Quadrature40 wrote: » That's what your statement implies.
Quadrature40 wrote: » I think you've mistaken after hours for a legal forum. The discussion many are having relates to what should be acceptable, what shouldn't be acceptable, what should be calossifed as sexual assault and what shouldn't be classified as sexual assault. Nobody here is going to campaign for any legal changes, it's just a discussion.
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 the way certain posters think it should be applied.
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.
Treasure Sticky Weirdness wrote: » Maybe we should just put him in the electric chair and stream it live on Twitter. The outrage mob will settle for no less.
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » Well, is the law not the law? You're free to campaign to get Georgia law (or Irish law) to reflect your views. In the mean time, if you don't understand why it's sexual assault to slap strangers arses, I suggest you just don't slap strangers arses. I'm fine with arse slapping strangers being classed as sexual assault. It ought to be at the low end of sexual assault, obviously.
dubstarr wrote: » Im close to banging my head off the wall.I might get more sense out of it. Children cant give consent,thats why parents are in charge, Thats why you cant have sex with children because of lack of consent.And because its disgusting even to think of it.You are sexualising normal things that adults have to do to children.Like changing nappies.THEY ARE NOT THE SAME. We cant prove the man was acting in a sexual manner.Only he knows that. But IF HADNT SLAPPED HER ARSE,NONE OF THIS WOULD HAVE HAPPENED.
Quadrature40 wrote: » I think you're missing the point of the discussion with many people find interesting, how to clearly define what is sexual assault and what it is non sexual assault. For example, is it sexual assault for a woman touches a man's biceps if she finds them a turn on?
Quadrature40 wrote: » Is a kick in the balls sexual assault?
LaFuton wrote: » he took her power....
Deleted User wrote: » I'm aware children can't give consent. I never once sexualised anything. I said, by the letter of the law, intentionally touching the buttocks of anyone without their consent, could be construed as Sexual Battery. I also stated on numerous occasions that I didn't consider discipling a child to be Sexual Battery and common sense should prevail which is why I think the definition of Sexual Battery is too ambiguous and open to too much interpretation. I never mentioned changing nappies. I ALSO AGREE THAT THE MAN WAS AT FAULT. But if we can't prove why he did it, I think it's ridiculous to automatically assume it was sexual so perhaps battery would be more appropriate a charge. So perhaps instead of banging your head against the wall, read what I have said instead of jumping to erroneous conclusions.
dubstarr wrote: » Im not missing the point at all. If the man in question is getting touched uninvited,he can call it what he wants.
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » I’d say it could be. Obviously.
[Deleted User] wrote: » You have stated this line numerous times to anyone who disagrees with your "hey, the law is the law" stance and it is insidious, dishonest and an ugly way of arguing. "I suggest you just don't slap strangers arses" The vast, vast majority of people who have spoken to you here are not in any way condoning what went on. We are simply saying the phrasing of the law, the severity of the consequences of a criminal charge being levelled and the absolute ambiguity of what is deemed as sexual battery is not representational to the crime committed. If you wish to continue to argue in bad faith and just resort to "hey, aren't laws the law" when questioned instead of giving opinionated answers, then why the hell are you on a discussion board? We have reached an impasse here and we won't find common ground so I won't waste either of our time by engaging with you further.
dubstarr wrote: » I have read what you said. You brought up children,someone else brought up football teams. Thats not a like for like scenerio. If a woman slaps a mans arse,he can class it as sexual assault if he wants.He was the one getting touched. Same as the journalist,she can call it sexual assault. She can call it banter.Thats down to her. You dont have the right to say what she should feel.And thats the crux of it.
[Deleted User] wrote: » Hang on. Are we talking about feelings or are we talking about actions? I have no interest in telling anyone what they should feel. That doesn't take away from the fact that unless there was something overtly sexual about the crime, regardless of how the victim feels, it should not be classed as a sex crime. FFS, a slap in the face could be classed as attempted murder if we were to leave it to the victims.
Quadrature40 wrote: » It was never acceptable, that's a fiction you have swallowed.
dubstarr wrote: » If a woman slaps a mans arse,he can class it as sexual assault if he wants.He was the one getting touched. Same as the journalist,she can call it sexual assault. She can call it banter.Thats down to her.
Omackeral wrote: This is dangerous sh*t. What if a person likes it at the time but then decides later, ''nah wait don't like that individual anymore'', think I'll file a sexual assault case.
Ironicname wrote: » It's the ramblings of a lunatic but it's prevalence in the world today is scary. The mindset of facts don't matter, only feelings and you have no right to deny others realities. Absolute bull****.
Omackeral wrote: » This is dangerous sh*t. What if a person likes it at the time but then decides later, ''nah wait don't like that individual anymore'', think I'll file a sexual assault case.
Deleted User wrote: » You have stated this line numerous times to anyone who disagrees with your "hey, the law is the law" stance and it is insidious, dishonest and an ugly way of arguing. "I suggest you just don't slap strangers arses" The vast, vast majority of people who have spoken to you here are not in any way condoning what went on. We are simply saying the phrasing of the law, the severity of the consequences of a criminal charge being levelled and the absolute ambiguity of what is deemed as sexual battery is not representational to the crime committed. If you wish to continue to argue in bad faith and just resort to "hey, aren't laws the law" when questioned instead of giving opinionated answers, then why the hell are you on a discussion board? We have reached an impasse here and we won't find common ground so I won't waste either of our time by engaging with you further.
Feisar wrote: » A lot of lunatics out there however if we all keep our hands to ourselves we should be OK. I don't smack my wife's ass in public, nor do I grab it down in Tesco's. I certainly ain't going to do it to a stranger.
Deleted User wrote: » It's not that simple. As has been shown on this thread, according to some people, it doesn't matter about what actually happened, it only matters what people feel. Thankfully the lunatics haven't quite taken over the asylum yet though.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w4.vanillicon.com/v2/4c2f272c464d99a9eee64a80fbe71a0c.svg)
