feminism attacking WWII sailor kissing nurse picture

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#151 Posted by MrPraline (21331 posts) -

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"][QUOTE="harashawn"] I don't think a kiss is sexual, epecially in this context. The war had just ended and they were celebrating. It was an act of pure joy, not of sexuality, and people are demonizing it. Would you feel the same way if he had hugged her instead? I don't believe any one of us can honestly say they would not have done the same thing in his place. redstorm72

It's still sexual assault. That's based on the person's actions, not why he did it.

So when a grandson gives their grandmother a kiss on the cheek, it's sexual? At least according to your logic.

Take that filth to OTAH
#152 Posted by -RocBoys9489- (6285 posts) -
[QUOTE="Omni-Slash"][QUOTE="-RocBoys9489-"] If she didn't care, then this thread was officially a waste of breath.

*facepalm*...why the heck did you think I was so adamant about this?....do you think I would have been cool with it if the woman had been saying that this guy took advantage of her and she was hurt by it?....sheesh people..>_>

#153 Posted by MrGeezer (57104 posts) -
[QUOTE="harashawn"] I'm not sure we are in agreement on what a kiss is.

If you even have to specify that the context keeps this kiss from being sexual assault, then you're implicitly agreeing that kisses can be sexual assault. Would I be accused of sexual assault if I went outside right now, grabbed the first woman I saw, and then made out with her?
#154 Posted by Omni-Slash (54450 posts) -

He had no f***ing idea whether or not she objected, and did it anyway. What exactly are you not getting about that? Sure she didn't object, but that's all after the fact. MrGeezer
so everytime a guy or girl has kissed someone and they were not sure how it would go it was a sexual assault?....great logic....if she didn't object...no harm no foul...

#155 Posted by -RocBoys9489- (6285 posts) -

Nothin better to do now

#156 Posted by MrGeezer (57104 posts) -
<

So when a grandson gives their grandmother a kiss on the cheek, it's sexual? At least according to your logic.

redstorm72
A handshake isn't sexual, and that's nothing but me grabbing a person. Therefore, it's okay for me to grab that woman's boobs.
#157 Posted by harashawn (27604 posts) -
[QUOTE="MrGeezer"][QUOTE="harashawn"] I'm not sure we are in agreement on what a kiss is.

If you even have to specify that the context keeps this kiss from being sexual assault, then you're implicitly agreeing that kisses can be sexual assault. Would I be accused of sexual assault if I went outside right now, grabbed the first woman I saw, and then made out with her?

Sure you would, if she perceived it to be sexual. If everyone ran into the street in celebration and you did the same, then I highly doubt that would be the case.
#158 Posted by MrGeezer (57104 posts) -
[QUOTE="Omni-Slash"][QUOTE="MrGeezer"] He had no f***ing idea whether or not she objected, and did it anyway. What exactly are you not getting about that? Sure she didn't object, but that's all after the fact.

so everytime a guy or girl has kissed someone and they are not sure how it will go it's a sexual assault?....great logic....if she didn't object...no harm no foul...

Sure I f***ed that girl when she was passed out, but she doesn't mind. No harm no foul.
#161 Posted by Omni-Slash (54450 posts) -

Sure I f***ed that girl when she was passed out, but she doesn't mind. No harm no foul.MrGeezer
Apples meet Oranges....Oranges meet Apples....

#162 Posted by -RocBoys9489- (6285 posts) -
[QUOTE="MrGeezer"][QUOTE="Omni-Slash"][QUOTE="MrGeezer"] He had no f***ing idea whether or not she objected, and did it anyway. What exactly are you not getting about that? Sure she didn't object, but that's all after the fact.

so everytime a guy or girl has kissed someone and they are not sure how it will go it's a sexual assault?....great logic....if she didn't object...no harm no foul...

Sure I f***ed that girl when she was passed out, but she doesn't mind. No harm no foul.

.
#163 Posted by redstorm72 (4632 posts) -

[QUOTE="redstorm72"]<

So when a grandson gives their grandmother a kiss on the cheek, it's sexual? At least according to your logic.

MrGeezer

A handshake isn't sexual, and that's nothing but me grabbing a person. Therefore, it's okay for me to grab that woman's boobs.

That's a philosophy I've always lived by.

#164 Posted by MrGeezer (57104 posts) -
[QUOTE="harashawn"][QUOTE="MrGeezer"][QUOTE="harashawn"] I'm not sure we are in agreement on what a kiss is.

If you even have to specify that the context keeps this kiss from being sexual assault, then you're implicitly agreeing that kisses can be sexual assault. Would I be accused of sexual assault if I went outside right now, grabbed the first woman I saw, and then made out with her?

