International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   USA Politics (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   Senator Al Franken Kissed and Groped Me Without My Consent, And There’s Nothing Funny (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=324808)

d4m10n 17th November 2017 05:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 12080303)
And different contexts and situations don't make a difference to you?


Of course they do. I assume the public post is virtue signaling and the other is his authentic self.

Oystein 17th November 2017 05:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 12080290)
One of them says sexual assault is a serious problem which needs to be fixed.

The other says it's fun to pretend to sexually assault someone without their consent.

You really don't see the incongruity here?

I'll take this to total silliness: a. murder is a serious problem, b. it's fun to pretend to murder someone without their consent.

Do you see an incongruity there? I actually don't, because to pretend to murder is vastly different from to murder.

To pretend to sexually assault is different from to sexually assault. Can you agree?

BobTheCoward 17th November 2017 05:37 AM

Why is this conversation being dominated by the photo rather than the kiss? Abusing a scene partner strikes me as unbelievably more heinous.

angrysoba 17th November 2017 05:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Argumemnon (Post 12080302)
+1.

Depending on how he used the picture, it could be harassment, but judging by just the picture it's not assault.

However, it's pretty stupid for a senator to engage in something like this, and such behaviour should be strongly discouraged.

If he is actually grabbing her breasts, then yes it would be considered sexual assault.

d4m10n 17th November 2017 06:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oystein (Post 12080322)
I'll take this to total silliness: a. murder is a serious problem, b. it's fun to pretend to murder someone without their consent.

Do you see an incongruity there? I actually don't, because to pretend to murder is vastly different from to murder.

To pretend to sexually assault is different from to sexually assault. Can you agree?

To make your murder analogy really on point, the perp would have to be just millimeters away from doing the actual murder, just as Franken was uncomfortably close to actually groping Tweeden. Perhaps dangling a flask of liquid poison—near the tipping point—over a sleeping and agape mouth.

ETA: Even then the analogy fails, since we wouldn't wonder whether he actually did the deed when the camera turned away.

Darat 17th November 2017 06:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 12080323)
Why is this conversation being dominated by the photo rather than the kiss? Abusing a scene partner strikes me as unbelievably more heinous.

According to the account she agreed to him kissing her as a rehearsal for a skit she would perform on stage. It was apparently the manner in which he kissed her that she had objections to. In the rest of the shows she says she (for laughs) turned away when he tried to kiss her to avoid a repeat.

That is of course a "according to her account" so people can take issue with it on those grounds however the picture is objective evidence. (No one has tried to claim it was doctored have they?)

PhantomWolf 17th November 2017 06:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 12080298)
Example: You've been dancing together in a nightclub, you've got very close, smooched a bit, they've had their head on your shoulder, you look at them and in the moment go to kiss the other person.

I really don't think in such circumstances there is any fault by the kisser, if the other person pulls away, gives you a what-the-heck etc. it should be a simply "Sorry, lets carry on dancing". It is not a sexual assault.

Or we could get used to quickly asking, "Mind if I kiss you?"

And, yes it is considered a sexual assault, just as if you went around kissing complete strangers it would be, but it's unlikely that anyone would complain and demand you were charged.

Quote:

This is definitely a difference between us, I would not say that any kind of sexual assault has occurred and I think re-casting such human behaviour in such terms would be terrible way for society to go.
I think that the issue here is that the lower end of sexual assault such a stolen kiss, a slap on the butt, a groped breast has always been that, but more recently Rape was added to the list of things that is sexual assault, and so now when you say "Sexual Assault" people think "Rape" and so the inclination is to consider what used to be considered sexual assault to no longer be such because it's not rape. It's like, "I didn't sexually assault her because I only pinched her bottom, I didn't rape her!"

I have seen as number of people argue that including the lesser stuff in Sexual Assault devalues rape and the higher end crimes, but I believe it's actually the other way around. By having added Rape into Sexual Assault, what it has done is devalued the lower end to the point that many people don't see them as a crime anymore.

