harassment couldn't be any more clear.

I hope that there are fewer people in the world who think it's okay to say something like that, because of these women who have come forward. It has never been okay to do it. It's been normalized and it needs to stop now.

I guess you're just never going to understand even with the official definition of sexual harassment, which the example you used completely falls under.

Asking someone to do something of a sexual nature (showing them something that's treated as a sexual body part), is and always will be sexual harassment if it is not wanted. I do not know of another way to explain that more plain and simple than that. The definition of sexual harassment couldn't be any more clear.

I hope that there are fewer people in the world who think it's okay to say something like that, because of these women who have come forward. It has never been okay to do it. It's been normalized and it needs to stop now.

The problem with your attitude is in your conclusion.  I never said it was OKAY in any shape or form.  The problem is that it isn't true sexual harrassment.  It is rude and boorish behavior, it is something I would certainly fire an employee over, but that is all it is.  

The problem with your attitude is in your conclusion.  I never said it was OKAY in any shape or form.  The problem is that it isn't true sexual harrassment.  It is rude and boorish behavior, it is something I would certainly fire an employee over, but that is all it is.

 

My only problem is your disagreement that it's not sexual harassment. "uninvited and unwelcome verbal or physical behavior of a sexual nature."

That request is uninvited. That request is unwelcome. That request is verbal. That request is of a sexual nature. I don't know how it can be seen in any other way. It perfectly fits the definition.

There are people confused about what harassment is and that's a huge part of the problem. Then the other part is the people who know it's wrong and do it anyway.

Never said that you were okay with it. You chose to take it that way.

My only problem is your disagreement that it's not sexual harassment. "uninvited and unwelcome verbal or physical behavior of a sexual nature."

That request is uninvited. That request is unwelcome. That request is verbal. That request is of a sexual nature. I don't know how it can be seen in any other way. It perfectly fits the definition.

There are people confused about what harassment is and that's a huge part of the problem. Then the other part is the people who know it's wrong and do it anyway.

A couple of things here:

1) You're using a dictionary definition.  Dictionaries are not law, we don't dole out punishments based on what it says in dictionaries. 

2) If that's really the definition that people are going to use, then it's unsurprising that there would be confusion about what sexual harassment is because it's so broad that, read literally, it could encompass virtually any flirtation or advance that is not met with reciprocal interest.   

A couple of things here:

 

1) You're using a dictionary definition. Dictionaries are not law, we don't dole out punishments based on what it says in dictionaries.

 

2) If that's really the definition that people are going to use, then it's unsurprising that there would be confusion about what sexual harassment is because it's so broad that, read literally, it could encompass virtually any flirtation or advance that is not met with reciprocal interest.

 

And no, that is another problem. Do not confuse flirting with sexual harassment. Going up to a woman and asking her out in a normal non-sexual way does not equal walking up to a woman and asking her to show her body parts to you. That is not flirting. That is being creepy and also possibly scares a woman because if you're going to do that, what else are you going to do? Are you going to keep going at her? Are you going to grab her? (Don't mean you specifically, just a person).

Again, this is the problem. People think flirting equals "I'm going to get hit with sexual harassment for just saying hello" and no one has ever said that or implied that. It's simple, don't walk up to a man or woman and say anything sexual. The recipient is not a sex object they are a human being. There is a difference between that and flirting. If the difference between the two is not known, then no wonder women are so scared of men. There's always a right way and a wrong way to speak to another person and no one is going to be hit with a sexual harassment claim for saying non-sexual things. It's that simple.

If any person is unable to walk up to a stranger and have a normal, flirtatious conversation and not say anything sexual than that just shows the sad state our society is in.

i never mentioned the law in this. I'm mentioning what the person who receives this comment is going to take it as, especially if that person is a woman. They did not ask for someone to come up to them and say those words and those words are sexual in nature. If they choose to pursue it further than that, it may proceed legally or it may not. And if it doesn't, that does not mean that it wasn't sexual harassment. Even if you can't convict for it, it's still sexual harassment. For the longest time, no one did anything legally about revenge porn. That doesn't mean that it was okay to do five years ago and now is not. It was always very bad. Not just rude or whatever minor "sweep it under the rug" words. I don't know what category to put something like revenge porn under, but again, just because people didn't do anything about it before doesn't mean it's not some form of an issue...I just personally don't know what to file it under as it's not verbal or literal physical action on someone's actual body.

