Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Man sexually assaulted in public on live TV - Zero outrage

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

  • Originally posted by Grumpy Old Man View Post
    You'd have to prove consent was done before the act, I suspect it was not. Whether a person chooses to act upon the situation or genuinely express they had no problem with it after the fact is only mitigating the act itself.
    Originally posted by wiki
    Sexual assault is any involuntary sexual act in which a person is coerced or physically forced to engage against their will, or any non-consensual sexual touching of a person,
    No, check the definition... (Or find us a suitable replacement) consent is not even mentioned. NON-consensuality has to be shown before the act can be considered sexual assault.

    Or in other words.. Absense of expressed consent is not evidence of non-consent. As far as I know, if we ignore his broad smile reaction, there is no evidence for consent or for non-consent at this point.

    If we prove, as you suggest, that consent existed before the event. Then this only means that we prove there was no non-consent as non-consent and consent cannot exist at te same time. But we cannot draw conclusions from the absence of consent.

    And again. Since NameNotImportant is the one who claims sexual assault has taken place, it is his burden to prove that this touch was non-consentual. I'm very interested to see what he comes up with.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by willow View Post
      No, check the definition... (Or find us a suitable replacement) consent is not even mentioned. NON-consensuality has to be shown before the act can be considered sexual assault.

      Or in other words.. Absense of expressed consent is not evidence of non-consent. As far as I know, if we ignore his broad smile reaction, there is no evidence for consent or for non-consent at this point.

      If we prove, as you suggest, that consent existed before the event. Then this only means that we prove there was no non-consent as non-consent and consent cannot exist at te same time. But we cannot draw conclusions from the absence of consent.

      And again. Since NameNotImportant is the one who claims sexual assault has taken place, it is his burden to prove that this touch was non-consentual. I'm very interested to see what he comes up with.
      lOl, If there was no prior consent then it was a random act...an act of inappropriate contact to someone who was performing on stage. I think you all are getting into the weeds and not looking at the legal aspects. The fact of the matter is if there was no previous consent/this was not staged, this man was simply doing his job on stage and was groped, he could press charges if he desired which I suspect he does not. "Absence of expressed consent is not evidence of non-consent." no one said otherwise. The only thing expressed is if this man did not give prior consent then it would be on him to press the issue, if he chose to say there was no consent he'd have a case. Word smithing...Did this woman grope him on stage "Yes". Did she Have prior consent "my bet is no". My only issue here with some of the commentators is they are taking the presumption this was staged/pre-planned and I am not.

      If his is about winning an argument and not principle I suspect you will win because he will not pursue and everything else is speculation. My principle stands: If this man was performing and this behaviour was not in his contract or part of the show then the action was inappropriate regardless of the outcome. If this was a female and the groper was male we'd be having a different discussion.
      ethikē aretē--phronesis--eudaimonia
      virtue of character--practical/ethical wisdom--human flourishing

      It is not a battle to win but an attitude to share.
      AVFM Mission Statement
      sigpic

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Grumpy Old Man View Post
        lOl, If there was no prior consent then it was a random act...an act of inappropriate contact to someone who was performing on stage. I think you all are getting into the weeds and not looking at the legal aspects. The fact of the matter is if there was no previous consent/this was not staged, this man was simply doing his job on stage and was groped, he could press charges if he desired which I suspect he does not. "Absence of expressed consent is not evidence of non-consent." no one said otherwise. The only thing expressed is if this man did not give prior consent then it would be on him to press the issue, if he chose to say there was no consent he'd have a case. Word smithing...Did this woman grope him on stage "Yes". Did she Have prior consent "my bet is no". My only issue here with some of the commentators is they are taking the presumption this was staged/pre-planned and I am not.
        But that's the thing I'm getting at. Only he can decide it wasn't consensual. But unless he decides it was, it wasn't sexual assault.

        That's the definition of the phrase. The recipients opinion gets a very important role in whether or not it's assault.

        If his is about winning an argument and not principle I suspect you will win because he will not pursue and everything else is speculation.
        I would agree. I'm just taking namenotimportant's arguments to their conclusions. I know it's a brainless win. The smile on the guys face says it all...

        My principle stands: If this man was performing and this behaviour was not in his contract or part of the show then the action was inappropriate regardless of the outcome. If this was a female and the groper was male we'd be having a different discussion.
        We're not having that discussion. I agree with your assessment that her behavior was inappropriate. We could have a marginal discussion whether or not that appropriateness is context dependent. But that's about it.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by willow View Post
          I propose the wikipedia definition of sexual assault is good enough for our purposes. If you disagree, which I suppose you will, I suggest you find one a definition from a better authority and counter propose it. You will then also explain why the authority you found is better.



          Now you contend that the model was sexually assaulted. And you contend that you can't read minds. You also seem to hold the burden of proof in high esteem... So it seems to me that you must prove without reading a mind that the act was against the model's will..

