French feminists are petitioning for the removal of the 25-foot sculpture of the famous Times Square VJ Day kiss dubbed “Unconditional Surrender” from outside the Caen Memorial Museum in Normandy. According to them, it has to be torn down as it portrays “a sexual attack”.
Earlier reports have stated that the said statue based on an iconic WWII image is on a one-year loan to the Caen Memorial Museum for the 70th-year anniversary of the end of the Second World War. The said museum is located in Normandy, the site of the famous D-Day Landings.
The sculpture Unconditional Surrender, however, is under fire as French feminists have criticized it, saying that the said statue shows and glorifies an assault against a woman. The French feminist group Osez Le Feminisme complains that Unconditional Surrender, which shows a sailor and a nurse kissing with one of the sailor’s arm around her waist and the other supporting her neck, embodies a ‘sexual attack’ against the woman since the kiss was ‘forced’ upon her by the serviceman.
They further pointed out that even the photographer who took the picture from where the sculpture was based from, Alfred Eisenstaedt, said that the said sailor in the picture and the statue had grabbed and attempted to kiss all the women around him before he took the shot.
A spokesperson for the feminist group issued a very strong statement saying that they cannot accept how the Caen Memorial Museum has accepted and erected the sculpture Unconditional Surrender which epitomizes sexual assault as a figure for peace. The spokesperson further added that the sailor could have just hugged, laughed or asked the women around if he could kiss them. Instead, he chose to grab them and with firm hands, kissed them. That act was an assault.
Furthermore, Osez Le Feminisme has started a petition calling for the removal of the said sculpture from the memorial museum. As to date, the plea has attracted over 700 signatures.
Nevertheless, the director of the Caen Memorial Museum, Stephanie Grimaldi, said that the woman in the photo where Unconditional Surrender was based upon had always maintained that she was happy with the kiss and never once did feel assaulted by it.
In contrast, the feminist group argued that Greta Zimmer Friedman from Austria, the woman officially identified as the nurse in the iconic photo, had stated in her interview way back in 2012 that she was unable to escape from the kiss. But despite that recollection, Friedman did not issue any complaints about it.
The iconic black-and-white photo was taken on VJ Day [Victory over Japan Day] in August 14, 1945 by LIFE photographer Alfred Eisenstaedt. It was, then, published in the LIFE magazine where it gained fame, a symbol of America’s joy that the Second World War had finally come to an end.
tl;dr: Some French women are desperately looking for attention and claim that the Unconditional Surrender statue portrays and glorifies a "sexual assault" and needs to be taken down.
Not going to say much about this, I'll let someone else speak for myself:
“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.”
Don't you mean "tl;dr: Famous picture has different backstory to that expected by most people, and people are objecting to it based on the fact that it is indeed a sexual assault?"
I mean, it's all well and good saying "Those durn feminists" but when the person that took the photo, and the woman being kissed both state that he forced her to kiss him (she was unable to escape) then it's pretty cut and dry that it's not exactly a good thing.
I mean, it's all well and good saying "Those durn feminists" but when the person that took the photo, and the woman being kissed both state that he forced her to kiss him (she was unable to escape) then it's pretty cut and dry that it's not exactly a good thing.
IIRC, we still don't know who the sailor, or the nurse in the photograph are... As such how could anyone have asked her how she felt?? Perhaps she had seen the same things as the photographer (of a sailor, just home from hell, wanting a kiss), and decided to place herself where she would be seen/grabbed by the sailor (as in, "I want to kiss that sailor, but I don't want to be TOO forward about it" NOT the typical dakka "Blame the Victim!!").
Hang on.... Nevertheless, the director of the Caen Memorial Museum, Stephanie Grimaldi, said that the woman in the photo where Unconditional Surrender was based upon had always maintained that she was happy with the kiss and never once did feel assaulted by it.