And no, that is another problem. Do not confuse flirting with sexual harassment. Going up to a woman and asking her out in a normal non-sexual way does not equal walking up to a woman and asking her to show her body parts to you. That is not flirting. That is being creepy and also possibly scares a woman because if you're going to do that, what else are you going to do? Are you going to keep going at her? Are you going to grab her? (Don't mean you specifically, just a person).

Again, this is the problem. People think flirting equals "I'm going to get hit with sexual harassment for just saying hello" and no one has ever said that or implied that. It's simple, don't walk up to a man or woman and say anything sexual. The recipient is not a sex object they are a human being. There is a difference between that and flirting. If the difference between the two is not known, then no wonder women are so scared of men. There's always a right way and a wrong way to speak to another person and no one is going to be hit with a sexual harassment claim for saying non-sexual things. It's that simple.

If any person is unable to walk up to a stranger and have a normal, flirtatious conversation and not say anything sexual than that just shows the sad state our society is in.

We can all recognize the difference between obviously innocuous conduct (walking up to a woman and saying hello) and obviously disgusting conduct (walking up to a woman and asking her to disrobe).

But it's always easy to see the extremes, it's the spectrum between the two that's problematic. 

My comment, again, was on your definition, which I don't believe even attempts to distinguish harassment from flirting.   You can claim that anyone should be able to see the difference, but definitions are important.   They get written into policies and laws, and are the basis for adjudication of complaints.

Suppose a college had a sexual harassment policy that incorporated your definition, which has 3 elements:

1) verbal or physical behavior, that is

2) uninvited and unwelcome, and is 

3) of a sexual nature

Prior to any consensual sexual encounter, there has to be an expression of sexual interest of some form, yes?  Under this definition, any such expression where the interest is not shared by the recipient would qualify as sexual harassment because all 3 requirements are satisfied.

You can try to wave that away by saying nobody would ever bring a frivolous complaint, but the approach of creating an overly broad definition of something, then just trusting that it will be reasonably applied and not abused has been tried many times in many contexts before.  It never works.

We can all recognize the difference between obviously innocuous conduct (walking up to a woman and saying hello) and obviously disgusting conduct (walking up to a woman and asking her to disrobe).

 

But it's always easy to see the extremes, it's the spectrum between the two that's problematic. 

 

My comment, again, was on your definition, which I don't believe even attempts to distinguish harassment from flirting.   You can claim that anyone should be able to see the difference, but definitions are important.   They get written into policies and laws, and are the basis for adjudication of complaints.

 

Suppose a college had a sexual harassment policy that incorporated your definition, which has 3 elements:

 

1) verbal or physical behavior, that is

2) uninvited and unwelcome, and is 

3) of a sexual nature

 

Prior to any consensual sexual encounter, there has to be an expression of sexual interest of some form, yes?  Under this definition, any such expression where the interest is not shared by the recipient would qualify as sexual harassment because all 3 requirements are satisfied.

 

You can try to wave that away by saying nobody would ever bring a frivolous complaint, but the approach of creating an overly broad definition of something, then just trusting that it will be reasonably applied and not abused has been tried many times in many contexts before.  It never works.

And yes, there has to be a way to express it...it's called verbal consent. Some colleges have gone as far as offering a written consent form. I think it's pretty easy to spot if a woman is interested in you or if she wants you to get away from her. You have to know where that line is and don't cross it.

Personally, I'd also avoid anything that could possibly be on the fence, like these in betweens that may exist. There are a million ways to flirt without being sexual at all. The majority of women respond to confidence and intelligence. Both can be done without making sexual comments to a stranger. If you're unsure, don't do or say whatever you're going to do/say. It's very simple.

I would suggest people, especially men, read these me too stories. These women are telling us what they no longer are willing to put up with. They are telling us where the lines are. A lot of these lines were already known, but they were crossed anyway.

Here's a good article about sexual harassment vs flirting:

https://www.bustle.com/p/flirting-sexual-harassment-are-two-entirely-different-things-women-know-that-do-men-6746759

The title of the article is flirting and sexual harassment are two entirely different things. Women know that--Do men?

