women's march

[Bells]

So the fact that Franken’s hand may have contacted Tweeden’s flack jacket constitutes an intent to sexually grope?

By law, groping someone's breast without consent, even while fully clothed, is classified as battery and sexual contact.

Would you argue that the prankster in the YouTube video was guilty of rape because he used a foreign object to penetrate the mouth of the sleeper without her consent?

By law, penetrating someone's mouth (or any other orifice) with an object without their consent is classified as a sexual assault and rape, Capracus.

You are free to try to have the laws changed because you want to penetrate someone's mouth with an object while they sleep and cannot consent to it, but I suspect you would fail to garner much support for it. For obvious reasons. Well, obvious to most.

If I were on a chartered airliner with a sleeping co-worker, I might be tempted to execute a prank involving a mock sexual act if I thought said co-worker would reasonably perceive the intent.

And against a co-worker who had let you know that your behaviour towards them was not wanted or welcome, you'd do what?

You are essentially arguing that you'd grope another sleeping person on a work trip if you thought you could get away with it.

Would you take that photo as they slept in front of everyone, not tell them about it and just send them the photo so that they knew what you did to them while they slept? Because that's essentially what happened to Tweeden.

I'm not doing that.

Ya, you are.

I make no such petty demands. You aren't coming close, is your problem. That's a consequence of your insistence on refusing to recognize degrees and spectrum and so forth, and your insistence on lumping and slipshod vocabulary, slander and misrepresentation - you confuse yourself, not the rest of the world.

Yes yes, it's all me.

I have provided you with several examples, and you are quite specific, as Franken was accused of in public.

As I said, it has to be just so.

That's what he claimed. If that's all that happened, what he described, then he can sue whenever he wants to with good odds (I doubt that's the whole story, just guessing, but maybe you're right to believe him completely - in which case the fact that he would be unlikely to damage his life's work by suing it may have figured into the board's decision. Or maybe they were just screwing up in a panic, or there was some kind of personal infighting involving Keillor. Those kinds of boards are stereotypically famous for stuff like that).

If it was just that, then doesn't it tell you something that he's not suing? As you noted, perhaps there's much more to it than he reported. Either way, he was fired for unwanted touching. He isn't saying that it wasn't something that he did not deserve to be fired for.

The case with Swift's groper, on the other hand is very similar to Franken's accusations from the other women (leaving Tweeden out). He was fired when his employer was advised of what he did. He tried to sue, and he lost. Very publicly and spectacularly.

Now, if Franken felt he was being falsely accused, a man of his financial means and influence could very well sue the women. He chose not to. When Tweeden's accusations came to light, he was asked if there would be more. His response was essentially along the lines of probably yes.

That famous incident with Taylor Swift differed significantly from any of Franken's. (The grounds on which the guy was fired would not apply, the lawsuit was not against the corporation, the groping involved was significantly different, the timeline and provenance of the allegation was much different, and so forth).

Right. Man gropes woman's backside during photo-op... Yes, sooo different to what Franken stood accused of by multiple women..

As I said, this neurotic nitpicking so that everything is just so..

He also sued his employer for firing him. He lost. He sued Swift for apparently getting him fired. He lost, and he lost her counter-suit.

You claimed that no employer would fire an employee for doing what Franken was accused of doing and if they did, they could be sued. I showed you an example, a literal precedent of an employee suing for being fired for groping a woman's backside in a photo-op and you respond that it differed significantly from any of Franken's accusations that he groped women's backsides during photo-op's..

You continue to insist that your descriptions create realities - they don't. Compare the court testimony of Swift - that's a good idea anyway, because it is well worth reading. I ran into it in Harper's Magazine, a partial transcript that almost saved her music for me.

I read her testimony. What's the matter? Was it the skin to skin contact that makes it so vastly different? Do you think the ruling would have been vastly different if he had groped her backside through her clothes like Franken did?

You can't change the reality of that picture by assigning your presumptions to it. Other people only see what's in the picture, other people allow for the other (and more likely) possibilities of what's going on.

What "other people"?

You and Capracus are the only two people (possibly aside from EF, since well, dude's way out there and maybe even paddoboy, who doesn't see anything wrong with his friend placing his penis in women's hands for a lark) who don't seem to see anything wrong with a grown arsed man groping a woman's boobs while she sleeps and without her consent for a photo. I mean shit, even Franken admitted that what he did was inexcusable. You are trying to find every meaning under the sun to downplay it.