Quote:

As a sort of general disclaimer. I hate being touched unexpectedly, I hate people putting a hand on my shoulder saying "hello mate", any kind of unexpected touch I find distressing. However all I do in those circumstances I either ignore it or ask them not to do that again. I do not feel as if I would be right to call those unexpected touches assault of any kind, they are part of the usual social human behaviours. Now if someone repeatedly touched me - no matter how slight or innocuous after I've asked them not to then it moves into potential harassment and perhaps even assault.
Which pretty much follows the law, unless they were touching you in places that they really shouldn't be

Quote:

Of course, but even that isn't foolproof and people will still mistake what each other is saying.
Possibly, but just because something might not be 100% effective due to idiots, doesn't mean that we shouldn't even bother trying to achieve it.

Quote:

But I think it is all part and parcel of the general discussion, how we communicate to one another is all part and parcel of deciding where we draw lines and create boundaries. I am just cautious about the "sex" aspect that tends to dominate these discussions and we end up escalating the matter by thinking just because there is a sexual element in a human interaction it is always bad without a formal, notarized agreement between two people (yeah I am being silly with the last bit but I hope you get what I mean).
True, and I can see that, I'm just not wanting to help derail the discussion and end up getting told off. :P

Oystein 17th November 2017 06:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf (Post 12080294)
...
As I noted at the time it was mentioned, since it's not demeaning sexually, I'd have less of an issue with it. Drawing a mustache on her is not devaluing her to being a body part to be used for men's entertainment. I do think that we have to be careful with it comes to touching other people without permission, especially strangers, but of it was a prank between friends then I'd be a lot more okay with it. Drawing a penis though I'd object too as again it's sexualising the person.
....

I think it is useful to remember that many sex crimes (particularly rape, but assault and harrassment, too) are committed less out of a desire for sex but a desire for power and domination. In that light, the sexual content is less significant than the abuse of a vulnerability on the victim's side - such as the fact that they are asleep or drugged or dependent or have a weak personality.

To draw a moustache on a powerless, insecure man is, in my opinion, worse than pretending to grope a powerful, strong woman. (I don't know whether Tweeden is, as a matter of personality, a strong woman and thus don't claim this applies in her case).

BobTheCoward 17th November 2017 06:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 12080357)
According to the account she agreed to him kissing her as a rehearsal for a skit she would perform on stage. It was apparently the manner in which he kissed her that she had objections to.

It was apparently in the manner of sexual assault.

PhantomWolf 17th November 2017 06:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oystein (Post 12080322)
I'll take this to total silliness: a. murder is a serious problem, b. it's fun to pretend to murder someone without their consent.

Do you see an incongruity there? I actually don't, because to pretend to murder is vastly different from to murder.

To pretend to sexually assault is different from to sexually assault. Can you agree?

Do you think that placing a knife almost against the throat of a sleeping person like you're about to slash it is acceptable behaviour?

Oystein 17th November 2017 06:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 12080341)
To make your murder analogy really on point, the perp would have to be just millimeters away from doing the actual murder, just as Franken was uncomfortably close to actually groping Tweeden. Perhaps dangling a flask of liquid poison—near the tipping point—over a sleeping and agape mouth.

ETA: Even then the analogy fails, since we wouldn't wonder whether he actually did the deed when the camera turned away.

Your ETA argues from imagination. I am not going to speculate here. There is evidence of pretended assault, but no evidence, and no allegation of assault. So I think my question is perfectly valid still, and you avoided answering it:

Can you agree that pretended assault is not as bad as assault?

Darat 17th November 2017 06:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 12080371)
It was apparently in the manner of sexual assault.

No it wasn't - she agreed to the kiss - from her account "...I said ‘OK’ so he would stop badgering me. We did the line leading up to the kiss and then he came at me, put his hand on the back of my head, mashed his lips against mine and aggressively stuck his tongue in my mouth...."