Sure you would, if she perceived it to be sexual. If everyone ran into the street in celebration and you did the same, then I highly doubt that would be the case.

Then stop f***ing acting like kissing isn't sexual assault.
#165 Posted by harashawn (27604 posts) -
[QUOTE="MrGeezer"][QUOTE="Omni-Slash"][QUOTE="MrGeezer"] [QUOTE="MrGeezer"][QUOTE="Omni-Slash"][QUOTE="MrGeezer"] He had no f***ing idea whether or not she objected, and did it anyway. What exactly are you not getting about that? Sure she didn't object, but that's all after the fact.

so everytime a guy or girl has kissed someone and they are not sure how it will go it's a sexual assault?....great logic....if she didn't object...no harm no foul...

Sure I f***ed that girl when she was passed out, but she doesn't mind. No harm no foul.

That's not even close to the same thing. :?
#166 Posted by Lockedge (16794 posts) -

[QUOTE="Lockedge"]He did something impulsively that didn't respect the woman's boundaries or desires. Just because he returned from a world war doesn't mean he "earned" that, it doesn't mean he's automatically free from criticism. Feminists aren't ruining the moment at all, they're casting light on it and showing the other side of the story. She wasn't kissing him. She didn't want to. Technically, that's sexual assault, and the fact that the guy's being defended here is just confirming the feminist's beliefs on rape culture. Seriously.N30F3N1X

Leave it to feminists to turn an impulsive action driven by an outburst of joy (which was collective, on top of that) into a case of suppression of women's rights. With 60 years of delay.

I always try to be understanding and respectful of others' people viewpoints. If said viewpoints aren't properly justified I still try to be respectful but being understanding becomes harder, although it never hurts to try.
With attitudes like yours, instead, I can't help but laugh out loud.

By the book, what he did was sexual harassment, especially in that day and age when a kiss held more weight to it than it does today. I would say that he was unjustified in his act. If you have a hard time understanding my viewpoint in this, then that's your problem.

And it's not just about "the suppression of women's rights". Rape culture affects both men and women. In this case, feminism would be assessing this particular moment in time, and looking at how her sexual agency was stripped from her with force. Looking 60 years back at a moment in time, and potentially comparing that with the current day not only allows us to view how society has changed, but also how it has remained the same. Why else would there be history books?

#167 Posted by harashawn (27604 posts) -
[QUOTE="MrGeezer"][QUOTE="harashawn"][QUOTE="MrGeezer"] If you even have to specify that the context keeps this kiss from being sexual assault, then you're implicitly agreeing that kisses can be sexual assault. Would I be accused of sexual assault if I went outside right now, grabbed the first woman I saw, and then made out with her?

Sure you would, if she perceived it to be sexual. If everyone ran into the street in celebration and you did the same, then I highly doubt that would be the case.

Then stop f***ing acting like kissing isn't sexual assault.

I think you missed the "if she perceived it to be sexual" part.
#168 Posted by MrGeezer (57104 posts) -

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"] Sure I f***ed that girl when she was passed out, but she doesn't mind. No harm no foul.Omni-Slash

Apples meet Oranges....Oranges meet Apples....

No harm no foul meets no harm no foul. Both look like apples to me. If you've gotta defend the sailor, then stop using the "no harm no foul" thing. That's irrelevant and you know it.
#169 Posted by -RocBoys9489- (6285 posts) -

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"][QUOTE="redstorm72"]<

So when a grandson gives their grandmother a kiss on the cheek, it's sexual? At least according to your logic.

redstorm72

A handshake isn't sexual, and that's nothing but me grabbing a person. Therefore, it's okay for me to grab that woman's boobs.

That's a philosophy I've always lived by.

.
#170 Posted by Omni-Slash (54450 posts) -

No harm no foul meets no harm no foul. Both look like apples to me. If you've gotta defend the sailor, then stop using the "no harm no foul" thing. That's irrelevant and you know it. MrGeezer
no it's not....men and women kiss people all the time that they are not sure what their response will be until the act is over....if you are saying this is sexual assault than I suggest getting into the law profession because it's going to be a booming industry.....raping someone whom is passed out drunk is a pretty big freakin leap to make...and honestly I shouldn't have bothered continuing this ridiculous conversation...

#171 Posted by dave123321 (34371 posts) -
Geezer and others have a point
#172 Posted by Serraph105 (28567 posts) -

that photo was staged. He didn't run up to her and suddenly kiss her.

