Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Man sexually assaulted in public on live TV - Zero outrage

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Man sexually assaulted in public on live TV - Zero outrage

    http://entertainmentweekly.tumblr.co...cara-delevigne

    Why no outrage from feminists?
    Gender is a grammatical distinction and applies to words only. Sex is natural distinction and applies to living objects.

  • #2
    Just great. What will the we want the right to be topless women's boobs are the same as men's chests say to this then? That she just groped him the same as a man groping a woman's boobs?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_sY2rjxq6M

    Comment


    • #3
      He should have dressed less slutty.

      But seriously...It seems rather consensual. It could have been assault if the guy had objected. But as it stands I'm not surprised no one is objecting... I'd not be surprised if it was one of the highlights of his evening too.


      I'm sure none of us really disagree. We just note the hypocisy of the "every touch or compliment is rape" idiocy...

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by willow View Post
        He should have dressed less slutty.

        But seriously...It seems rather consensual. It could have been assault if the guy had objected. But as it stands I'm not surprised no one is objecting... I'd not be surprised if it was one of the highlights of his evening too.

        I'm sure none of us really disagree. We just note the hypocisy of the "every touch or compliment is rape" idiocy...
        He's a low-paid POC performer being groped by a white woman who is a top supermodel.
        Talk about abusing privilege!
        Gender is a grammatical distinction and applies to words only. Sex is natural distinction and applies to living objects.

        Comment


        • #5
          Because there is no money in it for them. Meanwhile, they aren't really outraged when a woman is raped. They are merely greedy and grasping and it's a bunch of posturing. A ploy.

          Comment


          • #6
            yeah... The bastard...
            Just because he's a young attractive male doesn't mean he should get to be groped by a super model..

            *I* wanna be groped by a supermodel!!!

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by willow View Post
              yeah... The bastard...
              Just because he's a young attractive male doesn't mean he should get to be groped by a super model..

              *I* wanna be groped by a supermodel!!!
              So because YOU are happy to give it up to anyone with wealth and power, other people should be too?
              Really!?

              Okay....how about this?
              Gender is a grammatical distinction and applies to words only. Sex is natural distinction and applies to living objects.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by MrSonicAdvance View Post
                So because YOU are happy to give it up to anyone with wealth and power, other people should be too?
                Really!?

                Okay....how about this?
                It's hard to tell, but he doesn't look like he enjoyed that. Especially at 0:13 it's like he's puking.
                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_sY2rjxq6M

                Comment


                • #9
                  Simple... If it's consentual it's not assault. If it's non-consentual it is...

                  First case the guys face says it all. And it's just a stroke across his chest. He's feeling happy and complimented.
                  Second case the man wipes his mouth. He's probably not too happy about that. He may realize it was meant as a compliment. But it was also yucky and inappropriate.

                  I don't believe in the puritan BS that sexual actions are clearly divided between assault and non assault. I believe in the universal rule that you should be able to do as you please if you harm no one. If the recipient of your actions is more than happy. Then you did not assault them. If they'd in general be happy but it's the wrong moment. Then it's not assault either. If you persist when the person clearly indicates you should not. Or if the person cannot be expected to make that clear call for themselves at that moment, and has not previously indicated it being a good idea. Then it's assault.

                  In most cases it's very obvious when an act is appropriate and desired. In all other cases the person should restrain or risk committing assault.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by willow View Post
                    yeah... The bastard...
                    Just because he's a young attractive male doesn't mean he should get to be groped by a super model..

                    *I* wanna be groped by a supermodel!!!

                    isn't that what most of the outrage over 'the male gaze' and so called 'objectification' is about?

                    it's usually not by the women who dress sexy that object to it, the majority of women who dress that way do so in order to get that very attention after all.
                    "It is the greatest inequality to try to make unequal things equal." - Aristotle

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by willow View Post
                      Simple... If it's consentual it's not assault. If it's non-consentual it is...

                      First case the guys face says it all. And it's just a stroke across his chest. He's feeling happy and complimented.
                      Second case the man wipes his mouth. He's probably not too happy about that. He may realize it was meant as a compliment. But it was also yucky and inappropriate.

                      I don't believe in the puritan BS that sexual actions are clearly divided between assault and non assault. I believe in the universal rule that you should be able to do as you please if you harm no one. If the recipient of your actions is more than happy. Then you did not assault them. If they'd in general be happy but it's the wrong moment. Then it's not assault either. If you persist when the person clearly indicates you should not. Or if the person cannot be expected to make that clear call for themselves at that moment, and has not previously indicated it being a good idea. Then it's assault.

                      In most cases it's very obvious when an act is appropriate and desired. In all other cases the person should restrain or risk committing assault.
                      He is being paid to stand there and be pretty. Do you honestly think if he slapped away her hand he'd ever work again doing what he does now? It's an abuse of privilege and if the genders were reversed there would be an outcry, whether she was able to grin and bear it or not.
                      Gender is a grammatical distinction and applies to words only. Sex is natural distinction and applies to living objects.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by willow View Post
                        yeah... The bastard...
                        Just because he's a young attractive male doesn't mean he should get to be groped by a super model..

                        *I* wanna be groped by a supermodel!!!
                        And if he's gay?
                        Gender is a grammatical distinction and applies to words only. Sex is natural distinction and applies to living objects.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Jack H. View Post
                          isn't that what most of the outrage over 'the male gaze' and so called 'objectification' is about?
                          Yes.. precisely. And I call that nonsense too...

                          it's usually not by the women who dress sexy that object to it, the majority of women who dress that way do so in order to get that very attention after all.
                          That's true..

                          And we know it's really not the male gaze that is objected to... But the male gaze from the wrong guys.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by MrSonicAdvance View Post
                            And if he's gay?
                            He probably is... Do you think all gay people believe a woman's touch to be yucky?

                            Look You got a clear point with the madonna kiss. that guy didn't enjoy himself. So the question here is why aren't people protecting Drake's virtues...

                            The model who was touched on his chest by a super model and smiled for the compliment... Seriously he needs no help...

                            Just like the overweight young adult with that deafening perfume who is all dressed up, has no guy to go to. Doesn't need help when a guy winks at her...

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by willow View Post
                              Simple... If it's consentual it's not assault. If it's non-consentual it is...

                              First case the guys face says it all. And it's just a stroke across his chest. He's feeling happy and complimented.
                              Second case the man wipes his mouth. He's probably not too happy about that. He may realize it was meant as a compliment. But it was also yucky and inappropriate.

                              I don't believe in the puritan BS that sexual actions are clearly divided between assault and non assault. I believe in the universal rule that you should be able to do as you please if you harm no one. If the recipient of your actions is more than happy. Then you did not assault them. If they'd in general be happy but it's the wrong moment. Then it's not assault either. If you persist when the person clearly indicates you should not. Or if the person cannot be expected to make that clear call for themselves at that moment, and has not previously indicated it being a good idea. Then it's assault.

                              In most cases it's very obvious when an act is appropriate and desired. In all other cases the person should restrain or risk committing assault.
                              Shouldn't 'consent' for physical contact be determined in the same way that it is with respect to sex? If it isn't a positive, mutually predetermined agreement by all involved parties then it isn't really consensual now is it? As I understand it, sexual consent cannot legally be determined or assumed if one party continues to passively permit the act to continue. Please correct me if I'm wrong...
                              "The truth is sometimes a poor competitor in the market of ideas" George F. Kennan

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X