In my personal opinion, there is no gray area regarding flirting and sexual harassment. More and more women are no longer afraid to speak up. It's time to listen to them and change ways. If the difference is not known, it's time to do some studying and stop any bad behavior.

id like an example of what you would think is the in-between. You can private message me if you're worried about someone taking issue with the comment.

And yes, there has to be a way to express it...it's called verbal consent. Some colleges have gone as far as offering a written consent form. I think it's pretty easy to spot if a woman is interested in you or if she wants you to get away from her. You have to know where that line is and don't cross it.

Personally, I'd also avoid anything that could possibly be on the fence, like these in betweens that may exist. There are a million ways to flirt without being sexual at all. The majority of women respond to confidence and intelligence. Both can be done without making sexual comments to a stranger. If you're unsure, don't do or say whatever you're going to do/say. It's very simple.

I would suggest people, especially men, read these me too stories. These women are telling us what they no longer are willing to put up with. They are telling us where the lines are. A lot of these lines were already known, but they were crossed anyway.

Here's a good article about sexual harassment vs flirting:
https://www.bustle.com/p/flirting-sexual-harassment-are-two-entirely-different-things-women-know-that-do-men-6746759

The title of the article is flirting and sexual harassment are two entirely different things. Women know that--Do men?

In my personal opinion, there is no gray area regarding flirting and sexual harassment. More and more women are no longer afraid to speak up. It's time to listen to them and change ways. If the difference is not known, it's time to do some studying and stop any bad behavior.

I think we're talking about 2 different things here.  You're talking about what should be considered "OK" in a general sense.  But I'm talking about it in a more disciplinary context.  Being found guilty of sexual harassment can get you fired from your job or kicked out of school.  So in that context, it's important to have a clear definition of what constitutes "sexual harassment", it's not enough to do what you and the article you cited are doing and say it's just something  where everyone should instinctively understand where the line is and not cross it.

They gray areas I'm referring to are  those where we would probably say that a guy was clumsy or misguided in making an advance and should have proceeded differently, or not at all.  But his behavior was not so bad as to require official consequences.  For example an issue of mixed signals where a guy mistakes a woman's friendliness for romantic interest and makes an advance that is rejected.  (Your repeated claims these matters are 'easy' and 'simple' notwithstanding, this is something that happens with  some regularity.)    Maybe it's fair to say that he was dense and should have read the situation better, but should he lose his job or his scholarship over it?  Unless he persisted after rejection, that seems draconian to me.  But it would fit your definition, so he would.

A few other things:

1) Consent cannot be obtained unless requested.  My point was that under your broad definition, any request for consent that is rejected would qualify as sexual harassment.  You seem to be saying that you shouldn't even ask unless you know the answer is going to be 'yes', but that just isn't realistic.  You can't really know until you ask, hence the requirement that you ask.

2) Women are individuals.  They do not all act and think the same way.   So the broad, sweeping generalizations about what women know and do are not particularly helpful. 

3) You keep bringing up interactions with "strangers".  That doesn't seem relevant to me because sexual harassment is largely a workplace issue, and co-workers, generally speaking, are not strangers.  There are different norms and expectations  for when you're interacting with someone you've never seen in your life vs. someone you know.   Making an off-color joke to a friend is quite different from making one to someone you've just met.

Has there been any me too stories where a guy says something like "do you want to have sex?" to a woman just once and he's hit with a sexual harassment claim? I know I haven't seen any. I'm sure it happens on a rare occasion, but too rare to worry about it.

It just feels like we're trying to make men seem dumber than they actually are. Like they are now unable to even talk because everything is wrong. Which no one is even saying or implying. I still think there is a very clear difference. And asking the other person for consent is not part of flirting. That goes over the flirting line. If the interest is mutual, she will not cry sexual harassment. People aren't going to, and haven't been, crying sexual harassment over one consent question.

If a person is worried about getting hit with that claim then don't say whatever they're going to say. Have some self control. If the person can't do that then maybe it is better that they don't talk to women at all because knowing how to interact with people is an important skill everyone should have. Knowing what to say and not to say to the opposite sex should be known as a teenager. We shouldn't have all these men walking around without a clue.

And sure interacting with coworkers is different than interacting with strangers. Personally I would never flirt with any coworker. That's the easiest place to get fired. You're both their to work. Shouldn't happen. The risk is on those people who do it. Still applies if you go out after with them outside the workplace. Why risk the job? Makes no sense.