#173 Posted by MrGeezer (57104 posts) -
no it's not....men and women kiss people all the time that they are not sure what their response will be until the act is over....if you are saying this is sexual assault than I suggest getting into the law profession because it's going to be a booming industry.....raping someone whom is passed out drunk is a pretty big freakin leap to make...and honestly I shouldn't have bothered continuing this ridiculous conversation...Omni-Slash
So...if she DID have a problem with it, would it have been sexual assault? If your answer is "no", then how she felt about it IS IRRELEVANT. It wouldn't have been sexual assault if she was fine with it, it also wouldn't have been sexual assault if she wasn't fine with it. And if your answer is "yes", then how she felt about it is STILL irrelevant. Because there's no way of knowing that she would be fine with it, which makes the act of doing it an attempt to sexually assault her. Focus on the ACT. If the ACT is wrong (as in the case of date rape), then you're damn right that it doesn't matter how she felt about it. Focusing on how the victim felt about it only serves to diminish the importance of the act itself.
#174 Posted by chrisrooR (9027 posts) -
Depends. If he forcefully pulled her into his embrace and kissed her without her permissions, sure, you could classify that as sexual assault by today's standards.
#175 Posted by harashawn (27604 posts) -
[QUOTE="Omni-Slash"]no it's not....men and women kiss people all the time that they are not sure what their response will be until the act is over....if you are saying this is sexual assault than I suggest getting into the law profession because it's going to be a booming industry.....raping someone whom is passed out drunk is a pretty big freakin leap to make...and honestly I shouldn't have bothered continuing this ridiculous conversation...MrGeezer
So...if she DID have a problem with it, would it have been sexual assault? If your answer is "no", then how she felt about it IS IRRELEVANT. It wouldn't have been sexual assault if she was fine with it, it also wouldn't have been sexual assault if she wasn't fine with it. And if your answer is "yes", then how she felt about it is STILL irrelevant. Because there's no way of knowing that she would be fine with it, which makes the act of doing it an attempt to sexually assault her. Focus on the ACT. If the ACT is wrong (as in the case of date rape), then you're damn right that it doesn't matter how she felt about it. Focusing on how the victim felt about it only serves to diminish the importance of the act itself.

An act is only illegal/wrong if it is objected to. If I poke two separate people in the back of the neck, and one doesn't care but the other feels violated, only one of those acts can be considered wrong. Was the act itself wrong? No; but the victim's reaction to it made it wrong.
#176 Posted by redstorm72 (4632 posts) -

[QUOTE="Omni-Slash"]no it's not....men and women kiss people all the time that they are not sure what their response will be until the act is over....if you are saying this is sexual assault than I suggest getting into the law profession because it's going to be a booming industry.....raping someone whom is passed out drunk is a pretty big freakin leap to make...and honestly I shouldn't have bothered continuing this ridiculous conversation...MrGeezer
So...if she DID have a problem with it, would it have been sexual assault? If your answer is "no", then how she felt about it IS IRRELEVANT. It wouldn't have been sexual assault if she was fine with it, it also wouldn't have been sexual assault if she wasn't fine with it. And if your answer is "yes", then how she felt about it is STILL irrelevant. Because there's no way of knowing that she would be fine with it, which makes the act of doing it an attempt to sexually assault her. Focus on the ACT. If the ACT is wrong (as in the case of date rape), then you're damn right that it doesn't matter how she felt about it. Focusing on how the victim felt about it only serves to diminish the importance of the act itself.

Context matters. By your logic, everything is crime. When my friend punched me in the arm after I beat him at Halo? Assualt. When I ate some chips at my cousins house with out asking for permission? Theft. When I gave CPR (ie. kissing and boob touching) to a dying girl? Sexual assualt. How the victim feels about it and the contextual situation are very relevant.

#177 Posted by Omni-Slash (54450 posts) -
[QUOTE="harashawn"] An act is only illegal/wrong if it is objected to. If I poke two separate people in the back of the neck, and one doesn't care but the other feels violated, only one of those acts can be considered wrong. Was the act itself wrong? No; but the victim's reaction to it made it wrong.

don't bother..his line of thinking is just so moronic it's not even worth a response to anymore....
#178 Posted by bloodling (5822 posts) -

It is clearly wrong, but the context does make it more acceptable to me.

#179 Posted by dave123321 (34371 posts) -
I feel like geezer brings up a valid point. Though don't think it would be worth making a big deal out of it if she did not feel violated.
#180 Posted by Strakha (1824 posts) -

She should consider herself lucky she didn't like in Nanking, China if she thinks that is bad. Most people involved in WW2 would probably wish that was the worse injustice they suffered. Though America didn't really feel the war like those who had enemy troops on their soil did, besides the soldiers on the frontline. My grandmother used to say WW2 was the best thing that ever happened because people had jobs unlike in the depression.