          It seems to me you have never done that. Which makes your whole argument a non sequitor.
          The definition is a sound one. You now have to prove prior consent which I doubt there was and he was groped. Like GOM said this is regardless if he chooses to not press charges etc...
          https://christianrestoration.wordpress.com/

          Comment


          • Originally posted by 1ADPreacher View Post
            The definition is a sound one. You now have to prove prior consent which I doubt there was and he was groped. Like GOM said this is regardless if he chooses to not press charges etc...
            Originally posted by wiki
            Sexual assault is any involuntary sexual act in which a person is coerced or physically forced to engage against their will, or any non-consensual sexual touching of a person,
            No as I answered towards GOM, prior CONSENT is irrelevant. NON-CONSENT needs to be proven before assault becomes a valid definition. And absense of evidence for CONSENT does not imply NON-CONSENT..

            How can I make this clear... You might call this shrodinger consent. Consent status is not yes or no, but unknown/undefined..

            Whether or not this was assault pretty much depends on whether or not the usher makes an objection. Because that would convert the consent status to a clear yes. And only then did the woman commit assault.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by willow View Post
              No as I answered towards GOM, prior CONSENT is irrelevant. NON-CONSENT needs to be proven before assault becomes a valid definition. And absense of evidence for CONSENT does not imply NON-CONSENT..

              How can I make this clear... You might call this shrodinger consent. Consent status is not yes or no, but unknown/undefined..

              Whether or not this was assault pretty much depends on whether or not the usher makes an objection. Because that would convert the consent status to a clear yes. And only then did the woman commit assault.
              Consent has to be given prior to the touching occurred under California law, which is where the show was taped at. Therefore it is still assault even if consent was given after the fact. The entire argument is based around bodily integrity. Does the male performer have the right to be secure in his person? According to the Constitution of the United States and California the answer is a resounding yes. If the genders were reversed and it was a man doing the groping of a female usher there would be outrage, so I can only conclude that men are exempt from being secure in their person from unwanted contact. That is a double standard and needs to go away. Nothing you can say about con sent waives this.
              https://christianrestoration.wordpress.com/

              Comment


              • Okay, so you don't agree with the wikipedia definition of sexual assault. You use the california law definitions. Which is fine. And I'm willing to concede that this is actual sexual assault. IF the californian definition really reflects what you're saying.

                Would you be so kind as to look up that law and post it here verbatim so we can see what it says first hand? And then from that I'm sure we can conclude whether or not sexual assault has been committed.

                But just to be clear, right now we're still on the wikipedia definition. Unless you post the californian law definition (Which I concede is superior to wikipedia) we're not moving along. You suggest we use that law, so the burden for producing that law is on your shoulders.

                Should be a publicly available document right?
                Last edited by willow; 04-16-2015, 04:41 PM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by willow View Post
                  Okay, so you don't agree with the wikipedia definition of sexual assault. You use the california law definitions. Which is fine. And I'm willing to concede that this is actual sexual assault. IF the californian definition really reflects what you're saying.

                  Would you be so kind as to look up that law and post it here verbatim so we can see what it says first hand? And then from that I'm sure we can conclude whether or not sexual assault has been committed.

                  But just to be clear, right now we're still on the wikipedia definition. Unless you post the californian law definition (Which I concede is superior to wikipedia) we're not moving along. You suggest we use that law, so the burden for producing that law is on your shoulders.

                  Should be a publicly available document right?
                  Here's California Penal Code 243.4 E.

                  (e) (1) Any person who touches an intimate part of another person, if the touching is against the will of the person touched, and is for the specific purpose of sexual arousal, sexual gratification, or sexual abuse, is guilty of misdemeanor sexual battery, punishable by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars ($2,000), or by
                  imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding six months, or by both that fine and imprisonment. However, if the defendant was an employer and the victim was an employee of the defendant, the misdemeanor sexual battery shall be punishable by a fine not exceeding three thousand dollars ($3,000), by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding six months, or by both that fine and imprisonment.

                  California law backs up what I was saying. Also California recently passed an Enthusiastic Consent Law that requires consent from both parties before any touching etc.. to go on. Therefore, under California law, the performer was sexually assaulted by a female celebrity that sought sexual gratification at the expense of the usher.
                  https://christianrestoration.wordpress.com/

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by 1ADPreacher View Post
                    Here's California Penal Code 243.4 E.

                    (e) (1) Any person who touches an intimate part of another person, if the touching is against the will of the person touched, and is for the specific purpose of sexual arousal, sexual gratification, or sexual abuse, is guilty of misdemeanor sexual battery, punishable by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars ($2,000), or by
                    imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding six months, or by both that fine and imprisonment. However, if the defendant was an employer and the victim was an employee of the defendant, the misdemeanor sexual battery shall be punishable by a fine not exceeding three thousand dollars ($3,000), by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding six months, or by both that fine and imprisonment.