But....In contrast, the feminist group argued that Greta Zimmer Friedman from Austria, the woman officially identified as the nurse in the iconic photo, had stated in her interview way back in 2012 that she was unable to escape from the kiss. But despite that recollection, Friedman did not issue any complaints about it.
Yeah, the critics aren't wrong, really. Irrespective of the actual event, however, I'd argue that contemporary takeaway isn't what they they are assigning to it; much as how I imagine nearly no Americans see the "Hollywood sign" and think of the Hollywoodland real estate development.
I mean, it's all well and good saying "Those durn feminists" but when the person that took the photo, and the woman being kissed both state that he forced her to kiss him (she was unable to escape) then it's pretty cut and dry that it's not exactly a good thing.
IIRC, we still don't know who the sailor, or the nurse in the photograph are... As such how could anyone have asked her how she felt?? Perhaps she had seen the same things as the photographer (of a sailor, just home from hell, wanting a kiss), and decided to place herself where she would be seen/grabbed by the sailor (as in, "I want to kiss that sailor, but I don't want to be TOO forward about it" NOT the typical dakka "Blame the Victim!!").
In the article there are two accounts; one from a director of a museum of some sort that the woman involved was fine with it, and the feminist group's account giving the name of the woman in the photo, and stating that she had said that she couldn't escape in an interview.
Goliath wrote: Don't you mean "tl;dr: Famous picture has different backstory to that expected by most people, and people are objecting to it based on the fact that it is indeed a sexual assault?"
I mean, it's all well and good saying "Those durn feminists" but when the person that took the photo, and the woman being kissed both state that he forced her to kiss him (she was unable to escape) then it's pretty cut and dry that it's not exactly a good thing.
Apparently, she was fine with it.
Edith Shain wrote to Eisenstaedt in the late 1970s claiming to be the woman in the picture.[6] In August 1945, Shain was working at Doctor's Hospital in New York City as a nurse when she and a friend heard on the radio that World War II had ended. They went to Times Square where all the celebrating was and as soon as she arrived on the street from the subway, the sailor grabbed her in an embrace and kissed her. She related that at the time she thought she might as well let him kiss her since he fought for her in the war. Shain did not claim that she was the woman in the white dress until many years later when she wrote to Eisenstaedt. He notified the magazine that he had received her letter claiming to be the subject.
I thought we had multiple people claiming that's "them" in the picture and that no one was 100% identified...
As to being inappropriate? Sure... but, I'd understand at the same time.... the julibation/party afterwards must of been epic.
(with the "baby boom" following the war. )
sarpedons-right-hand wrote: Now I'm really confused because in the linked article it says that the nurse in question was called Greta Zimmer Friedman, not Edith Shain....
It's...strange. From what I understand, it started off with "V-J Day in Times Square" by Alfred Eisenstaedt.
It was then reenacted by Victor Jorgensen. That version by Victor was the one that was made into a statue.
Now, it could be that Friedman was in Jorgensen's version, but there is the issue that no one really knows who the kissers were; the photographer didn't take names.
sarpedons-right-hand wrote: Now I'm really confused because in the linked article it says that the nurse in question was called Greta Zimmer Friedman, not Edith Shain....
No one knows for sure who the nurse is. (from the original picture.) There have been a few people who said they were over the years.
I agree with this entirely. It's a Bad Thing. The most appalling thing is that the feminists are being short sighted in targeting just this.
In the same vein, I push for not stopping here. We should also purge the following for portraying sexual assault:
Ayn Rand books, or at least the Fountainhead
Medieval history accounts
Historical Christian records and literature
Historical Islamic records and literature
Historical Judaic records and literature
Vampires
Accounts of world war II
Straw Dogs
Romance Novels
whembly wrote: Have you guys honestly read that book? Or, just read the cliffnotes and other punditry's analysis?
I read it willingly back in college. Really gave me a different outlook on things. The thing that keeps me a dirty liberal is my complete unwillingness to extend the message of the book to people beyond me.
