• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Given the Modern Definition, Is This Sexual Assault?

Gathomas88

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2013
Messages
28,659
Reaction score
18,803
Location
Charleston, South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
According to a lot of people on the cultural Left, and feminists in particular, any form of physical contact, which could be construed as being sexual in nature, without the directly expressly given consent of the person touched, is basically "sexual assault." In other words, a "no" on the part of the woman isn't even required, simply the absence of a spoken "yes." They seek to have laws re-written to reflect this.

In light of that fact, what do you make of the following?



This is the norm in most Jamaican Dance Halls, as far as I'm aware. Guy grabs girl, and just starts roughly dry humping away.

Are all of these women victims of "sexual assault?" Why or why not?

After all, none of them appear to be giving "express consent," as "rape culture" crusaders seem to want as the universal standard. While they seem to go along with it, there is often force involved, and one could easily argue that the women are simply "too afraid" to object.
 
Last edited:
As odd as I found that video, those women obviously don't have a problem with what they're doing. So no, I wouldn't consider that to be sexual assault.

Consent isn't always verbal. Nor does it have to be.
 
As odd as I found that video, those women obviously don't have a problem with what they're doing. So no, I wouldn't consider that to be sexual assault.

Consent isn't always verbal. Nor does it have to be.

Which is kind of exactly my point. That's not what the "rape culture" crowd claims.

They claim there must be definitive consent before a man makes any sort of physical move, and that a woman simply "going along with it" (as the women in this video appear to do) isn't enough.

Are we to assume that what is shown in the video is "okay" because it is a different culture? That the presence of these women in the dance hall is taken as being a sort of "implied consent" until they say otherwise?

Is that right or wrong?

In any case, my point here is that things obviously aren't always so "cut and dry" as rape alarmists want to make out. :lol:
 
Last edited:
According to a lot of people on the cultural Left, and feminists in particular, any form of physical contact, which could be construed as being sexual in nature, without the directly expressly given consent of the person touched, is basically "sexual assault."
Uh... no.

If people bump into each other on a crowded subway, that's not sexual assault.

If one person uses that same situation as an excuse to grope someone? Then that's assault.

Who are these mysterious activists? What specific legislation have they advocated that backs your claim?

And do you think it's a good idea for someone to be entitled to grope another person, with prurient intent, whenever they want?


In light of that fact, what do you make of the following?
I think this is probably not the first time someone has used Worldstar to construct a straw man argument.

The reality is very complex, because each state defines "consent" differently. Variables in laws can include age, intoxication, developmental stage, and relationship can impact the decision. (see https://apps.rainn.org/policy/) for a better idea about the specific state laws.) Even individual colleges and universities can have their own rules.

Nor is it useful to smear feminists and activists with your own interpretation of changes to laws, which could easily be proposed by fringe groups that do not represent the majority of activists.

If anything, my impression is that serious activist organizations are pushing for things like catching up on the backlog on rape kits (which may number in the hundreds of thousands), dealing with domestic violence, improving campus handling of allegations of rape, and just raising awareness.
 
According to a lot of people on the cultural Left, and feminists in particular, any form of physical contact, which could be construed as being sexual in nature, without the directly expressly given consent of the person touched, is basically "sexual assault." In other words, a "no" on the part of the woman isn't even required, simply the absence of a spoken "yes." They seek to have laws re-written to reflect this.

In light of that fact, what do you make of the following?



This is the norm in most Jamaican Dance Halls, as far as I'm aware. Guy grabs girl, and just starts roughly dry humping away.

Are all of these women victims of "sexual assault?" Why or why not?

After all, none of them appear to be giving "express consent," as "rape culture" crusaders seem to want as the universal standard. While they seem to go along with it, there is often force involved, and one could easily argue that the women are simply "too afraid" to object.
A lot of Jamaican dance halls in South Carolina?
 
As odd as I found that video, those women obviously don't have a problem with what they're doing. So no, I wouldn't consider that to be sexual assault.

Consent isn't always verbal. Nor does it have to be.

:agree: Those women know what to expect - if they have a problem with it, they can always stay home...
 
