Presumably he finds nothing objectionable about this thread title.
I think you’ll need to expand this OP a bit.
I’m good.
I’ma go out on a limb and presume you’re annoyed at him for claiming that the term “put hands on a woman” doesn’t mean hitting them, in defiance of decades of established fact.
I was fully prepared to be outraged, but this OP is an empty vessel.
Instead, I am going to go rage at the wind.
Your OP isn’t.
He needs to post a speeded-up video of me doing it to prove that I didn’t.
Regards,
Shodan
I think it’s a perfectly cromulent OP.
Noted.
Since Lance wants to be a passive aggressive dick today…
Shodan thinks Acosta put his hands on that intern that was trying to take the microphone away from him at the infamous press conference.
It’s a worthy pitting, but the OP fails miserably in making that point.
I appreciate your contribution to this thread.
if anyone wants a data point from a completely neutral and uninterested party, the phrase “putting your hands on a woman” means, to me at least, using your hands to touch a woman in some way. There is a negative connotation (otherwise you’d just say “touch”) but it doesn’t mean hit (otherwise you’d use the word “hit”)
To qualify further, it’s not just to touch in “some way”, but to touch in a way that is unwelcome to the woman. Not necessarily sexual, and not necessarily hitting, just unwelcome.
Google seems to suggest that “put hands on” anyone, male or female, means to assault them physically, as in hit. This is my own experience in encountering the term.
Translating the OP then, Shodan is playing the “that’s not what the words mean” game, and ignoring the idiomatic common usage. Lance Turbo is calling him out for that. Fair enough. I hate that game.
At the very least, the tread title give me hope that Shodan isn’t reproducing.
But you’re stretching the meaning of “assault”.
“Assault” does not necessarily mean “hit”.
In Florida, one doesn’t even have to make any physical contact to commit an assault. Just look up the statutes.
I think there’s also a bit of confusion here between the phrases “putting his hands on” and “laying a hand on”.*
“To lay a hand on” is routinely used, typically with a negative construction, as synonymous with “to hit” or “to hit even slightly”. As in “But officer, I didn’t lay a hand on him! He got those bruises when he tripped and fell!”
Intensive version is “to lay a finger on”, as in “He never laid a finger on her so I don’t know why she says he was acting aggressive”.
IMHO the phrase “put his hands on” is more ambiguous than “laid a hand on” and doesn’t so clearly imply striking or violence.
- Not to be confused, of course, with the Christian ecclesiastical ritual known as “laying on of hands”.
You should envy it. It surpasses yours.
I always have interpreted it as more than mere touching, but begins with less than actual punches and hitting.
So getting physically moved/manhandled would be “having hands laid on”, even if no punches were thrown.