Or as Randal Munroe said, much more succinctly: "I had a hard time with Ayn Rand because I found myself enthusiastically agreeing with the first 90% of every sentence, but getting lost at 'therefore, be a huge donkey-cave to everyone.'"
whembly wrote: Have you guys honestly read that book? Or, just read the cliffnotes and other punditry's analysis?
I read it willingly back in college. Really gave me a different outlook on things. The thing that keeps me a dirty liberal is my complete unwillingness to extend the message of the book to people beyond me.
Or as Randal Munroe said, much more succinctly: "I had a hard time with Ayn Rand because I found myself enthusiastically agreeing with the first 90% of every sentence, but getting lost at 'therefore, be a huge donkey-cave to everyone.'"
I read it too... and didn't like it.
It wasn't the message that bothered me. But, baned worthy? Nah.
Although, that last 10%... be a dick if you want, but don't complain for suffering the consequences.
I mean, it's all well and good saying "Those durn feminists" but when the person that took the photo, and the woman being kissed both state that he forced her to kiss him (she was unable to escape) then it's pretty cut and dry that it's not exactly a good thing.
This issue portrays a major problem with attention seekers: they claim feminism but in fact only strife to shove their opinion and personal view down other people's throats. Let alone the historical significance of the entire scene, the "victim" never even claimed that she was not okay with it. Somehow, though, those "people" claim that she did. They literally twist her own words for their "cause".
I mean, it's all well and good saying "Those durn feminists" but when the person that took the photo, and the woman being kissed both state that he forced her to kiss him (she was unable to escape) then it's pretty cut and dry that it's not exactly a good thing.
This issue portrays a major problem with attention seekers: they claim feminism but in fact only strife to shove their opinion and personal view down other people's throats. Let alone the historical significance of the entire scene, the "victim" never even claimed that she was not okay with it. Somehow, though, those "people" claim that she did. They literally twist her own words for their "cause".
A) Just because you don't agree with them doesn't mean they're not people, please stop putting it in inverted commas.
B) They're not claiming that she had an issue with it. They're saying that even if she didn't have an issue with it, it's still a sexual assault. There is a difference
B) They're not claiming that she had an issue with it. They're saying that even if she didn't have an issue with it, it's still a sexual assault. There is a difference
B) They're not claiming that she had an issue with it. They're saying that even if she didn't have an issue with it, it's still a sexual assault. There is a difference
She was ok with it...
Well, she didn't issue any complaints about it. That doesn't necessarily mean she was okay with it.
B) They're not claiming that she had an issue with it. They're saying that even if she didn't have an issue with it, it's still a sexual assault. There is a difference
She was ok with it...
Well, she didn't issue any complaints about it. That doesn't necessarily mean she was okay with it.
There is also lots of dispute as to wether she was actually okay with it. And even if she was okay with it after the fact it doesn't really change the fact that he walked up to some random stranger and forced himself on her without asking.
But really, what do we expect from a poster who decided to choose a title that makes it clear that everybody that doesn't agree with him is irrational and stupid.
Frazzled wrote: Someone cares. The feminists would be better served lobbying for women's rights where they are being raped and killed as a matter of policy.
Frazzled wrote: Someone cares. The feminists would be better served lobbying for women's rights where they are being raped and killed as a matter of policy.
But really, what do we expect from a poster who decided to choose a title that makes it clear that everybody that doesn't agree with him is irrational and stupid.
...an extremely biased post I guess?
It is. It is because few things upset me as much as those people. They are merely looking for attention, out of pure selfishness. They are to feminism what fundamentalists are to Christianity, terrorists to the Islam and TFG to tabletop games. They give love a bad name a good cause a bad name. That's what angers me so much about the entire issue and makes me lose any objectivity. Feminism is an -ism where the amount of hypocrism is beyond ridiculous and it's disgusting to see people riding the wave of feminism just to get their five minutes of shame fame.