Would you be arguing the same thing if it was Trump who did it? Somehow I doubt you'd be throwing these kinds of excuses if it was.

You keep doing that - sliding the facts, posting what Mark Twain called "stretchers". Apparently, the actual allegations against Franken look insufficient even to you. Thing is, that does not create a new reality for the rest of the world.
The name acquires the attributes of the thing.

Why are you dodging the question? Do you think that's an appropriate thing to do to a sleeping co-worker, without her consent?

With the rhetoric of the letter. As answered already.
For the what - sixth, seventh time. Right in front of you, in plain English.
And you know that - you know I was talking about the letter:

Oh, sure. He's "clearly" making fun of himself as the hopeless letch on the tour, clownishly groping flak jackets, humiliating himself for a laugh, mugging for the camera even. Right?

You seem to accuse her of obscuring his intent in that photo with her letter.

She could have released that photo without the letter, with just a message that 'he did this without her consent' and it would still be just as bad.

I mean come on! This isn't rocket science.

So as I noted the end result is not in the photo, and does not speak for itself, and matches my descriptions above. Read your post. Furthermore, Franken's intent is not visible or spoken for either one - and without it, you don't have a crime in any of the Franken allegations.
So no crime is on the table, and no civil liability manifest. That is now an established fact of the thread-wrecking discussion, which you have acknowledged - yes or no?

Mmm hmmm.. It's always hard to figure out intent when a man gropes a woman's boobs without her consent while she sleeps and then takes a photo of it to send to her.

Maybe it's just me, but I think writing on someone's face with a permanent marker (while they sleep) should be a punishable offence of some sort. Come on, people, really? Bullying at least. Jeez.

Normal reasonable people would agree with you.

You need to realise that when it comes to political aesthetics, reason goes out the window and excuses must be made.

 

[Tiassa]

Maybe it's just me, but I think defiling someone's face with a permanent marker (while they sleep) should be a punishable offence of some sort. Come on, people, really?

I wouldn't disagree. When I was about twenty or so, we called it, "chiefing", for some reason nobody ever explained to me. It was a custom of defiling the first person to pass out at a party. And back then our version apparently included inflicting chemical burns.

Yes, really.

Or maybe that's why: Leave someone with reddened skin.

For community safety purposes, I must decline to explain how that one works; it's easy enough to figure out, anyway.

Neither am I able to explain whether the fact of this taking place in a rural social context says a damn thing about anything, but the only other people I recall who know this practice by name learned it in a rural area outside a different college town. And, apparently, they learned a different version, which doesn't surprise me now that I stop and think about it, all these years later.

(I think back and wonder what about that party wasn't fucked up. And, you know, from the general to the particular, compared to the discussion of propriety my generation can foster these days, my generation was insane when I was twenty or so.)

 

[Capracus]

Maybe it's just me, but I think defiling someone's face with a permanent marker (while they sleep) should be a punishable offence of some sort. Come on, people, really?

I would agree, the most offensive act in the video is the use of the permanent marker. No one should have to suffer the chemical exposure necessary to remove that ink from your skin. Next time the perpetrator should be more considerate and use a face paint stick.

By law, groping someone's breast without consent, even while fully clothed, is classified as battery and sexual contact.

It’s not that black and white. For the act to be considered a criminal offense it would have to be perceived as such in the eye of a reasonable person. Do you think if Tweeden had taken this photo to police back in 2006 when she originally viewed it, that investigators would have pursued it criminally? Or even further, Prosecutors? I seriously doubt it.

By law, penetrating someone's mouth (or any other orifice) with an object without their consent is classified as a sexual assault and rape, Capracus.

You are free to try to have the laws changed because you want to penetrate someone's mouth with an object while they sleep and cannot consent to it, but I suspect you would fail to garner much support for it. For obvious reasons. Well, obvious to most.

For the 6+ years that prank video has been running on YouTube, how many viewers do you think have been compelled to call law enforcement to report an obvious case of rape? And to add insult to injury, YouTube had the gall to categorize the video as comedy. Where 's the justice in this world?

Here’s a suggestion. Why don’t you sort through Youtube’s collection of similar exhibitions of sexual assault and rape, and find those that are recent enough to still be prosecutable. And when your referral to authorities results in a conviction, then I and all other reasonable people will be incentivised to remedy any pertinent error of law.

