(January 4, 2018 at 12:04 pm)Khemikal Wrote: Sex offense isn't about reproduction, it's about sex.  Comparing tits and dicks makes an equal and valid comparison to the nature of -sex- offense.

I wasn't commenting on the offense, I was commenting on the whole "minimum amount of decency".

The fact is, men can go topless, that's the standard. Ergo, women should be able to go topless too, by the same standard.

Aoi compared men going bottomless with their dicks painted to women going topless with their boobs painted. That, IMO, is an invalid comparison. The valid comparison would be bottomless men to bottomless women, and I agree, there's a standard there (both involve the reproductive organs).

Semi related aside, I wonder how many victims of sex crimes sit awake at night thinking "he grabbed my babymaker!" to themselves?  I can't help but think that this is not how they conceptualize the nature of their violation, by and large.

Again, I wasn't talking about the offense, just the standard of decency...I'm not sure how you missed that.

(January 4, 2018 at 12:08 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Aoi compared men going bottomless with their dicks painted to women going topless with their boobs painted. That, IMO, is an invalid comparison. The valid comparison would be bottomless men to bottomless women, and I agree, there's a standard there (both involve the reproductive organs).

I'm suggesting that they're both valid comparisons.  How society should be arranged and how it is arranged are obviously not the same thing.  We may not perceive a mans chest as an overtly sexual area but we definitely do perceive his package to be so just as we perceive a woman's breasts.  

If we want to communicate some accurate sense of what we're discussing it is not reproduction, Tibs.  It's not.

(January 4, 2018 at 12:11 pm)Khemikal Wrote:

(January 4, 2018 at 12:08 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Aoi compared men going bottomless with their dicks painted to women going topless with their boobs painted. That, IMO, is an invalid comparison. The valid comparison would be bottomless men to bottomless women, and I agree, there's a standard there (both involve the reproductive organs).

I'm suggesting that they're both valid comparisons.  How society should be arranged and how it is arranged are obviously not the same thing.  We may not perceive a mans chest as an overtly sexual area but we definitely do perceive his package to be so just as we perceive a woman's breasts.  

If we want to communicate some accurate sense of what we're discussing it is not reproduction, Tibs.  It's not.

So you think women shouldn't be allowed to walk around topless?

I don't think it matters whether or not women should be able to walk around topless when we're discussing sex crimes.  Tits out or tits in shirt, nothing relevant changes on account of it. The reason that a comparison to tits and dicks is valid in the context of -sex- offense- is bevcause both regions are considered to be (by society and the weilders themselves) overtly sexual areas. A guy might not understand why someone touching his pecs would be sexual assault. He may not even realize why some girl grabbing his dick would be sexual assualt. He will generally realize -exactly- why it;s sexual assualt as soon as it;s a guy grabbing his cock.

It;s not about reproductive organs or babies, or whether or not women should be able to walk around topless.

(yes please - but we live in a world where we can't have nice things because bastards. )

Ok, so we're talking about completely different things here.

I'm not talking about the offense, I've said that at least twice before.

I was responding to Aoi's first post (https://atheistforums.org/thread-52901-p...pid1680671).

In that post she says she doesn't think that going around "naked in public" is a right. She then compares the action of a women being topless with a man being bottomless. That's the comparison I was commenting on. Nothing else, nothing about the actual crime.

If there was a conversation about sex crimes that I've wandered into, then sorry, but I quoted Aoi's post and responded to that only.

(January 4, 2018 at 12:24 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Ok, so we're talking about completely different things here.

Maybe

Quote:I'm not talking about the offense, I've said that at least twice before.

I was responding to Aoi's first post (https://atheistforums.org/thread-52901-p...pid1680671).

In that post she says she doesn't think that going around "naked in public" is a right. She then compares the action of a women being topless with a man being bottomless. That's the comparison I was commenting on. Nothing else, nothing about the actual crime.

Which is a valid comparison between contextually equal propositions regardless of whether you or I agree with her position on the right of nudity or equality in nudity.  Two people with their -sexes- out...not specific to their reproductive biology. Sex, not reproduction.

Quote:If there was a conversation about sex crimes that I've wandered into, then sorry, but I quoted Aoi's post and responded to that only.

Yeah, it was a thread about finding ways to make a sex offender The Real Victim™ when he got hit in the grill.  I understand, it's like walking in and -then- realizing you're at a gay bar. Shit got hijacked hard.

(January 4, 2018 at 10:52 am)Mermaid Wrote:

(January 4, 2018 at 12:13 am)paulpablo Wrote: Legally they would both be in the wrong, technically.

Obviously he sexually assaulted the female, she physically assaulted him.  It wouldn't be self defense because her attack wasn't to prevent the crime, or to detain anyone until the police got there, it was done as retribution for the crime after it had taken place.

But since he didn't seem to have serious sexual intentions, and that girl punches like a stereotypical girl there doesn't seem to be much harm done on either side.  

Legality and morality aside my general feelings are that girl did a good job of humiliating that drunk idiot, her tits really do not look attractive flopping around like that but it's still a stupid prank to go over there and grab them.  It's not funny and it's just creepy behavior.

Here is a really good example of the issues we have with sexual assault in our culture. 
It was her fault. Check. 
He was the real victim. Check.
She was asking for it. Check. 
He was just being a guy. Check. 
"___ like a girl". Bonus check. 
Devaluing an assault victim based on her sex appeal. Check.
She was overreacting. Check.

Where did you find any of those examples in my post.

I feel like the interpretation of breasts as "sex" is entirely based on societal views than anything based in facts though. In the actual act of sex, breasts are irrelevant to the process. In some cultures, notably tribal ones, women go around with exposed breasts in the same way that men do (with exposed chests). I know New York City allow women to go topless. Societal attitudes are gradually changing, coaxed on by sex positive feminists and breastfeeding mothers (who IMO should be able to breastfeed wherever, whenever, even if we do decide "topless women are not ok").

So I feel like the comparison may be invalid for that reason. I'm interested to know why Aoi thinks women should not be allowed to go topless, whether there's a reason I've missed that isn't based on social views.

(January 4, 2018 at 12:31 pm)Khemikal Wrote: Yeah, it was a thread about finding ways to make a sex offender The Real Victim™ when he got hit in the grill.  I understand, it's like walking in and -then- realizing you're at a gay bar. Shit got hijacked hard.

Heh, he's no victim. Generally I'm against violence unless it's in self defense (which this wasn't as he ran off immediately), however in the absence of actual law enforcement, combined with her likely (and understandable) rage, the guy got what he deserved. I hope she went and got security to kick the asshole out after that.