Did he apply pressure to get a kiss? Yes but not pressure that would I say constituted a crime being committed.

Darat 17th November 2017 06:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf (Post 12080373)
Do you think that placing a knife almost against the throat of a sleeping person like you're about to slash it is acceptable behaviour?

Oystein hasn't said the action in the photo was "acceptable behaviour".

Distracted1 17th November 2017 06:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf (Post 12080373)
Do you think that placing a knife almost against the throat of a sleeping person like you're about to slash it is acceptable behaviour?

Given certain contexts, I find it acceptable.

Oystein 17th November 2017 06:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf (Post 12080373)
Do you think that placing a knife almost against the throat of a sleeping person like you're about to slash it is acceptable behaviour?

As matter of fact: yes! Depending on context, of course, the most important element thereof would be the nature of the relationship between prankster and prankstee (can I claim royalties for that coinage? :)).

I will try to remember to look for a couple of photographs of friends taken a couple of years back, where one is pretending to murder another. IIRC, the first shows the "victim" unsuspecting, or at the moment where he reacts with real shock to the big knife wielded behind him; the second is a reenactment, because everybody had so much fun, including the victim. He figured he could and should look even more frightened.

Belz... 17th November 2017 06:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by angrysoba (Post 12080339)
If he is actually grabbing her breasts, then yes it would be considered sexual assault.

That's what I meant: he doesn't appear to be doing so from the picture; if he did, it probably would be assault (depending on context).

BobTheCoward 17th November 2017 06:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 12080377)
No it wasn't - she agreed to the kiss - from her account "...I said ‘OK’ so he would stop badgering me. We did the line leading up to the kiss and then he came at me, put his hand on the back of my head, mashed his lips against mine and aggressively stuck his tongue in my mouth...."

Did he apply pressure to get a kiss? Yes but not pressure that would I say constituted a crime being committed.

Not all sexual assault is a crime.

It isn't the pressure that is the issue. It is the forcing the tongue into her mouth that is the problem. If that happened to my kid in a drama class or a coworker in a winter party play rehearsal, I would be livid.

PhantomWolf 17th November 2017 06:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oystein (Post 12080364)
I think it is useful to remember that many sex crimes (particularly rape, but assault and harrassment, too) are committed less out of a desire for sex but a desire for power and domination. In that light, the sexual content is less significant than the abuse of a vulnerability on the victim's side - such as the fact that they are asleep or drugged or dependent or have a weak personality.

It's about control, but also objectification. Groping a woman is less about having power over her and more about treating her like an object to be used. Rape is very much about power and control, as is hassarasement.

Quote:

To draw a moustache on a powerless, insecure man is, in my opinion, worse than pretending to grope a powerful, strong woman. (I don't know whether Tweeden is, as a matter of personality, a strong woman and thus don't claim this applies in her case).
The thing is that the drawing of a mustache isn't an attempt to exert power over them, nor to control them, they aren't really being forced to do something they don't want to. Nor are they being objectified or deemed. You're not declaring that they are just a moustache and a plaything. However, when you pretend to grope a woman's breasts (or a man's groin) you are objectifying the, you are reducing them to the pair of breasts or their dangly bits and treating them as an object for your entertainment. You are exerting power over them because you are saying they are just a sexual organ for your enjoyment.

angrysoba 17th November 2017 06:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 12080110)
Sexual assault is a terrible thing, that picture even in the worse light cannot be considered sexual assault. It is wrong to equate the two and I think doing so makes it much harder to deal with the actual issue of sexual assault.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Argumemnon (Post 12080302)
+1.

Depending on how he used the picture, it could be harassment, but judging by just the picture it's not assault.

However, it's pretty stupid for a senator to engage in something like this, and such behaviour should be strongly discouraged.

Quote:

Originally Posted by angrysoba (Post 12080339)
If he is actually grabbing her breasts, then yes it would be considered sexual assault.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Argumemnon (Post 12080385)
That's what I meant: he doesn't appear to be doing so from the picture; if he did, it probably would be assault (depending on context).