#181 Posted by MrGeezer (57104 posts) -
I feel like geezer brings up a valid point. Though don't think it would be worth making a big deal out of it if she did not feel violated.dave123321
Oh, don't get me wrong, I most certainly don't think it's a big deal. I'm just saying...hopefully most people can agree that just because something isn't a big deal doesn't mean it's not still wrong. I can think it's not a big deal without actually having to defend the guy. And to those who are defending him, please come up with something better than "it's okay, she didn't mind". She might not have minded, but that has nothing to do with whether or not it was okay for him to do it.
#182 Posted by redstorm72 (4632 posts) -

Also, does anyone else find it in bad taste for feminists to complain about a dude stealing a kiss when a war had just ended that had forcibly drafted millions of men, many of whome never returned home? Seems like the stolen kiss wasn't exactly the biggest injustice at the time.

#183 Posted by Serraph105 (28567 posts) -

I'm just going to leave this here

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/06/that-times-square-smooch-right-to-the-kisser/

Edit. crap, never mind. I'm mixing up these two photos. Why can't the names be normal like Fred or something?

#184 Posted by harashawn (27604 posts) -

Also, does anyone else find it in bad taste for feminists to complain about a dude stealing a kiss when a war had just ended that had forcibly drafted millions of men, many of whome never returned home? Seems like the stolen kiss wasn't exactly the biggest injustice at the time.

redstorm72
They just try to spin it negatively and complain about how they weren't allowed to go to war, rather than they didn't have to.
#185 Posted by MrGeezer (57104 posts) -
[QUOTE="harashawn"] An act is only illegal/wrong if it is objected to. If I poke two separate people in the back of the neck, and one doesn't care but the other feels violated, only one of those acts can be considered wrong. Was the act itself wrong? No; but the victim's reaction to it made it wrong.

Really? If someone takes some money out of your wallet but you don't notice that they did, is that okay? If some kids steal your car and take it on a joyride, but they return it before you notice, is that okay?
#186 Posted by Omni-Slash (54450 posts) -
[QUOTE="MrGeezer"] Really? If someone takes some money out of your wallet but you don't notice that they did, is that okay? If some kids steal your car and take it on a joyride, but they return it before you notice, is that okay?

do you have any idea as to what the term "context" means?..
#187 Posted by bloodling (5822 posts) -

An act is only illegal/wrong if it is objected to. If I poke two separate people in the back of the neck, and one doesn't care but the other feels violated, only one of those acts can be considered wrong. Was the act itself wrong? No; but the victim's reaction to it made it wrong.harashawn

Someone's reaction doesn't make it right or wrong. However, if you ask someone "Can I do this?" and the person agrees, then it's okay.

#188 Posted by harashawn (27604 posts) -
[QUOTE="MrGeezer"][QUOTE="harashawn"] An act is only illegal/wrong if it is objected to. If I poke two separate people in the back of the neck, and one doesn't care but the other feels violated, only one of those acts can be considered wrong. Was the act itself wrong? No; but the victim's reaction to it made it wrong.

Really? If someone takes some money out of your wallet but you don't notice that they did, is that okay? If some kids steal your car and take it on a joyride, but they return it before you notice, is that okay?

Whether I know about it isn't the point. It is whether I would object to it.
#189 Posted by bloodling (5822 posts) -

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"] Really? If someone takes some money out of your wallet but you don't notice that they did, is that okay? If some kids steal your car and take it on a joyride, but they return it before you notice, is that okay?Omni-Slash
do you have any idea as to what the term "context" means?..

Context does need to be taken into account. Context can make something more acceptable, but it doesn't make it right.

#190 Posted by harashawn (27604 posts) -

[QUOTE="harashawn"] An act is only illegal/wrong if it is objected to. If I poke two separate people in the back of the neck, and one doesn't care but the other feels violated, only one of those acts can be considered wrong. Was the act itself wrong? No; but the victim's reaction to it made it wrong.bloodling

Someone's reaction doesn't make it right or wrong. However, if you ask someone "Can I do this?" and the person agrees, then it's okay.

Of course it does. That's the entire basis of tort law.
#191 Posted by MrGeezer (57104 posts) -
[QUOTE="harashawn"][QUOTE="MrGeezer"][QUOTE="harashawn"] An act is only illegal/wrong if it is objected to. If I poke two separate people in the back of the neck, and one doesn't care but the other feels violated, only one of those acts can be considered wrong. Was the act itself wrong? No; but the victim's reaction to it made it wrong.