Well, when your countrymen haven't won your own biggest events in seemingly forever, you gotta find something to get "even" with everyone else on
So that is the reason why American "feminists" are arguing about video games then?
Nah, American Feminists are their own breed of crazy
But, when a Frenchman hasn't won the Tour de France, or the 24 hours at Le Mans, or the 6 Nations in seemingly forever, they have to do something about us overbearing Americans
Looking at the picture and the works derived from it, its clear that the woman is a passive participant in the act. There is no attempt to embrace the sailor and he has her head trapped between the crook of his arm and his own lips so if she wanted to back out she couldn't.
So yes, while she didnt object, there is no evidence of actual consent which puts the act in the same realm as that of grabbing a woman's breast without asking. She may have decided she didn't mind, but she really didnt seem to be offered a choice.
I suppose this is why in my mind I've always subtitled the work 'To the victor, the spoils.'
Now on the other hand, this did take place in the midst of one of the greatest spontaneous celebrations of all time, and we have no evidence that this went beyond the kiss, so, unless the victim took issue with the event, or this sailor repeated such actions, I'd be willing to chalk it up to getting caught up in the moment and leaving it with advising the sailor that he needs to get consent rather than compliance in the future (or past since we are talking about events from 70 years ago).
While iconic, there are much better celebratory kisses from that war to comemmorate. Ones if women from liberated villages happily embracing their liberators for example.
Jefffar wrote: Looking at the picture and the works derived from it, its clear that the woman is a passive participant in the act. There is no attempt to embrace the sailor and he has her head trapped between the crook of his arm and his own lips so if she wanted to back out she couldn't.
So yes, while she didnt object, there is no evidence of actual consent which puts the act in the same realm as that of grabbing a woman's breast without asking. She may have decided she didn't mind, but she really didnt seem to be offered a choice.
I suppose this is why in my mind I've always subtitled the work 'To the victor, the spoils.'
Now on the other hand, this did take place in the midst of one of the greatest spontaneous celebrations of all time, and we have no evidence that this went beyond the kiss, so, unless the victim took issue with the event, or this sailor repeated such actions, I'd be willing to chalk it up to getting caught up in the moment and leaving it with advising the sailor that he needs to get consent rather than compliance in the future (or past since we are talking about events from 70 years ago).
While iconic, there are much better celebratory kisses from that war to comemmorate. Ones if women from liberated villages happily embracing their liberators for example.
Indeed. If other pictures from that point in time are looked at, sailors and soldiers are being dogpiled by women. Anyone who was there will tell you almost everyone was hugging or kissing each other spontaniously. It was an end to 6 years of tension, uncertainty, fear, death on a grand scale, etc. of course people are going to go gaga. I imagine if many of these feminists were living through that time, they'd be queing up to be the one kissed.
This seems to be a case of try to project modern values onto the past. It was a different time and at the end of 6 years of unimaginable carnage and horror. The kiss represents a moment of spontaneous joy which is why the photo captured people imaginations.
d-usa wrote: But we project modern values on the past all the time, especially when deciding which parts of the past to honor and celebrate.
In this case they are projecting modern values on the survivors of one of the most traumatic events in the last century.
So?
The modern value is that sexual assault is wrong and we should not celebrate the past sexual assault of women. Him going through one of the most traumatic events in the last centur doesn't change the fact that we can look at a 69 year old picture and decide that sexual assaulting the nurse was wrong and that we should not celebrate the assault now.
We can't undo what happened back then. But we can choose to not celebrate the assault in 2014.
d-usa wrote: But we project modern values on the past all the time, especially when deciding which parts of the past to honor and celebrate.
In this case they are projecting modern values on the survivors of one of the most traumatic events in the last century.
So?
The modern value is that sexual assault is wrong and we should not celebrate the past sexual assault of women. Him going through one of the most traumatic events in the last centur doesn't change the fact that we can look at a 69 year old picture and decide that sexual assaulting the nurse was wrong and that we should not celebrate the assault now.
