...I return to the reported case about the two undergrads this morning. It concerns the charge of outrage of modesty. I return to it because yesterday I didn’t share about what chivalry and modesty mean in a world we are living in.
This time, after Lee, 24, presented his evidence, the DPP Andre Chong had a chance to cross-examine him.
Andre asked Lee what to him amounts to consent; more specifically, whose responsibility is it to make it clear about consent?
Andre asked: “If I wanted to do something to you, but I didn’t get your consent, does it mean that it’s your job to say no?” Well, for context, that something one wants to do is sexual in nature, that is, a form of foreplay, which may lead to sexual intercourse or not.
Andre is asking Lee what if he were in her shoe, “is it his job to say no?”
Lee responded: “Yes, it would be my job to say no.” In other words, regardless of getting her consent in the first place, the other party in this case ought to have made it clear that her no means no. The onus is thus on her to leave no doubt about her objection to go further.
“When asked if he thought the only way to be certain someone consents is to ask the person, Lee said it depended on the place, environment and setting.” And I take that to mean that if the context is about an act of foreplay, mutuality is implied, and what is implied is evident in the other party’s non-resistance.
Well, that may be true to some extent. For we all get involved in foreplay for many reasons. Lust, curiosity, escapism, to please the other party, and so on. Consent also comes in many shades, like strong yes, weak yes, not too sure but ok I guess, maybe not but see how, I think this is far enough can stop?, and so on.
Lee then said: “Throughout the whole time, I thought it was mutual (and) there was consent between both parties.” Lee then “repeatedly attributed this to the “mood and environment” between them during the early hours of Jan 8, 2019.””
Yet, there came a point when she did say no. That was not disputed by Lee. Andre said: “When she finally came to her senses (after a nap), she said “stop””.
Lee however felt that it was not a stop to stop what he was doing. He did not register it as a stop it altogether. I believe in his driven state, he took that as part of the vernacular of foreplay to egg him on, like a kind of role-play, and not to put a brake to one’s sexual momentum.
He in fact admitted to saying to her, “a while more”. That was after she said “stop”. And for 10 seconds, he rubbed his exposed private part on her chest.
What is curious is that Andre asked Lee to mimic how she said stop. Lee replied: “There is no way I can replicate that tone because...I am not her and I am not in that environment now.”
“When asked what she could have said to him to stop, Lee said: “If she shouted “stop”, or (since) her hands were free (and) she pushed me hard...It’s just at that point in time, her “stop” didn’t mean “stop””.
Andre then said: “The truth is, Mr Lee, there is nothing (she) could have said to get you to stop.” Lee disagreed.
Lesson? Yes, I will leave the evidence to the judge. But I am intrigued by the way Lee thinks. I wonder, is this what people caught in the act thinks as well?
They say when you play with lust, you play with fire. Marriages are broken because of it. Families are torn apart because of it. Unwanted pregnancies that perpetuate a vicious cycle of vulnerable children being left to fend for themselves without proper upbringing is a result of it. Lust when it takes over fully destroys lives.
While the law in the case will address the issue not strictly from a moral point of view, I felt that when it comes to sex, especially for the young ones, it is ultimately about an education with a strong moral component. In other words, it is about chivalry and modesty, and again, this reflection has NOTHING to do with the case.
And beyond respect for another (chivalry), it is also about respect for oneself (modesty).
When I wrote about the case yesterday, some commented that such thing takes two to clap. You don’t get in a situation like that (or as Lee puts it - “place, environment and setting”) without first being allowed to do so in some form of implied consent.
In our culture, forplay and fornication are not criminal, if they are mutual. Both parties (consenting adults) are free to engage in it without fear of being prosecuted. But, that’s not my point. My point is about chivalry and modesty and I believe they work together to keep our society and individuals from falling apart.
A chivalrous man will know when and where is the right time and place to conduct himself. He will also know how to conduct himself, that is, when to stop, and most importantly, why. Likewise, a lady of modesty will also know how to protect and guard herself, when to do so, and yes, that all important, why. And lust is always kept within a tight lease by a man of chivalry and a woman of modesty.
When chivalry and modesty work together, both parties will respect boundaries. They will be sensitive or attuned to signals, however subtle. They will engage in a civil-minded tango of making sure nothing is taken for granted, deference is their first port of call, and assurance is given, even unspoken.
When chivalry and modesty are at work, social bonding is made not to satisfy one’s desires and making sure one’s desires are first and foremost satisfied. The social connection is made to ensure that mutuality is not presumed and that unilateral actions are always suspected. In other words, the benefit of a doubt is always accorded in favour of the more vulnerable, the more undecided, the more reserved.
There is thus no room for misunderstanding or accusations when chivalry and modesty are mindfully made alive in any social bonding or interaction.
Maybe we would like to revisit chivalry and modesty as virtues we would want to live out, and for our children to be taught. Because treating them as passé or outdated (even prude) may just be the reason for the state we are in now.
Anyway, is this too idealistic? Am I living in another world? Am I out of touch? If I am, then with every out-of-touch-ness comes a price we all pay for the culture and reality we all have a part to play.
That is the bigger picture, beyond the courts, beyond applying the law, and beyond the sanctions and the rehabilitation.
It is something I have been thinking about with this case, and I invite you to give it more thought too.
No comments:
Post a Comment