I see no reason why we should or need to tolerate the violation of bodily consent for intimate/sexual touching. I know that it’s incredibly common, but I think this is bad, and should change, and I think everyone should have full control over who touches them intimately and sexually at all times, and violating that is always wrong .
It’s strange to me that you consider “don’t touch people without their permission” puritanical. Seems like common sense to me.
Well you keep adding qualifiers to what you write; if you were more clear, I prolly wouldn’t need to ask questions to try and figure out exactly what your position is.
Also, let’s assume there was no touching involved, okay? In light of that, would bunny ears be as objectionable a picture as a faux grope? Would the issue be consent, the negative portrayal, a combination of the two, something else?
It’s very simple, really. We live in a country where there are about a thousand different revolutions going on, all of which are an outgrowth of the counter-culture revolution that took place in this country in the late sixties. And as any good Marxist/Leninist knows, the key to revolution and getting people to join your side is to make them angry about the status quo. And to make them angry about the status quo it’s necessary to create victims and villains. As it pertains to issues concerning women’s rights and feminism, women are always victims and men, villains. This was the case with the wholly inaccurate way men were portrayed in the 50s and 60s as out enjoying their cushy jobs, drinking martinis and palling around all day while oppressing their wives and treating them like slaves, when the reality is that men were saddled with the responsibility of supporting a family financially and were therefore burdened with jobs they mostly didn’t like and would have loved to be free of, and stood to lose it all, house, car, kids, etc., in the event of divorce, as well as having to support their ex-wives in perpetuity with alimony, even in the event she was having affairs and was herself responsible for the breakup of the marriage. The truth in this matter and in most, is that each side has things that are unfair and to complain about, and other things that are in their favor and they benefit from.
But I digress. We have an endless number of groups right now villainizing everyone who isn’t fully on board with whatever social justice issue they’re on about, and as a result we’ve become a country full of disparate groups of victims and villains, overlapping and partially integrating with each other, with everyone hating and resenting each other even if they’re in agreement on many other things.
It’s ridiculous, but that’s what you get from 50 years of unfettered and unthinking do-gooderism, with one group after another seeking out a perch from which to look down upon and villainize everyone else.
yes you are from the puritan culture, I understand that, its treatment of these things in terms like ‘violations’ — but it is the american culture, it is oddly prudish and puritanical… and you have the mentality of the framing of the woman as a thing ‘violated’ and damagable…
it is your culture, indeed, the interpretations and the legalisms that are channeled by the puritan culture.
it is strange to observe.
No need, as you said it’s IYO; IMO I’ve my reservations about “zero tolerance” policies in general, though as you may have surmised from my earlier posts I too am a believer in identifying a threshold – or multiple thresholds of degree – and sticking to it as long as applied fairly to all.
If you’re arguing there’s a difference in degree, I would agree with that, but in no way is what Franken did excusable or capable of being dismissed. I’m still on the fence as to whether or not he should be forced to resign. If it’s a one-time ‘mistake’ or joke that went wrong, it’s bad but perhaps it’s possible that the people of Minnesota can decide just how egregious it is. But my gut tells me that this may not have been the first and/or last time Franken has done this. Time will tell.
Prudish and puritanical compared to what?
Bunny ears have nothing to with sex or intimate contact or sexual assault. Could you please explain what you’re getting at? Do you really think bunny ears are comparable to faux-sexual-assault?
It’s for everyone – Terry Crews just talked about his sexual assault from a Hollywood bigwig. No one’s consent should be violated with regard to intimate touching and use of one’s body or presence.
Under what circumstances do you think it’s okay to touch someone in an intimate manner without their consent?
So, in your culture, touching people without their permission is a common, everyday occurrence?
I agree that America has prudish attitudes about a lot of things, but what you’re referring to has nothing to do with puritanism; it has to do with the understanding that a person’s body isn’t your property. Maybe it’s your culture that needs to be changed.
since we do la bise and we do not have your sense of the anglosaxon personal space, it would seem yes.
in any case continue on, it is your affaire.
…not touching without permission!!! Thems the rules!!
Im kinda bummed though, Leanne Tweeden used to be my favorite Playboy centerfold, awesome in lingerie!! But now, one of Hannities buddies? uggg…weird brain conflict :eek:
I recall seeing her on Poker After Dark. As a commentator on the game play and strategy, she was very good looking.
Then why are you commenting at all? I’m curious how many people hate “la bise” but continue to do so because your culture forces it on them.
Good job on missing the point. So let’s pretend I find someone who was in your vicinity 15 years ago for a few minutes when no one else was around and they make the accusation.
This is one of the most absurd things I have seen on the SDMB in a while.
What is offensive is you and Spice Weasel construing “trauma” so broadly that you diminishing the concept for anyone who actually experiences it.
Tweeden was not traumatized. We have her own account of the happenings and she does not describe trauma. She was grossed out, upset and pissed off but nowhere does she describe being traumatized or living with the trauma of that day. Nothing in her life since suggests she was traumatized.
But you seem to think she was. You should let her know so she can get help.
If you “checked” then you know I know she has a name and have used it so your comment was worthless.
According to everybody condemning Louis CK here on the SDMB, being asked by an older comedian to do something, and saying “yes” does not count as true consent due to the “power differential”, especially when done at a workplace. And this is even worse because the allegations say that Louis CK only asked once, left them alone and apologized if they said no.
The hypocrisy is palpable (but only with consent, of course).
At least two of the women did not say yes (according to their accounts) but he did it anyway. Another said he masturbated on the phone without asking.
God the defense of violating consent continues to disgust me.
This is something I’ve been thinking about myself. There seems to be additional psychological issues in the US with regards to sexuality because of the attitudes society has about sexuality. I’m not trying to downplay rape or violent sexual assault but it seems like the judgmental and puritanical attitudes of society as a whole are part of the problem people have.