We can't undo what happened back then. But we can choose to not celebrate the assault in 2014.
But you are presupposing it was a sexual assault. As I said earlier, other pictures of the time have women doing the same thing to servicemen. We only think we know the context of the picture, but I have read at least two different versions from people claiming to be the subjects. One of the women laying claim said she enjoyed it, the other said she didn't mind. With a bit of digging, I imagine we would find several others with varying stories of being the people in the picture.
d-usa wrote: But we project modern values on the past all the time, especially when deciding which parts of the past to honor and celebrate.
In this case they are projecting modern values on the survivors of one of the most traumatic events in the last century.
So?
The modern value is that sexual assault is wrong and we should not celebrate the past sexual assault of women. Him going through one of the most traumatic events in the last centur doesn't change the fact that we can look at a 69 year old picture and decide that sexual assaulting the nurse was wrong and that we should not celebrate the assault now.
We can't undo what happened back then. But we can choose to not celebrate the assault in 2014.
But you are presupposing it was a sexual assault. As I said earlier, other pictures of the time have women doing the same thing to servicemen. We only think we know the context of the picture, but I have read at least two different versions from people claiming to be the subjects. One of the women laying claim said she enjoyed it, the other said she didn't mind.
And neither saying that they were asked or that they consented.
The problem here is that these french femifundies have conflated kiss with sex. The reason for doing such would seem to be a deliberate act of sensationalism so that the story would get more coverage.
Could the sailors actions be viewed as an assault? Probably
Is there enough to say such was a sexual attack? Absolutely not.
Why?
Because people kiss for non-sexual purposes all of the time.
Imo, these type of protesters are why there is the term feminazi.
focusedfire wrote: Because people kiss for non-sexual purposes all of the time.
Have you actually looked at the picture/sculpture in question? That is very clearly a sexual/romantic kiss, not the kind of kiss you give to your family.
I thank the inventor of the English language for making sure that we have lots of buzzwords that make it obvious that a waste of bandwith will be included in a post.
This is the only thing even worth replying to:
Is there enough to say such was a sexual attack? Absolutely not. Why? Because people kiss for non-sexual purposes all of the time.
This might not be completely relevant to the thread, but you will be well served to realize that a majority of sexual assaults are not about sex. It's about power and control, not sex. Sexual activity is not the goal of the assault, it's the tool used to assault someone. So saying "it's not sexual assault if it's a non-sexual purpose" is a giant slap in the face of victims of sexual assaults.
Know what you are talking about, especially if you are willing to throw around labels that make it clear that you don't.
And neither saying that they were asked or that they consented.
To be fair, if you ask someone how they felt about a kiss, the first thing that comes to their mind to say probably isn't going to be, "Oh, I consented!"
If you asked my wife how she felt the last time I kissed her, she'd probably say she liked it, but I doubt she'd just mention that she consented unless you specifically asked her if it was consensual or not.
focusedfire wrote: Because people kiss for non-sexual purposes all of the time.
Have you actually looked at the picture/sculpture in question? That is very clearly a sexual/romantic kiss, not the kind of kiss you give to your family.
Why?
Because it is a man kissing a woman?
Would you still view the kiss a sexual if it were to men or two women kissing?
Or would you be more open to the idea of initiator of the kiss just being exuberant and the reciever just being caught by surprise.
Also, take note that the sailor is not using his hands to hold/grope the nurse. A very key sign of intent.
MrDwhitey wrote:Don't you be judging how focusedfire kisses his siblings/parents.
Sorry, I don't have any relation to the British nobility.
Have personally witnessed perfectly straight men kiss other men when overjoyed. Some were when their team won the championship others were after much more serious/dangerous events concerning survival.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote:
I thank the inventor of the English language for making sure that we have lots of buzzwords that make it obvious that a waste of bandwith will be included in a post.