                    California law backs up what I was saying. Also California recently passed an Enthusiastic Consent Law that requires consent from both parties before any touching etc.. to go on. Therefore, under California law, the performer was sexually assaulted by a female celebrity that sought sexual gratification at the expense of the usher.
                    I made bold the part that is the crux here... To prove this was sexual battery, you must, again just like the wikipedia definition, prove it was against the ushers wil...

                    So californian law backs up MY position... Not yours....

                    Also... Your claim
                    Consent has to be given prior to the touching occurred under California law
                    Is unsubstantiated by the fragment of the law you posted here....

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by willow View Post
                      I made bold the part that is the crux here... To prove this was sexual battery, you must, again just like the wikipedia definition, prove it was against the ushers wil...

                      So californian law backs up MY position... Not yours....

                      Also... Your claim Is unsubstantiated by the fragment of the law you posted here....
                      Actually, I don't have to prove anything since he didn't give consent prior to being touched as what the law stipulates. It proves my point and not yours since in the video it shows that she touched him in a surprise move and he wasn't given a chance to give consent. At any rate, you believe that men can be touched by women without consent and therefore I can logically conclude that you also believe that men are not secure in their body and would like a double standard to exist. As pointed out, if this was a woman usher and a male celebrity touching her there would be outrage, but since the roles are reversed there is no outrage.

                      My position has always been that there should be no double standards. A person must be secure in their person against unwanted touches etc... Your position in defending the woman celeb's actions reminds me of all the defenses used when it comes to female teachers molesting male students in their charge. He must have wanted it right? That's what everyone says or that he was lucky etc...
                      https://christianrestoration.wordpress.com/

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by 1ADPreacher View Post
                        Actually, I don't have to prove anything since he didn't give consent prior to being touched as what the law stipulates.
                        Can you point out where applicable law stipulates that? The law you did quote never actually says that. The enthusiastic consent law (Which you did not quote) only applies to education. Not to MTV studios...

                        There was no legal case for assault. And as long as the usher does not indicate the events were against his will there can be no case for assault.

                        At any rate, you believe that men can be touched by women without consent and therefore I can logically conclude that you also believe that men are not secure in their body and would like a double standard to exist. As pointed out, if this was a woman usher and a male celebrity touching her there would be outrage, but since the roles are reversed there is no outrage.
                        I believe no such thing. The law is equal for men and for women. This case is not a case of assault because the usher didn't feel violated. If he did he could press charges. Unless the actions were against his will there simply can not be assault. as the law you quoted clearly states.

                        Genders reversed would be the exact same thing. Even if people would massively object there is no assault unless the woman touched is touched against her will.

                        Comment


                        • I haven't read all 12 pages of comments but on Madonna and Drake, Salon has a piece...

                          Although they predictably want to mention a few wrong statistics (that supposedly men rape women far, far more than the other way around...well technically true if you create an artificial definition of rape that exclude or marginalizes male victims of assault by women) but that's not the main part of the article..it'sin an article that generally is a defence of men's right not to be touched without consent:

                          And if you actually nonconsensually “surprise” someone on stage with a kiss? That’s super gross, regardless of who’s doing it to whom. Even if they, personally, aren’t that shaken up by it and act cool about it afterwards. It’s not an okay thing to do.

                          And it doesn’t matter if it’s making a point about ageism in Hollywood directed against women. Yes, I completely acknowledge that a ton of the criticism directed at Madonna for kissing Drake was mean, ugly jokes about her age. That doesn’t make it okay.

                          Indeed, the way those criticisms miss the point demonstrate why that surprise kiss wasn’t okay. The implication that if Madonna had been younger and hotter and someone Drake’s “type” then he couldn’t possibly object to being surprise-kissed by her? That’s the problem.

                          The fact that Drake had to tell everyone that he was okay with being surprise-kissed because otherwise it’d be insulting Madonna–and all women her age–as “gross”? That’s the problem.

                          The fact that Madonna thinks the way to prove that women her age can be hot and desirable is to grab a younger guy and kiss him without his permission and have him be cool with it? And that lots of people, including feminists I respect, totally buy that line of reasoning? That’s the problem.
                          Did you catch that? This is a piece in Salon, a pretty liberal place, and this is directly calling out "lots of people" including "feminists" being called out. So celebrate this as progress in growing public awareness about male rights. Yes there are parts to criticize in the article, but to be more powerful and effective, let's support positive steps forward

                          And in Salon posts if anyone has a salon account, or anywhere else, we should defend this writer if he gets attacked by those "many feminists" he called out.