What? Given that in the worst light, he may very well be touching her breasts in that picture, then yes it could be sexual assault. I don't see a likely context in which it wouldn't be.

Oystein 17th November 2017 06:46 AM

...
Quote:

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf (Post 12080391)
The thing is that the drawing of a mustache isn't an attempt to exert power over them, nor to control them, they aren't really being forced to do something they don't want to. Nor are they being objectified or deemed. You're not declaring that they are just a moustache and a plaything.

What??
I completely disagree with all of this! That man is treated as a doll or a canvas and made to sport a painted moustache against his will, as the prankster abused a temporary, possibly permanent, power differential with a view to embarrassing the victim. Prankster invaded private space in the process.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf (Post 12080391)
However, when you pretend to grope a woman's breasts (or a man's groin) you are objectifying the, you are reducing them to the pair of breasts or their dangly bits and treating them as an object for your entertainment. You are exerting power over them because you are saying they are just a sexual organ for your enjoyment.

You place entirely too little weight on the non-sexual parts of ones privacy and dignity.

Distracted1 17th November 2017 06:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 12080387)
Not all sexual assault is a crime.

It isn't the pressure that is the issue. It is the forcing the tongue into her mouth that is the problem. If that happened to my kid in a drama class or a coworker in a winter party play rehearsal, I would be livid.

Oddly,I was thinking about wether or not the described behavior (if it happened in the context described) would infuriate me had it happened to a woman I love.

Honestly, I don't think it would.
I have a sister who once had theatrical aspirations. She and I are close enough in age that I had occasionally been invited into her circle, and met people who participate in that kind of creative endeavor. I found them to be extremely fun, yet very harsh to my sensibilities. I found that certain behaviors which I would not accept from near strangers in any other context seemed perfectly harmless in that context.

Further, it does not seem to me that the victim of thie unwanted kiss was all that troubled by it either. Her description seems to focus more on how she found Frankenstein "gross", and his lips "slimy" than about how she might have felt violated.

Just my take.

BobTheCoward 17th November 2017 06:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Distracted1 (Post 12080403)

Further, it does not seem to me that the victim of thie unwanted kiss was all that troubled by it either. Her description seems to focus more on how she found Frankenstein "gross", and his lips "slimy" than about how she might have felt violated.

Just my take.

I don't care what she thinks.

Belz... 17th November 2017 06:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by angrysoba (Post 12080394)
What? Given that in the worst light, he may very well be touching her breasts in that picture, then yes it could be sexual assault.

That's what I said. To me it doesn't appear like he's touching her, but if he is, then I agree with you (the "worst light").

Quote:

I don't see a likely context in which it wouldn't be.
Off the top of my head, for example: if she wasn't sleeping and was actually in on the joke at the time. (Entirely hypothetically, of course.)

d4m10n 17th November 2017 06:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oystein (Post 12080375)
Can you agree that pretended assault is not as bad as assault?

Not necessarily, no.

Tbe crux of the tort of assault is a reasonable apprehension of an immediate harmful or offensive contact. That is an unpleasant state of mind, of course, but then "it's obvious how Leeann would feel violated" by a photograph staging an assault upon her by someone she had trusted. Either way, we are talking about wilfully making people feel vulnerable and at risk.

Distracted1 17th November 2017 06:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 12080411)
Not necessarily, no.

Tbe crux of the tort of assault is a reasonable apprehension of an immediate harmful or offensive contact. That is an unpleasant state of mind, of course, but then "it's obvious how Leeann would feel violated" by a photograph staging an assault upon her by someone she had trusted. Either way, we are talking about wilfully making people feel vulnerable and at risk.

if it is assault, has the photographer also committed a crime?

Oystein 17th November 2017 07:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 12080411)
Not necessarily, no.