According to a lot of people on the cultural Left, and feminists in particular, any form of physical contact, which could be construed as being sexual in nature, without the directly expressly given consent of the person touched, is basically "sexual assault." In other words, a "no" on the part of the woman isn't even required, simply the absence of a spoken "yes." They seek to have laws re-written to reflect this.

In light of that fact, what do you make of the following?

This is the norm in most Jamaican Dance Halls, as far as I'm aware. Guy grabs girl, and just starts roughly dry humping away.

Are all of these women victims of "sexual assault?" Why or why not?

After all, none of them appear to be giving "express consent," as "rape culture" crusaders seem to want as the universal standard. While they seem to go along with it, there is often force involved, and one could easily argue that the women are simply "too afraid" to object.

What Trump did took place in a business setting in the US, not in a dance hall in a foreign country.

And also, we are talking about Trump groping a stranger's crotch without warning. If a strange man just walked up and did that to your wife, daughter, girlfriend, or mother in Charleston how the hell long do you think it would take for them to get fired and/or arrested? Don't you think they should get fired and/or arrested? If you yourself are there I guess you would just say "Deal with it, Moms"? What kind of man are you?

Oh, and how about if they grope you in the crotch? Do you say "Hey Mon, l like it- more!" Or is it only females who should have enjoy it when strange hands grope them?
 
Who are these mysterious activists? What specific legislation have they advocated that backs your claim?

Oh, please. Don't feign ignorance. It's insulting to everyone's intelligence, and your own in particular. :roll:

(Not so) Radical feminists and campus SJWs have been arguing - quite vehemently - that any sort of aggressive sexual advance by a male without express, unmistakable (pretty much verbal), consent is intrinsically predatory, and should be prosecuted as being criminal, for quite some time. This has culminated in things such as the "Yes means yes" law in California, which basically shifts the burden of proof onto the man in any given scenario to prove that he had the consent of the woman he was with every step of the way, with lack of resistance in no way filling that burden.

How does the video fit into that framework?

And do you think it's a good idea for someone to be entitled to grope another person, with prurient intent, whenever they want?

Is that not pretty much exactly what we're seeing above?

Why are you avoiding the question?

Under the auspices of the "yes means yes" philosophy, could these men not be charged with "sexual assault" if one of the women they are "dancing" with were to retroactively claim that they did not "consent" to what was going on, but decided to go along with it anyway out of fear?

What Trump did took place in a business setting in the US, not in a dance hall in a foreign country.

And also, we are talking about Trump groping a stranger's crotch without warning. If a strange man just walked up and did that to your wife, daughter, girlfriend, or mother in Charleston how the hell long do you think it would take for them to get fired and/or arrested? Don't you think they should get fired and/or arrested? If you yourself are there I guess you would just say "Deal with it, Moms"? What kind of man are you?

Oh, and how about if they grope you in the crotch? Do you say "Hey Mon, l like it- more!" Or is it only females who should have enjoy it when strange hands grope them?

Who said anything about Trump?

For that matter, why should culture necessarily be a relevant consideration? If it is a relevant consideration when talking about things which take place outside of the country, why can it not be a relevant consideration when talking about things that take place within the United States as well?

After all, not everyone in the United States agrees with the modern Feminist view of "appropriate" sexual conduct. Some women actually prefer more forceful men.
 
Last edited:
Who said anything about Trump?

I did, because Trump is the number one Poster Boy for your POV.

You know that.


For that matter, why should culture necessarily be a relevant consideration? If it is a relevant consideration when talking about things which take place outside of the country, why can it not be a relevant consideration when talking about things that take place within the United States as well?
Your absurd premise is that if a cultural practice is acceptable in one place then it should be crammed down everyone's throat in all other places.

According to Gathomas's logic, if Gathomas's mother may be groped with impunity in Slabovia, then she let her be groped with impunity in Charleston SC!

And why limit the argument to the modern world: Pederasty was acceptable among the ancient Greeks, so according to Gathomas's logic, if Gathomas's if Gathomas's underage son could have been taken to bed by a grown man in ancient Greece, then let him be taken to bed by a grown man in Charleston SC!

IOW Culture should be a relevant consideration because, for one thing, many cultures possess disgusting characteristics.