And against a co-worker who had let you know that your behaviour towards them was not wanted or welcome, you'd do what?

You are essentially arguing that you'd grope another sleeping person on a work trip if you thought you could get away with it.

Would you take that photo as they slept in front of everyone, not tell them about it and just send them the photo so that they knew what you did to them while they slept? Because that's essentially what happened to Tweeden.

It was Tweeden’s assertion that Franken was aware of her disdain for him, he claims no such recollection on his part. Franken apparently assumed that it would be taken as he intended, as a relatively harmless joke. If I felt I knew a fellow co-worker's temperament well enough, I would’ve likely made the same assumption.

As I understand it, Franken didn’t send the photo to her, she came across it when examining a collection of photos of their trip.

“It wasn’t until I was back in the US and looking through the CD of photos we were given by the photographer that I saw this one…” By “this one,” she was referring to the photo above, which she included with the article.
https://heavy.com/news/2017/11/photo-al-franken-leeann-tweeden-groping/

 

[iceaura]

By law, groping someone's breast without consent, even while fully clothed, is classified as battery and sexual contact.

With intent - remember? A list of specific intentions, and no others, proved in court.

I read her testimony. What's the matter?

Several things, including among them: The parts about 1) reaching under her skirt and then 2) not letting go - continuing to grab her ass despite her rejection. Swift (well coached) made sure to repeat that, several times - that would be the proof of intent, and aggression, and so forth. That's missing from the Franken allegations - all of them.

That Franken in every account took no for an answer has been an explicit part of this forum's dealings with this issue from the beginning. You cannot have missed it.

I have provided you with several examples

Not even close. Seriously - differing in the specific features centrally and explicitly at issue right here, respecting both the employer and the allegation aspects. You can't see that?
Maybe not:

I showed you an example, a literal precedent of an employee suing for being fired for groping a woman's backside in a photo-op and you respond that it differed significantly from any of Franken's accusations that he groped women's backsides during photo-op's

Are you lying, or are you stupid? The eternal question.

Was it the skin to skin contact that makes it so vastly different? Do you think the ruling would have been vastly different if he had groped her backside through her clothes like Franken did?

That ruling was not on whether Mueller committed a crime or not - that ruling was on Swift's liability in getting him fired, by somebody else. You're questioning the wrong "ruling".

But that aside: I do think that if Franken had been photographed (or even said to have been) sliding his hands under that flak jacket and refusing to let go of her breast when she moved away in rejection, or reaching under and into women's clothing and refusing to release his grip on their asses, etc, when they objected in some way, that would make a difference to most people. All reasonable people, in fact. Not seeing that as a significant difference is a field mark, and a warning, imho.

Why are you dodging the question? Do you think that's an appropriate thing to do to a sleeping co-worker, without her consent?

I think that's a dishonest attempt to strawman, however habitual and by reflex. I don't think you're that stupid.

You and Capracus are the only two people (possibly aside from EF, since well, dude's way out there and maybe even paddoboy, who doesn't see anything wrong with his friend placing his penis in women's hands for a lark) who don't seem to see anything wrong with a grown arsed man groping a woman's boobs while she sleeps and without her consent for a photo

This kind of dishonesty alienates. It does not create its own reality, but instead tars everything associated with it - including any political causes it explicitly favors.

You seem to accuse her of obscuring his intent in that photo with her letter.

Yep.
Obviously, carefully, and with visible sophistication. Notice how immediately and frequently the news reports - this was a professional media release, designed to create publicity - jumped to Franken salaciously groping her breasts, for example. That was not an accident.
It was designed to elicit this:

Mmm hmmm.. It's always hard to figure out intent when a man gropes a woman's boobs without her consent while she sleeps and then takes a photo of it to send to her

and it worked.

This faction of the Democratic Party was played, by the media wing of the US Republican Party. It was played by people taking deliberate advantage of an authoritarian's willingness to abandon reason for their cause - the weakness of this faction. Abandon reason, power and money wins.

 

[Bells]

It’s not that black and white. For the act to be considered a criminal offense it would have to be perceived as such in the eye of a reasonable person. Do you think if Tweeden had taken this photo to police back in 2006 when she originally viewed it, that investigators would have pursued it criminally? Or even further, Prosecutors? I seriously doubt it.

I do not know a single reasonable person who found that photo acceptable or funny. The only people who don't have an issue with that photo are people with a history of excusing rape.

