“Lapses in judgment”?
I have no way of knowing how valid or invalid the sexual assault allegations against Rep. Eric Swalwell may be, but his admission that he’s not perfect and may be responsible for errors of judgement indicates at the very least that Swalwell is a randy fellow who may have grappled with impulse control on certain boozy occasions.
It’s very, very hard to believe that a major Democratic legislator of Swalwell’s stature, a guy who’s inescapably attuned to the continuing power of the #MeToo movement and therefore knows how quickly and easily the professional life of a potential assaulter can be destroyed by accusers at the drop of a hat…it’s very hard to believe that Swalwell would be stupid enough to behave like a coarse Hungarian rapist.
It seems possible that the alleged liberties that Swalwell may have taken with his four female accusers were uncool but not strictly “criminal”, certainly not in a classic pre-#MeToo sense.
Forgive me for sounding like Ronald Colman‘s Professor Lightcap in The Talk of the Town, but back in the old days “sexual assault” literally involved physical assault and brute attempts to physically overpower a victim. That’s not the deal these days. Today’s definitions are much broader. A dude can almost be accused of sexual assault if he says “hey, Sandy, whassup?” to a woman who’s not interested. Because the guy may be subsequently accused of allegedly taunting the woman in a such a way that could be called assaultive…rudely coming on to her in a verbally odious sense….psychological abuse.
It sounds as if Swalwell may have behaved more or less like JFK did in the early ’60s with Fiddle (Priscilla Wear) and Faddle (Jill Cowen) and Mimi Alford and all the others.
Many Washington legislators who’ve had affairs and girlfriends on the side (i.e., guys like Gary Hart) have probably said to themselves “JFK did this and got away with it so why can’t I?”
Modern definitions of “sexual assault” have broadened significantly in legal, academic, and social contexts, shifting from a model centered on physical force and resistance to one based on the absence of affirmative consent. Critics often describe these expanded, “liberal” definitions as “Yes Means Yes” standards, which they argue create an overly broad, “grey area” of criminalization.
Key aspects often cited as examples of these expanded definitions include:
“Affirmative Consent” (“Yes Means Yes”): This standard requires an active, conscious, and voluntary agreement at every stage of sexual activity, rather than the traditional “no means no” approach.
Elimination of Physical Resistance: Modern definitions often remove the requirement that a victim must physically resist to prove non-consensual sexual contact or intercourse.
Incapacity Due to Intoxication: Sexual activity with a person who is drunk or impaired is often defined as assault, because they are incapable of giving consent, even if they did not resist or initially seemed willing.
Non-Contact Sexual Abuse: Definitions have broadened to include non-physical acts, such as sharing intimate photos without consent, non-consensual sexting, and voyeurism.
Continuous Consent: Consent must be given for each act throughout an encounter; an initial “yes” does not imply a “yes” to all subsequent activities.
Coercion via Power Dynamics: Some definitions extend to situations where consent is obtained through psychological manipulation or abuse of authority, rather than direct physical threat.
Any way you slice it, Swalwell is finished.