Tbe crux of the tort of assault is a reasonable apprehension of an immediate harmful or offensive contact. That is an unpleasant state of mind, of course, but then "it's obvious how Leeann would feel violated" by a photograph staging an assault upon her by someone she had trusted. Either way, we are talking about wilfully making people feel vulnerable and at risk.

If you go by that definition, then there was no assault, only pretended assault, for Tweeden was asleep and thus could not have had an apprehension of immediate physical contact.

And there is then thus a clear, objective difference between pretended and actual assault.

d4m10n 17th November 2017 07:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oystein (Post 12080430)
If you go by that definition, then there was no assault, only pretended assault, for Tweeden was asleep and thus could not have had an apprehension of immediate physical contact.

And there is then thus a clear, objective difference between pretended and actual assault.

I never denied there is a meaningful difference. Either way, though, Leeann would feel violated.

varwoche 17th November 2017 07:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dudalb (Post 12079781)
Liberals and Conservatives have one thing in common:Hypocrisy.

Apparently the spectacularly broad brush you're painting with is based on the words of one or two posters on an Internet forum.

Can you cite any name brand Democrats who have demonstrated hypocrisy concerning Franken?

The Big Dog 17th November 2017 07:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oystein (Post 12080073)
No, I am actually saying SG communicated her thoughts so well that I am strongly inclined to assume TBS's continued misconstrual reveals a serious problem about him.

Bwhahah!! I have a serious problem because I have the temerity to disagree with you?

Posting her pictures and making a point was and is aggressive slut shaming and the pretense that she is arguing is tissue thin nonsense.

Any questions?

Oystein 17th November 2017 07:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 12080433)
I never denied there is a meaningful difference. Either way, though, Leeann would feel violated.

Well, yes, and rightly so - as long as you avoid equivocation. After all, she could feel justifiably violated if made to listen to a tasteless sexist joke, and if subjected to brutal rape.

Weren't we on the topic whether there is / ought to be a scale?

The Big Dog 17th November 2017 07:18 AM

By the way, Donald Trump absolutely drunked on Al Franken this morning.

PhantomWolf 17th November 2017 07:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oystein (Post 12080399)
I completely disagree with all of this!

I suspect from your previous postings that you are merely trying to stir the pot actually.

Quote:

That man is treated as a doll or a canvas
I seriously doubt that anyone is thinking "This guy is a great canvas" when drawing a moustache, whereas I bet nearly anyone that dake gropes is thinking something the equivalent to "Nice rack!"

Quote:

and made to sport a painted moustache against his will
because there is no difference between being forced to take part in a physical activity you don't want to do, and to have something you don't want sit on your skin passively and do nothing else to you or make you take any action.

Quote:

as the prankster abused a temporary, possibly permanent, power differential with a view to embarrassing the victim.
On this basis then all pranks should be banned because all pranksters hold some form of power differential with a view to embarrassing the person pranked. No?

Quote:

Prankster invaded private space in the process.
You have no right to a private space.

Quote:

You place entirely too little weight on the non-sexual parts of ones privacy and dignity.
An I believe that to stir the pot you are placing far too much importance on them

Oystein 17th November 2017 07:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Big Dog (Post 12080437)
Bwhahah!! I have a serious problem because I have the temerity to disagree with you?

Posting her pictures and making a point was and is aggressive slut shaming and the pretense that she is arguing is tissue thin nonsense.

Any questions?

Yes. Who said or implied sexy photos are slutty? SG didn't, I didn't. Who did?

d4m10n 17th November 2017 07:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oystein (Post 12080440)
Weren't we on the topic whether there is / ought to be a scale?

If you want to say she should feel more violated by an actual groping while awake than a pretend groping while asleep, you are free to do so. I'm not going to follow you down that path.

PhantomWolf 17th November 2017 07:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Big Dog (Post 12080442)
By the way, Donald Trump absolutely drunked on Al Franken this morning.

Of course he did, Mister "Grab them by the Pussy" had no understanding of irony or embarrassment.