Funny that, huh?

Here’s a suggestion. Why don’t you sort through Youtube’s collection of similar exhibitions of sexual assault and rape, and find those that are recent enough to still be prosecutable. And when your referral to authorities results in a conviction, then I and all other reasonable people will be incentivised to remedy any pertinent error of law.

Why would I do that?

I know people who do that sort of thing for a living. And while you may try and joke about it, you have no idea of the stuff people post on youtube and the like.

You are aware that many rapists, child molesters, sexual abusers, etc, are actually caught because of what they post on youtube, yes?

You do know that youtube and other video platforms is a means for paedophiles to post videos as vbloggers, to groom children, to encourage them to send them videos or pictures of themselves, or even meet them? Not to mention their grooming attempts on innocent videos posted by kids themselves. You are aware of this, yes?

You are aware that many rapists post videos of themselves raping women, sometimes gang rapes, rapes of the elderly, the disabled, on youtube, yes?

And you think these crimes aren't prosecuted when they are caught? There is a reason why my kids aren't allowed to watch youtube without supervision and why they are banned from ever uploading a video they make on that site.

It was Tweeden’s assertion that Franken was aware of her disdain for him, he claims no such recollection on his part. Franken apparently assumed that it would be taken as he intended, as a relatively harmless joke. If I felt I knew a fellow co-worker's temperament well enough, I would’ve likely made the same assumption.

As I understand it, Franken didn’t send the photo to her, she came across it when examining a collection of photos of their trip.

“It wasn’t until I was back in the US and looking through the CD of photos we were given by the photographer that I saw this one…” By “this one,” she was referring to the photo above, which she included with the article.
https://heavy.com/news/2017/11/photo-al-franken-leeann-tweeden-groping/

Yep. My mistake.

And this somehow makes it better, though?

The picture itself, on its own, without a letter from her, is bad. She was asleep, he groped her boobs without her consent, took a photo of it which was then given to her by the photographer. How can people defend this? How can people justify it? And even worse, justify and defend it for politics.

What the hell is wrong with you people?

 

[Capracus]

I do not know a single reasonable person who found that photo acceptable or funny. The only people who don't have an issue with that photo are people with a history of excusing rape.

Funny that, huh?

I’m not surprised that you don’t know a single reasonable person.

These are the assets Tweeden possess that have led to her success as a model and media personality. The exhibition of those assets is key to maintaining the notion held by consumers of her imagery, that they could at least in fantasy connect with those assets. What Franken did in the mock posturing he displayed in the photo is to ehco the message Tweeden herself transmits in much her professional work, which is essentially, wouldn’t you love to get your hands on this? Just buy magazine X and in fantasy I'm yours.

Why would I do that?

I know people who do that sort of thing for a living. And while you may try and joke about it, you have no idea of the stuff people post on youtube and the like.

Why would you not report a crime you claim to witness on YouTube? You have no senses of social responsibility?

Joke about it? I’m simply exposing the mockery you make of genuine cases of sexual assault by equating them with innocuous pranksterism.

You are aware that many rapists, child molesters, sexual abusers, etc, are actually caught because of what they post on youtube, yes?

Because responsible viewers report these crimes to the proper authorities? So what are you waiting for?

You do know that youtube and other video platforms is a means for paedophiles to post videos as vbloggers, to groom children, to encourage them to send them videos or pictures of themselves, or even meet them? Not to mention their grooming attempts on innocent videos posted by kids themselves. You are aware of this, yes?

You are aware that many rapists post videos of themselves raping women, sometimes gang rapes, rapes of the elderly, the disabled, on youtube, yes?

And you think these crimes aren't prosecuted when they are caught? There is a reason why my kids aren't allowed to watch youtube without supervision and why they are banned from ever uploading a video they make on that site.

Yes, most people with half a brain and not living in North Korea are aware of this. But those with criminal intent who are dumb enough to post such content on a platform such as YouTube are only supplying law enforcement with additional ammunition to eventually bring them down.

I’m not disputing that there are countless examples of illegal and despicable behavior on YouTube, what I am disputing is your designation of it. If you are going to claim that any behavior conforming to your interpretation of sexual assault qualifies as a criminal offense, then it’s your duty to society to report these offenses as the become known to you. So at least contact the people you know that “do this sort of thing" and make them aware that these dangerous face marking assailants are begging to be prosecuted.

Yep. My mistake.

