Sexual harassment, Michael, is engaging in unwanted sexual behavior toward a woman. That's groping. I recognize that Arnold's "admission" was a well crafted politically inspired response. But the need for that response, rather than simply saying he didn't do it, was quite obviously prompted by the need to say, yes, he did some of the stuff. I use "stuff" to parallel Arnold's vagueness.
Is it prosecutable? I don't know. Depends on, most likely, and I, obviously, don't know California law on this issue, all sorts of issues: willingness of women to take it to court; recency of event; whether it fits in a pattern; etc.
Will anything come of all this. I don't think there is any way to know. I think, however, it is unlikely to do so in the near future. Longer term, who knows. It's not unknown for politicians to be prosecuted on these things well after they've happened, I say with a wry smile.
I should add, Michael, that trivializing sexual harassment is not a good thing to do. Surely you know that a lot of women have experienced sexual harassment, that the effects are not pleasant to see, and the large majority don't report it. So it's far more prevalent than either of us suspect. |
