Man, I go on vacation and come back to this? Really, guys?
Skeptisma, Scented Nectar, and anyone else who agrees with them, you are all dead wrong.
The matter is really simple and clear, and it's amazing that only Adrian and Syn seem to get this. The woman said "no", and that's all you ever need to know about the issue. Pointing out that she was there, dancing, didn't sue the woman, showed cleavage, or anything else makes you a victim blamer. You are looking for ways to make the victim at fault for a violation committed against her. All she needs to do is say "no". Get it? No is pretty clear. There's no double meaning, no hidden message. When a woman says no, they mean no. And you're a fucking asshat if you think cleavage, drunkenness, dancing changes that very clear "no".
A woman has a right to wear a tank top. A woman has a right to drink with her friends. A woman has a right to dance. That does not mean someone can pull down her top, it doesn't mean a film crew can claim her presence was consent and use it to make money.
It is illegal to use someone in a film like that without consent, that's why the case was about consent. The ruling wasn't that consent wasn't needed, it was that consent was implied. That ruling is victim blaming bullshit. Adrian is spot on with his points.
Skeptisma, Scented Nectar, and anyone else who agrees with them, you are all dead wrong.
The matter is really simple and clear, and it's amazing that only Adrian and Syn seem to get this. The woman said "no", and that's all you ever need to know about the issue. Pointing out that she was there, dancing, didn't sue the woman, showed cleavage, or anything else makes you a victim blamer. You are looking for ways to make the victim at fault for a violation committed against her. All she needs to do is say "no". Get it? No is pretty clear. There's no double meaning, no hidden message. When a woman says no, they mean no. And you're a fucking asshat if you think cleavage, drunkenness, dancing changes that very clear "no".
A woman has a right to wear a tank top. A woman has a right to drink with her friends. A woman has a right to dance. That does not mean someone can pull down her top, it doesn't mean a film crew can claim her presence was consent and use it to make money.
It is illegal to use someone in a film like that without consent, that's why the case was about consent. The ruling wasn't that consent wasn't needed, it was that consent was implied. That ruling is victim blaming bullshit. Adrian is spot on with his points.
"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." Benjamin Franklin
::Blogs:: Boston Atheism Examiner - Boston Atheists Blog | :
odcast:: Boston Atheists Report
::Blogs:: Boston Atheism Examiner - Boston Atheists Blog | :
odcast:: Boston Atheists Report