And this somehow makes it better, though?

The picture itself, on its own, without a letter from her, is bad. She was asleep, he groped her boobs without her consent, took a photo of it which was then given to her by the photographer. How can people defend this? How can people justify it? And even worse, justify and defend it for politics.

You tried to insinuate some form of malice on Franken’s part by suggesting he had sent her the photo, that’s the difference.

Again, you interpret the fact that his mocking behavior resulted in some minor degree of contact to be an intent to sexually grope. His posture and the circumstance don’t support that interpretation, and that’s how most reasonable people would likely view it in court. If Franken’s intent were malicious, or he thought it would be perceived as such, don’t you think he would’ve made an effort to conceal his actions or the photos? He apparently did neither.

What the hell is wrong with you people?

Back at you.

 

[billvon]

These are the assets Tweeden possess that have led to her success as a model and media personality. The exhibition of those assets is key to maintaining the notion held by consumers of her imagery, that they could at least in fantasy connect with those assets. What Franken did in the mock posturing he displayed in the photo is to ehco the message Tweeden herself transmits in much her professional work, which is essentially, wouldn’t you love to get your hands on this? Just buy magazine X and in fantasy I'm yours.

So if an actress plays a woman who is sexually assaulted, it becomes more acceptable to sexually assault her, because "she exhibited her assets" for people who enjoy sexual assault?

 

[Tiassa]

I’m simply exposing the mockery you make of genuine cases of sexual assault by equating them with innocuous pranksterism.

And that is why you fail.

Seriously, we're back to "legitimate rape" arguments?

This is rape culture.

 

[iceaura]

I do not know a single reasonable person who found that photo acceptable or funny. The only people who don't have an issue with that photo are people with a history of excusing rape.

So? Lots of people have issues with that unfunny and unacceptable photo, regardless of its motive or context,
and also with the dangerous, poorly justified, and openly visible incompetence involved in forcing Franken's immediate resignation,
and with any practice of lying, slandering, and misrepresentation, by people claiming a moral and ethical high ground and the representation of worthy causes.
For example:

And that is why you fail.
Seriously, we're back to "legitimate rape" arguments?

People with issues. There are more than one.

 

[spidergoat]

our interpretation of the allegations, Franken's behavior, the meaning of "course of employment", and the law involved, are not going to survive in a US court of law - civil or criminal.

Acts that may not be illegal may violate an employers code of conduct.

 

[iceaura]

Acts that may not be illegal may violate an employers code of conduct.

Sure. But that's completely and obviously irrelevant in the context.
Which brings up the question of why it was posted.
Also: editing "your" to "our", however trivial an event, should be corrected in a quote.

 

[zgmc]

Something to consider in regards to the Franken photo. They were comedians on tour overseas. It was supposed to be a joke. They are comedians. There is video of the woman in the photo doing worse to men on stage during that same tour. Lets just think about it for a minute. The woman in question decides to be offended 10 years after the fact, and she just happens to be a conservative radio personality. Pretty sure she had the photo in her possession. I am willing to bet that she thought it was a joke, and probably showed that photo to friends over the years and had a good laugh. Lets not diminish actual sexual assault by raising this prank, (which was in poor taste) to the same level. I'm sure there are a few here that will like to say that I am just embracing rape culture. That's just bullshit. It must be fun to claim moral superiority.

 

[birch]

these type of arguments are false because he was being inappropriate to women repeatedly. why that is overlooked is the most suspicious and inappropriate and unprofessional. but i suppose that's what society wants so who am i? just one person. if that's what society decides, it sure ain't just going to be me who suffers but it will be your wife, girlfriend, boyfriend, mother, sister, son, coworker etc that will be the next target or victim.

i suppose it is to condone any type of sexual harassment or conduct as short of penetration into the anus/vagina with an object.

you hear that people? great news for pervs. you can tell your kids that your school teacher or anyone, for that matter, has the right to yank off your childrens panties or underwear and molesting them is a-okay and you are being selfish to be upset when there are worse things that can happen to someone (and the pervs will use this reasoning to their advantage). or a full-grown adult exposing themselves and trying to get a child to touch and fondle their private parts and other obscene and perverted acts without their consent. of course, we will pretend these are not horrifying or disgustingly heinous or traumatic to the victim. or let's also pretend when an adult inflicts demeaning behavior on another, it's okay too.

very sound morals. all of you. hip hip hooray for pervs, molestors and rapists!!!

