The consensus among the DOA (Defenders Of Arnold) is that, unless a woman presses charges or has the presence of mind and nerve to punch the offender in the throat immediately, there is no harassment.

This is incorrect.

I hope that when you said the charges, if they fade, have "no merit", you mean "no merit in a court of law". There are plenty of people who get away with atrocious acts against others, and yet are not even charged, let alone convicted, of any crime. The acts committed are quite wrong, and the consequences to the victims are quite real, and the accusations have merit in the sense that they have great validity. If they don't stand up to the more stringent standards of criminal court, which presumes innocence unless you are living at Guantanamo, the charges are only "without merit" in that very narrow legal sense and not in any larger social one.

The charges may also fade away because the victim becomes tired of reliving the offense, and of being accused of "liking it" because she didn't come forward soon enough to suit the DOA.

A site that may allow some of the DOA to educate themselves:
"Sexual Harassment and How Women Cope".

I continue to be startled and appalled at the way in which journalistic use, and possible abuse, for political purposes of this admitted and continuous history of sexual harassment by a popular actor has become an attack on the women who have actually suffered the abuse. "She must've liked it to remember it that long." (Cf. "flashbacks".) "What about women who touch men without an invitation?" (The "Two Wrongs Make A Right" school of jurisprudence.) "He was just playing!" (If he wants a sex object, let him buy a Barbie.) "Why didn't she hit him?" (Why didn't Faye Ray poke King Kong in the eye? Let's make fear or shock into a crime.)

I have a question too: How many men can make the distinction between the LA Times and a woman who has been sexually assaulted? Or, to put it another way, are the DOA gentlemen, or is the idea of "gentleman" D.O.A.?

Regards--
Mary Anne