Penn wrote: » Man kicking woman in crotch and woman kicking man in crotch = No difference Man slapping woman's arse and woman slapping man's arse = No difference Man slapping woman's arse and woman kicking man in crotch = Difference. It's a different action generally for a different reason with a different intent. It's a complete false equivalency.
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » I think there are plenty of places where laws conflict in the strictest sense. But changing a nappy is normal duty of someone in charge of a baby, so changing a nappy in the normal way is just classed as normal care for a child even though it might well involve touching the child's genitals as part of normal cleaning. I'm.not a legal expert so maybe someone will clear it up. On any case I don't think the guy was fulfilling any kind of duty when he slapped her arse. He was just slapping her arse.
jimgoose wrote: » Are you seriously suggesting that a hoof to the veg is ever a "playful", sexual gesture? And that a smack on the arse isn't?? :pac:
Deleted User wrote: » Jesus, that is close to admitting that you have an opinion outside of the law!!!! So (and without trying to sound like that woman from Channel 4), "what your saying is"... there are many reasons outside of the specific remit of the law in place, where a smack on the bum isn't sexual? If that's your opinion, why do you think this incident where a man, who smacked a woman on the bottom once and did not pursue her further, should be classed as a sexual criminal and we should err on the side of caution to prevent him from working with children or the infirm? Or do you concede that the existing law should not be enacted as it is not representative to the circumstances within which this action took place?
threeball wrote: » No he's saying why is she attributing sexual intent to the smack in the arse. Theres nothing to suggest it had any sexual meaning.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » which is entirely irrelevant.
Reviews and Books Galore wrote: » So a kick to the balls is sexual assault? To take it further, a woman touching a man on the arm, hands, or chest is sexual assault as women see biceps and chest in a sexualised manner in the same way men see an arse in a sexual manner?
jimgoose wrote: » An attractive young woman gets a slap on the arse from a passing man and you make out there's "nothing to suggest it had any sexual meaning"?? On what sodding planet? :pac:
threeball wrote: » She wasn't referring to the incident, she was speaking about a smack on the arse in general. Do you want to ride your female friends if you come up behind them in a pub and give them a tap on the arse to announce your arrival. Or your male friends at that
ohnonotgmail wrote: » The law as it stands in the place where this took place makes no mention of intention. whether you claim your intent was sexual or not is irrelevant. you keep going back to this and it is irrelevant. All that is relevant isL Did you touch the person in a place that is considered sexual and did you have consent. and please dont go back to that nonsense about children. it isn't relevant.
threeball wrote: » Do you want to ride your female friends if you come up behind them in a pub and give them a tap on the arse to announce your arrival. Or your male friends at that
Deleted User wrote: » With all due respect, I was talking to someone who has stated on multiple occasions that the law is the law and should be treated as such. And to respond to you, why is it irrelevant with regards to children? Unless you agree, that common sense should be applied to law even if it contradicts the law. "Did you touch the person in a place that is considered sexual and did you have consent." Where do you draw the line then? It doesn't apply to children. Ok. Does it apply to an Aunt vs Niece, both of whom are of age where an aunt is encouraging a niece to collect an award? Of course it shouldn't. But if you cant tell me where the line is, the phrasing of the law is an ass (pun intended) So unless you can prove that the man was acting in a sexual manner, then why should the law apply to him and not the aunt? My point was not that parents SHOULD be charged with sexual battery, it was to highlight the ambiguous way in which it is phrased and certain posters think it should be applied.
So unless you can prove that the man was acting in a sexual manner, then why should the law apply to him and not the aunt?
threeball wrote: » No a man never slapped a woman on the arse with an intent to hurt them, its always sexual?
[Deleted User] wrote: » ...there are many reasons outside of the specific remit of the law in place, where a smack on the bum isn't sexual? If that's your opinion, why do you think this incident where a man, who smacked a woman on the bottom once and did not pursue her further, should be classed as a sexual criminal and we should err on the side of caution to prevent him from working with children or the infirm? Or do you concede that the existing law should not be enacted as it is not representative to the circumstances within which this action took place?
ohnonotgmail wrote: » It is not common sense. It is public policy. Public policy that parents should be allowed to do what is necessary to raise their children. whether that is changing a nappy or bathing them or slapping them on the arse the law recognises that all these are necessary and the law should not interfere as they are perfectly normal things to do for a parent. running up to a complete stranger and slapping them on the arse is not a normal thing to do. .
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » Well, if the guy was fulfilling some higher duty when he slapped her arse, then maybe he should use the t as it's defence. If he was slapping a poisonous spider off her arse for example. But he wasn't so it isn't relevant. I tho k they should just go ahead and prosecute in accordance with the law. He'll either be found guilty or not and be sentenced accordingly. Maybe slapping arses is actually a bit more serious than you take it to be.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » I've already posted the relevant definition of sexual battery (not assault) as it is applies where this took place. perhaps you might want to take a look at it.
Deleted User wrote: » Ok, I'll concede the parent thing for the purpose of this conversation, but what about an aunt? By the letter of the law, is she not a sexual criminal? My point is again, not to lessen or negate what the man did (which I completely am against btw) it is to highlight how ambiguous the law is and that common sense should prevail.
Reviews and Books Galore wrote: » Okay, so the next time a woman touches me in a way I don't like, I am going to stamp on her uterus.
Reviews and Books Galore wrote: » Yeah, people should be able to make a coherent reply and argument tbh.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » Well your posts have been a shining example of same.
Reviews and Books Galore wrote: » I agree. It's good to highlight the differences and is part of a coherent argument. Much better than stating an opinion, somebody asks you a question, and you do not form any kind of argument in return :P I still find it hilarious that I'm defending a man who tapped a woman on the bottom, but the level of punishment he is recieving is absurd.
Quadrature40 wrote: » So it's not sexual assault if it's an ugly woman?
[Deleted User] wrote: » Ah ok, you are back to just saying "the law is the law". Shame. I thought you were starting to think for yourself.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » he hasn't received any punishment. He will be charged with a misdeameanor so his punishment will be minor.
Reviews and Books Galore wrote: » He will be seen as a rapist, he will probably lose his job, his family will have a difficult time due to the loss of income, and he will have to face a media hate campaighn by 'Gloria Alfred' who is pretty much a lawyer that started metoo. His punishment is absurd.
Reviews and Books Galore wrote: » I still find it hilarious that I'm defending a man who tapped a woman on the bottom, but the level of punishment he is recieving is absurd.