                          http://www.salon.com/2015/04/15/leav...grope_at_will/

                          More

                          Let’s get more specific here. You can’t say a male teacher sleeping with an underage female student is rape but not levy the same condemnation on the same situation with the genders reversed. You can’t excuse Mary Kay LeTourneau’s rape of a 12-year-old boy because they ended up getting married, any more than we should excuse the many countries where it’s normal for women to marry their male rapists.

                          And every time you make a joke about a woman being too hot to say no to, every time you mock a man’s description of being victimized by sex as silly or treat the idea that a man could be victimized as ridiculous, every time you play into this unidirectional one-dimensional idea of how violating consent works—
                          Another great part. Now the ugly part, afraid of being called an MRA, the writer says, well, he cares about all this stuff, and tells his feminist and other readers that they should care, but MRAs "don't" care...

                          Now this outraged me too..but we have two choices:

                          If you want to be stupidly self destructive, write a long angry rude rant about how much you hate him and how terrible he is...great, you've now harmed the MHRM.

                          Or, find out his email address, and write to him, and it's ok to be indignant, and to be hurt, but then tell him, "I care" and mention other men and women in the MHRM who very clearly do care about assault against men, and ask him, will he correct the record and not claim that "MRAs don't care" about male victims?

                          It really saddens and frustrates me to see so much progress and so much stupidity in the same article..but it equally frustrates me to see such stupid tactics in MHRM to alianate the people we want to win over. The people we want to win over or at least shift, their position, are not the ones who are part of the MHRM.

                          If their views and understanding was already great, we wouldn't need to change their minds would be? The people to have a dialog with are those who don't "get it" but who are not completely close minded. Writers like him, given all the above quotes, you can't possibly say he is a lost cause. He clearly is not! He said some very good things.

                          So instead of shooting itself in the foot with a pure attack against him and nothing else, the MHRM should reach out to writers like him. If you can't do it without exploding at him, don't do it. If you have his email, share it, I or others might.

                          That's the way you slowly chip away at ignorance and anti-MHRM stereotypes.

                          And don't deny there are some MRAs who are extreme, even Paul Elam says he is hated by some MRAs out there for not being extreme enough...there are some angry men (some of whom have been badly and unfairly hurt, legally, or sexually abused, or physically or their children taken unfairly) and who don't care about women's rights, right now, because they are in so much pain.

                          But it's not fair, or right, or accurate to pretend or say like this Salon writer, who said so many correct things above, for him to say that all or most MHRAs however "don't care" about men or women not being assaulted...but the only way to change this "MHRM is only an evil plot and excuse to change the subject from cases where women are hurt" the only way is to be reaching out to the writer, Arthur Chu, that's the way to slowly bring changed awareness and to win people over.
                          Last edited by 4malelib; 04-17-2015, 07:00 AM.

                          Comment


                          • Hi,

                            Originally posted by 1ADPreacher View Post
                            Here's California Penal Code 243.4 E.

                            (e) (1) /..../ if the touching /.../ is for the specific purpose of sexual arousal, sexual gratification, or sexual abuse /.../
                            Isn't this where she gets off the hook?
                            First, to convict her for this requires proof of intent, which is notoriously hard to get.
                            Second, the template cultural assumption is that a female's "affectionate attention" to any man or boy is so to speak per definition a "kindness": Her Ladyship condescends to bestow a flicker of attention on the unworthy creature groveling beneath her in the dust of invisibility and rejection; implying that gracing the undeserving creep thusly could, on Her Ladyship's part, in any way lead to, and hence be motivated by, a desire to achieve "sexual arousal, sexual gratification, or sexual abuse" is simply risible...

                            As for the consent issue, this lays bare how "men already and always consenting to anything sexual a woman does" is part of our culture.
                            Consent from men, as a class, is always for ever already given. Consent from women, as a class, is always for ever already denied.

                            And so, "where there is no damage, there shall be no punishment" ...

                            M
                            Last edited by Manalysis; 04-18-2015, 03:36 PM.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by willow View Post
                              But that's the thing I'm getting at. Only he can decide it wasn't consensual. But unless he decides it was, it wasn't sexual assault.

                              That's the definition of the phrase. The recipients opinion gets a very important role in whether or not it's assault.


                              I would agree. I'm just taking namenotimportant's arguments to their conclusions. I know it's a brainless win. The smile on the guys face says it all...


                              We're not having that discussion. I agree with your assessment that her behavior was inappropriate. We could have a marginal discussion whether or not that appropriateness is context dependent. But that's about it.
                              I think we are close on this with our looking to it from individual our part of the circle. thx for the discussion.
                              ethikē aretē--phronesis--eudaimonia
                              virtue of character--practical/ethical wisdom--human flourishing

                              It is not a battle to win but an attitude to share.
                              AVFM Mission Statement
                              sigpic

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X