And just because someone is your friend, doesn't mean they will take it well. I have plenty of friends who would never allow the off color jokes. All of them actually. I know that because I know them. Know how to read people. It sounds simple because it is. We need to stop making men/women more dumb than they actually are. You mentioned another good point. Men mistaking a woman's friendliness for something more. Happens all the time. Good to assume that just because she is nice to you does not equal consent. Lots of men don't get that. They expect something out of it.

There's a thing called dating. Do that several times and get to know a person before making advances. 95% of women aren't going to cry sexual harassment by being asked one consent question, especially if you are in a dating relationship. And flirting with someone, friend or stranger, is not going to get you hit with sexual harassment. These boundaries need to be understood starting now and those who don't follow them have to now be careful because as I said, women aren't going to put up with our bs anymore. And they should not have ever had to.

I make it sound so simple because it is so simple. People aren't out there claiming sexual harassment about one consent question. This is not a problem and we need to stop making it seem like it is. It makes a mockery of this movement and of women.

In actuality, consent cannot be given one day and taken back the next because of regret. That never falls under sexual harassment/assault/rape. People get dinged with it because the other person has some kind of problem. And usually the kind of people who do those things are easy to spot beforehand unless you don't know the person well enough.

Don't put yourself in those situations. Make video consent recordings if you have to. Do whatever it takes. I'm half black, so I'm well aware of all the bullcrap that gets done to us. I can't go into a store and not be followed the entire time. I get pulled over for no reason. That doesn't mean the majority of white people are bad. I don't think cops or whites are out to get me.

Protect yourself and don't do/say things that will get you in to trouble and you'll never have to worry about getting slapped with false claims. Not every woman is out to get us for no reason. The vast majority aren't.

And I also think it's worth keeping in mind as we discuss sexual harassment and assault, that we don't blur the lines between someone who is just masquerading as an awkward schmuck just to get away with it, that someone isn't just saying, 'Hey, I'm only joking' to get away with it, to 'Hey, that's just how guys are, it's human nature,' to get away with it to 'Hey, lighten up, no harm, right?' to get away with it. I could go on and on and on with examples. Where is the line, then? Where do we draw it between appropriate and not? I'm not trying to be the 'lone bitch' here, but I'm tired of these excuses that get us no where fast but into a dead end. There is a LOT of re-educating people that needs to happen, both men AND women. Cat calling, rudeness, 'awkward' pick up lines, no only means maybe ... are all examples of sexual harassment and potentially lead to far worse. I'm not saying that each and every one of these deserves or warrants any kind of criminal response, but maybe, just maybe, if way long ago in grammar school or middle school or even high school, boys weren't told they were just being boys and girls were told not to take it as such, and they learned how to be respectful of one another, and stand up to wrong doing, there'd really be no questions here.

Back to the topic, I believe Betsy, without hesitation. Because I know. I know. I know her fear, I know her hesitation, her trepidation, her uncertainty. Who will believe me? Did I do something to encourage this? Was I at fault? Some behavior has become so normalized some don’t even know any more that it is harassment or that they have been harassed, and that they have no recourse, or that because worse didn’t happen, it’s not so bad. I don't think this situation is about Sano being awkward, or not knowing her intent, or anything. I'm not going to go so far as to 'kick him to the curb' because I do believe in second chances, I do believe in re-education, I do believe in challenging and changing behavior. And the decisions of what's to be done lies with someone else. Will I cheer for him? Likely not, we'll see if in time there is a change. But I hope it's a wake up call to a lot of people. I hope the teams come down hard on these things going forward and do what they can to change attitudes. Because these 'gray area' events are not acceptable. Not ever.

FWIW, some behavioral research on children shows that the 'machismo' type of behavior among young boys can start as early as 4-5, with reactions towards their mothers and sisters. Some gentle education needs to start way before entry into the educational system, per se.

I rather prefer the idea of the social setting of the bonobo, our other closest genetic relative.

 

I'd venture to say that a whole lot of different types of behavior have manifested themselves by that age.

 

The saying "in order to reform a man, you must begin with his grandfather^*" comes to mind in this situation as well.

 

* _{Actually the attribution I found to Victor Hugo used the word "grandmother", but that sounds a little too pointed in this context.}

In bonobo society that (Hugo's) would be a true statement.