 

[spidergoat]

Lets not diminish actual sexual assault by raising this prank,

This actually happened. It is sexual assault even if you don't think so.

 

[zgmc]

This actually happened. It is sexual assault even if you don't think so.

I'm sorry. I just can't go there. A prank photo is sexual assault? It is not even clear that there was any physical contact. She was wearing a flak jacket! We also don't know the overall atmosphere of this group of comedians. Were there other similar pranks happening throughout the tour? All I'm saying, is that this single photo was blown out of proportion. What if the roles were reversed?

 

[zgmc]

these type of arguments are false because he was being inappropriate to women repeatedly. why that is overlooked is the most suspicious and inappropriate and unprofessional. but i suppose that's what society wants so who am i? just one person. if that's what society decides, it sure ain't just going to be me who suffers but it will be your wife, girlfriend, boyfriend, mother, sister, son, coworker etc that will be the next target or victim.

i suppose it is to condone any type of sexual harassment or conduct as short of penetration into the anus/vagina with an object.

you hear that people? great news for pervs. you can tell your kids that your school teacher or anyone, for that matter, has the right to yank off your childrens panties or underwear and molesting them is a-okay and you are being selfish to be upset when there are worse things that can happen to someone (and the pervs will use this reasoning to their advantage). or a full-grown adult exposing themselves and trying to get a child to touch and fondle their private parts and other obscene and perverted acts without their consent. of course, we will pretend these are not horrifying or disgustingly heinous or traumatic to the victim. or let's also pretend when an adult inflicts demeaning behavior on another, it's okay too.

very sound morals. all of you. hip hip hooray for pervs, molestors and rapists!!!

Wow. No one is saying any of that nonsense.

 

[Capracus]

So if an actress plays a woman who is sexually assaulted, it becomes more acceptable to sexually assault her, because "she exhibited her assets" for people who enjoy sexual assault?

Obviously you missed the part of my comment that outlined Tweeden’s reliance on men to entertain the sexual fantasy she relies on to sell her imagery. I made no assertion that this gives license to anyone wishing to make any aspect of that fantasy a reality. Your above comment only has relevance if a perpetrator were to use such an example to excuse an actual assault. In Tweedens situation with Franken, no such assault occurred, and no such excuse was offered.

And that is why you fail.

Seriously, we're back to "legitimate rape" arguments?

This is rape culture.

So a rational interpretation of an act is not important to assign its social fitness? By your irrational standard, spooning food into a child’s mouth qualifies as rape because it can be described as non-consensual penetration with a foreign object. This isn’t rape culture, it’s insane culture, and your a leading ambassador.

 

[billvon]

Obviously you missed the part of my comment that outlined Tweeden’s reliance on men to entertain the sexual fantasy she relies on to sell her imagery.

It doesn't make one bit of difference. If you are woman, and you have rape fantasies, and you write about them - and make lots of money selling your books, and rely on that income - it doesn't mean that anyone has the right to rape you. No one has the right to even make you THINK they are raping you. Even if they really, really think they should be able to because of your writing.

I made no assertion that this gives license to anyone wishing to make any aspect of that fantasy a reality. Your above comment only has relevance if a perpetrator were to use such an example to excuse an actual assault. In Tweedens situation with Franken, no such assault occurred

You mean other than the kissing and the grabbing her breasts while she was asleep?

There is exactly one person who is an authority on whether they were assaulted due to Franken's proven actions - and that is Tweeden. And she has spoken. Case closed.

 

[spidergoat]

I'm sorry. I just can't go there. A prank photo is sexual assault? It is not even clear that there was any physical contact. She was wearing a flak jacket! We also don't know the overall atmosphere of this group of comedians. Were there other similar pranks happening throughout the tour? All I'm saying, is that this single photo was blown out of proportion. What if the roles were reversed?

I guess you don't give a shit about sexual assault. The jokiness is irrelevant. The political views of the victim are irrelevant.

 

[zgmc]

I'm not even sure what rape culture is.. I do not know anyone that is into anything remotely involving rape.. Who is involved in rape culture? Is it frat boys? Bros? I don't even know. I am married, we have a daughter. We hang out with good people. No one that i consider a friend would ever cross a line the could be considered assault or rape... Lets say that I took a photo, where it looked like I was groping my wife while she had her eyes closed. Is that enough to convict me of rape?