Really? If someone takes some money out of your wallet but you don't notice that they did, is that okay? If some kids steal your car and take it on a joyride, but they return it before you notice, is that okay?

Whether I know about it isn't the point. It is whether I would object to it.

You can't object to it if you don't know about it, so the situation still stands. At no point do you ever end up objecting to it, but that still doesn't mean it isn't wrong, and it CERTAINLY doesn't mean it's not illegal.
#192 Posted by dave123321 (34371 posts) -
[QUOTE="bloodling"]

[QUOTE="harashawn"] An act is only illegal/wrong if it is objected to. If I poke two separate people in the back of the neck, and one doesn't care but the other feels violated, only one of those acts can be considered wrong. Was the act itself wrong? No; but the victim's reaction to it made it wrong.harashawn

Someone's reaction doesn't make it right or wrong. However, if you ask someone "Can I do this?" and the person agrees, then it's okay.

Of course it does. That's the entire basis of tort law.

Legally speaking, yeah.
#193 Posted by bloodling (5822 posts) -

[QUOTE="bloodling"]

[QUOTE="harashawn"] An act is only illegal/wrong if it is objected to. If I poke two separate people in the back of the neck, and one doesn't care but the other feels violated, only one of those acts can be considered wrong. Was the act itself wrong? No; but the victim's reaction to it made it wrong.harashawn

Someone's reaction doesn't make it right or wrong. However, if you ask someone "Can I do this?" and the person agrees, then it's okay.

Of course it does. That's the entire basis of tort law.

But you can't predict someone's reaction, so it's always better to ask. If you don't ask, you're taking a chance that it might be taken the wrong way.

#194 Posted by dave123321 (34371 posts) -
Don't think that a person should feel that an act is okay to do on the chance that the other person would not mind. Obvs it depends on what the act is.
#195 Posted by harashawn (27604 posts) -
[QUOTE="MrGeezer"][QUOTE="harashawn"][QUOTE="MrGeezer"] Really? If someone takes some money out of your wallet but you don't notice that they did, is that okay? If some kids steal your car and take it on a joyride, but they return it before you notice, is that okay?

Whether I know about it isn't the point. It is whether I would object to it.

You can't object to it if you don't know about it, so the situation still stands. At no point do you ever end up objecting to it, but that still doesn't mean it isn't wrong, and it CERTAINLY doesn't mean it's not illegal.

You're misunderstanding my point. It is wrong because I would object to it. Whether or not I know about it is irrelevant, given the fact that I would object upon finding out.
#196 Posted by harashawn (27604 posts) -

[QUOTE="harashawn"][QUOTE="bloodling"]

Someone's reaction doesn't make it right or wrong. However, if you ask someone "Can I do this?" and the person agrees, then it's okay.

bloodling

Of course it does. That's the entire basis of tort law.

But you can't predict someone's reaction, so it's always better to ask. If you don't ask, you're taking a chance that it might be taken the wrong way.

Sure, it's better to ask. Do you ask a girl, "Can I kiss you?" every time before you kiss her?
#197 Posted by bloodling (5822 posts) -

You're misunderstanding my point. It is wrong because I would object to it. Whether or not I know about it is irrelevant, given the fact that I would object upon finding out.harashawn

But if you don't object to it, it doesn't make it right. The person's reaction has absolutely no influence on whether or not it's right. A person's act isn't judged on how the victim reacts after the act...

#198 Posted by MrGeezer (57104 posts) -
[QUOTE="harashawn"] You're misunderstanding my point. It is wrong because I would object to it. Whether or not I know about it is irrelevant, given the fact that I would object upon finding out.

Of course, as the thief, I can't possibly know that. I'm only taking five bucks, and for all I know you wouldn't care about five bucks. Therefore, it's okay for me to just take it and hope that you wouldn't mind?
#199 Posted by bloodling (5822 posts) -

Sure, it's better to ask. Do you ask a girl, "Can I kiss you?" every time before you kiss her?harashawn

So now you're saying that every time a guy kisses a girl, it's okay, unless the girl objects after the fact? Then it makes it wrong? How is a guy supposed to predict that?

#200 Posted by harashawn (27604 posts) -

But if you don't object to it, it doesn't make it right. The person's reaction has absolutely no influence on whether or not it's right. A person's act isn't judged on how the victim reacts after the act...

bloodling
Yes, it absolutely is. Assault is only assault if the victim feels threatened, battery is only battery if contact is unwanted, theft is only theft if the victim feels there has been a loss. It is absolutely judged on how the victim reacts, and there is no argument which can be made against that fact.