Oystein 17th November 2017 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf (Post 12080444)
I suspect from your previous postings that you are merely trying to stir the pot actually.

You are simply wrong on that. I really think you totally miss the problem that hazing is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf (Post 12080444)
I seriously doubt that anyone is thinking "This guy is a great canvas" when drawing a moustache, whereas I bet nearly anyone that dake gropes is thinking something the equivalent to "Nice rack!"

Both think "great, (s)he's passed out, I can abuse that vulnerabiluty and exert control and inflict embarrassment", and that abusive control is the core of the crime.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf (Post 12080444)
because there is no difference between being forced to take part in a physical activity you don't want to do, and to have something you don't want sit on your skin passively and do nothing else to you or make you take any action.

Can you clarify if you are being sarcastic here? Because I think a. that Tweeden isn't being forced to take part in a physical activity, as she clearly remains passive, and b. yes, I do think there is hardly a difference between pretended groping and actual moustache painting.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf (Post 12080444)
On this basis then all pranks should be banned because all pranksters hold some form of power differential with a view to embarrassing the person pranked. No?

Yes, I agree that many pranks are better left undone - unless you have been able to verify through previous communicatiobs that the prankstee is cool with it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf (Post 12080444)
You have no right to a private space.

Again, can you please verify that this is sarcasm? For I think it is utterly obvious that everybody has a right to privacy - all ideas of sexual decency rest on that idea, and more ideas do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf (Post 12080444)
An I believe that to stir the pot you are placing far too much importance on them

Stirring the pot is your idea at this point.

The Big Dog 17th November 2017 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oystein (Post 12080445)
Yes. Who said or implied sexy photos are slutty? SG didn't, I didn't. Who did?

Thank you for responding despite my "problem" the entire tactic is known as "slut shaming" and it has been defined repeatedly in this thread and includes like posting pictures of the accuser in bikinis despite being completely irrelevant to the discussion.

That is known as slut shaming.

Thanks for putting up with my problem.

Oystein 17th November 2017 07:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 12080448)
If you want to say she should feel more violated by an actual groping while awake than a pretend groping while asleep, you are free to do so. I'm not going to follow you down that path.

It's good you placed an "if" there, or else this would be a strawman.

I never said or implied her state of consciousness plays no role. It obviously is a confounding factor. Actually groping a sleeping woman is worse than pretending to. Actually groping an awake woman is worse than pretending to (just as battery is worse than assault). Pretending to grope a sleeping woman (and recording it so she knows) is worse than pretending to grope an awake women.
Are we on the same page now?

angrysoba 17th November 2017 07:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Argumemnon (Post 12080410)
That's what I said. To me it doesn't appear like he's touching her, but if he is, then I agree with you (the "worst light").



Off the top of my head, for example: if she wasn't sleeping and was actually in on the joke at the time. (Entirely hypothetically, of course.)

I think this only amounts to the idea that it is possible he wasn't groping her against her will (i.e sexual assault), rather than "that picture even in the worse light cannot be considered sexual assault".

I think that if the Dems and Al Franken want to be taken seriously on the subject, Franken should just step down. And this would also make their position stronger when they go after other, more egregious, examples of sexual assault such as those that take place at FOX News and Roy Moore and their enablers such as the despicable Sean Hannity.

Oystein 17th November 2017 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Big Dog (Post 12080470)
Thank you for responding despite my "problem" the entire tactic is known as "slut shaming" and it has been defined repeatedly in this thread and includes like posting pictures of the accuser in bikinis despite being completely irrelevant to the discussion.

That is known as slut shaming.

Thanks for putting up with my problem.

Except it wasn't irrelevant to the discussion. I see you repeated an invented definition of "slut shaming", but it neither actually applies to what SG posted, nor is there any need for us to accept it.

If anything, SG engaged in male bashing as she implies that men would be significanrly more likely to harrass or assault women who are known for a sexy public image - an assertion of fact not supported by evidence.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:54 PM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-19, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.