After all, not everyone in the United States agrees with the modern Feminist view of "appropriate" sexual conduct. Some women actually prefer more forceful men.
It is not an exclusively feminist view that no one should have to endure uninvited groping by strangers.
 
I did, because Trump is the number one Poster Boy for your POV.

You know that.



Your absurd premise is that if a cultural practice is acceptable in one place then it should be crammed down everyone's throat in all other places.

According to Gathomas's logic, if Gathomas's mother may be groped with impunity in Slabovia, then she let her be groped with impunity in Charleston SC!

And why limit the argument to the modern world: Pederasty was acceptable among the ancient Greeks, so according to Gathomas's logic, if Gathomas's if Gathomas's underage son could have been taken to bed by a grown man in ancient Greece, then let him be taken to bed by a grown man in Charleston SC!

IOW Culture should be a relevant consideration because, for one thing, many cultures possess disgusting characteristics.

No, genius. My point is that it is the LEFT which likes to pretend like some kind of universal "black and white" distinction exists with regards to sexual advances, with all conduct without express consent representing "assault." "Culture" isn't supposed to matter in that distinction, or so they claim.

The video demonstrates a lot of principles in action - "implied situational consent," women quite obviously enjoying being aggressively groped by men, and etca, etca - which the Feminist Left quite vehemently argues cannot exist.

Clearly, things can be a bit more complicated than many of the radicals currently writing legislation would like us to believe.

It is not an exclusively feminist view that no one should have to endure uninvited groping by strangers.

Expect for in Jamaica, of course, where it's apparently A-okay!

Explain to me, why is it not okay here then, if the woman says she does not have a problem with it? Again, the Left's argument is that it basically ALWAYS represents assault, regardless of the woman's opinion on the matter.
 
vjalK0C.jpg
 
:agree: Those women know what to expect - if they have a problem with it, they can always stay home...

The Feminists make the rules, and they said we gotta do opt-in consent, opt-out consent is not good enough for them and thus us....
 

No, not really. The Feminists arguments I've mentioned are quite real, and quite common.

However, I really can't say I'm surprised with the outcome of this thread either way regardless. The "rape culture crusaders" on the Left can't condemn what's going on in the dance halls too vehemently, because that'd be "racist," or "ethnocentric," or some such nonsense. They also can't harp too heavily on the "that's their culture, so it's okay" argument, because that would undermine what they're trying to accomplish with regard to so-called "rape culture" in the United States - i.e. A supposedly universal standard of consent on the basis of which men can be objectively condemned and prosecuted.

End result? Paralysis. The vast majority of Left Wingers on the board are avoiding this thread like the plague because they really don't have an effective response, and those that do respond are doing so in an incredibly sporadic and evasive manner, without making any real arguments they can be pinned down on.

I basically just laid a rather effective "logic trap." :lol:
 
Last edited:
I don't care what "some people say" or what some pundit in the media says about it.

Let's look at the legal definition. I pulled Georgia State Code at random:

Sexual Battery - Sexual battery occurs when a person “intentionally makes physical contact with the intimate parts of the body of another person without the consent of that person.” The Code defines “intimate parts” as the “primary genital area, anus, groin, inner thighs, or buttocks of a male or female and the breasts of a female.”

So randomly grabbing a woman's boob or buttocks is sexual battery. And the states differ, but I think you'll find Georgia's definition to be ubiquitous. But you have to have an element of non-consent for it to be sexual battery.
 
According to a lot of people on the cultural Left, and feminists in particular, any form of physical contact, which could be construed as being sexual in nature, without the directly expressly given consent of the person touched, is basically "sexual assault." In other words, a "no" on the part of the woman isn't even required, simply the absence of a spoken "yes." They seek to have laws re-written to reflect this.

In light of that fact, what do you make of the following?



This is the norm in most Jamaican Dance Halls, as far as I'm aware. Guy grabs girl, and just starts roughly dry humping away.

Are all of these women victims of "sexual assault?" Why or why not?

After all, none of them appear to be giving "express consent," as "rape culture" crusaders seem to want as the universal standard. While they seem to go along with it, there is often force involved, and one could easily argue that the women are simply "too afraid" to object.


