(August 3, 2010 at 10:02 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Hey, Frods, she could have led the South East Conference in blowjobs for three years in a row and now doesn't want her hubby to find out for all we know. It still amounts to asserting facts which are not in evidence. The jury which did see the evidence ruled against her. Apparently they did not consider her a "victim."
That is completely tangential to the issue at hand; it doesn't matter how virtuous or slutty she is.
It matters, however, that people seem to reinterpret the minor permission of "It's okay to film me teasing you" (which is only that it is) with something else, in this case something major.
It's a contract law debate, with little bits of sexism and whatever-ism dropping all over the place. I'd prefer to keep this strictly to a legal discussion, but the environment, setting of this case and discussion have been rife with a dual nature - some blaming the plaintiff for bringing it on herself, others for the perception of the plaintiff as being a villain (I believe "money chaser" comes to mind), etc,.
It doesn't matter what you perceive it as - what matters is how far can you go with implied consent, how far can you go with making money off of a crime and what are the reasonable expectations.
We all go to clubs to party (well, some of us) and often we migrate with the crowd - often times people hide, by accident or intent, notices and signs, for all sorts of reasons. Other times they make them inconspicuous, etc,.
I never thought I'd join forces with In This Mind, but, as you know, strange bedfellows.