You have a serious contextual error going on here. This video does nothing to show whether or not the people know each other and whether any kind of consent has been given before hand. Therefore there is not enough evidence to say one way or the othe
 
Simply defined sexual assault is unwanted contact to the breasts buttocks, loins, and groin. I dont know what the **** that was, but it doesnt appear to be unwanted.
 
According to a lot of people on the cultural Left, and feminists in particular, any form of physical contact, which could be construed as being sexual in nature, without the directly expressly given consent of the person touched, is basically "sexual assault." In other words, a "no" on the part of the woman isn't even required, simply the absence of a spoken "yes." They seek to have laws re-written to reflect this.

In light of that fact, what do you make of the following?


This is the norm in most Jamaican Dance Halls, as far as I'm aware. Guy grabs girl, and just starts roughly dry humping away.

Are all of these women victims of "sexual assault?" Why or why not?

After all, none of them appear to be giving "express consent," as "rape culture" crusaders seem to want as the universal standard. While they seem to go along with it, there is often force involved, and one could easily argue that the women are simply "too afraid" to object.

Where do you find this stuff?

Scratch that.

Why do you find this stuff?
 
You have a serious contextual error going on here. This video does nothing to show whether or not the people know each other and whether any kind of consent has been given before hand. Therefore there is not enough evidence to say one way or the othe

Simply defined sexual assault is unwanted contact to the breasts buttocks, loins, and groin. I dont know what the **** that was, but it doesnt appear to be unwanted.

Again, the point of this thread was to ask the question in relation to the Leftist position that "context" is basically irrelevant to the issue of consent. That consent should never be assumed, without being directly given.

i.e. "Just because she kissed you back or had sex with you doesn't mean it wasn't sexual assault/rape. She might've just been too afraid to tell you 'no.'"

The entire video would seem to fly in the face of that view of sexual interaction - one of the men in the video literally grabs a girl by a wrist, forcibly drags her onto the dance floor, and then proceeds to dry hump her into the ground, for example, without a single word exchanged between the two - hence the question.

Where do you find this stuff?

Scratch that.

Why do you find this stuff?

You don't even want know. :lol:
 
Last edited:
Again, the point of this thread was to ask the question in relation to the Leftist position that "context" is basically irrelevant to the issue of consent. That consent should never be assumed, without being directly given.

i.e. "Just because she kissed you back or had sex with you doesn't mean it wasn't sexual assault/rape. She might've just been too afraid to tell you 'no.'"

The entire video would seem to fly in the face of that view of sexual interaction - one of the men in the video literally grabs a girl by a wrist, forcibly drags her onto the dance floor, and then proceeds to dry hump her into the ground, for example, without a single word exchanged between the two - hence the question.



You don't even want know. :lol:
I just dont think you can really turn a weird gathering of willing people doing some really ****ed up stuff into an indictment on 'leftists'. I mean...theres PLENTY to attack leftists on. But this? Well...that just seems odd.
 
I just dont think you can really turn a weird gathering of willing people doing some really ****ed up stuff into an indictment on 'leftists'. I mean...theres PLENTY to attack leftists on. But this? Well...that just seems odd.

Are you going to deny that what I described is also what the Left tends to argue with regard to sexual assault? Are you going to deny that they probably would try to claim that what you saw in that video blatantly was "sexual assault" and "rape culture" if it were to take place at a college night club in the United States, between a bunch of white co-eds and frat boys? :shrug:

Frankly, the only "indictment" here is how they seem to be avoiding a simple question as if it were the plague. All I did was put the issue forward for consideration.
 
Last edited:
I don't care what "some people say" or what some pundit in the media says about it.

Let's look at the legal definition. I pulled Georgia State Code at random:

Sexual Battery - Sexual battery occurs when a person “intentionally makes physical contact with the intimate parts of the body of another person without the consent of that person.” The Code defines “intimate parts” as the “primary genital area, anus, groin, inner thighs, or buttocks of a male or female and the breasts of a female.”

So randomly grabbing a woman's boob or buttocks is sexual battery. And the states differ, but I think you'll find Georgia's definition to be ubiquitous. But you have to have an element of non-consent for it to be sexual battery.
Get written consent, guys; and have your lawyer present.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
 
Back
Top Bottom