Obvious to any that have read any of your PC buzzword laden posts.
d-usa wrote:
This is the only thing even worth replying to:
Is there enough to say such was a sexual attack? Absolutely not. Why? Because people kiss for non-sexual purposes all of the time.
This might not be completely relevant to the thread, but you will be well served to realize that a majority of sexual assaults are not about sex. It's about power and control, not sex. Sexual activity is not the goal of the assault, it's the tool used to assault someone. So saying "it's not sexual assault if it's a non-sexual purpose" is a giant slap in the face of victims of sexual assaults.
Know what you are talking about, especially if you are willing to throw around labels that make it clear that you don't.
Yes, you might want to educate yourself rather than quoting cliff notes concerning sexual assault, the law and intent.
As I pointed out, a case could quite probably be made for an assault but not so much for a sexual assault. This is because a kiss in of itself is not sexual unless there is sexual intent as the motivation.
Now yes, the roots of many "sexual assaults" are power and control. When such occurs there is still a sexual fantasy that has to occur. No sexual fantasy then there will be no sexual act.
When there is a sexual fantasy then the offender will try to make the act follow the fantasy.
Why is this important in reference to the picture/statue? Because the sailor is taking great care to not grope the nurse.
Any DA that cares about his conviction ratio would take one look at the photo and settle for a plain assault charge. Some might go for the sexual assault charge to see if they can get lucky (if offender will cop to it) but will immediately take a plea of just assault if the defendant gets a lawyer and shows he is willing to fight.
No, because of the pose. Arm around the waist and bending someone backwards = romantic/sexual. I can't believe this is actually something that needs to be explained.
Would you still view the kiss a sexual if it were to men or two women kissing?
Yes, if they were kissing in the same way.
Also, take note that the sailor is not using his hands to hold/grope the nurse. A very key sign of intent.
Err, what? He's very clearly using his hands to hold her. The fact that it isn't the kind of groping you'd get in a porn film doesn't change the intent.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
focusedfire wrote: As I pointed out, a case could quite probably be made for an assault but not so much for a sexual assault. This is because a kiss in of itself is not sexual unless there is sexual intent as the motivation.
And in this case it's clearly sexual.
Because the sailor is taking great care to not grope the nurse.
Perhaps because it's 1945 and they're in public? Is "but he's not ripping off her clothes and ing her in public" your best argument?
Any DA that cares about his conviction ratio would take one lok at the photo and settle for a plain assault charge.
Well yes, sexual assault is notoriously hard to prove in court because so few people take it seriously and will look for any excuse they can get to dismiss it as "it wasn't that serious" or "the victim was asking for it". The fact that the prosecution would settle for an easier charge does not mean that we should follow their example when discussing it outside of court.
And neither saying that they were asked or that they consented.
To be fair, if you ask someone how they felt about a kiss, the first thing that comes to their mind to say probably isn't going to be, "Oh, I consented!"
But I think we could probably both agree that running up to random strangers and kissing them doesn't equal consent.
If you asked my wife how she felt the last time I kissed her, she'd probably say she liked it, but I doubt she'd just mention that she consented unless you specifically asked her if it was consensual or not.
A stranger running and and deciding to kiss other random strangers is just a little bit different than a married couple kissing. A married couple knows each other and knows how to read each other and the non-verbal communication is there.
As to the picture (and event) in question I want to make one thing clear:
I don't think this event needs to be a poster-child of "this is sexual assault". I don't think the picture needs to be erased from history and I don't think we need to shame the soldier and prosecute him. I just think that the event is something that should be celebrated. We can talk about it, we can say that he was so happy that he grabbed her and kissed her, and we can talk about how people viewed that event back then and how they might view it now.
I just think that there is no reason to celebrate this event either.
Good grief. What's next? Level Mt. Rushmore? Hell, those mysoginistic bastards didn't allow women to speak...via ballot box. Ridiculous.
Also, what's the statute of limitations on taking umbrage for perceived slights to others? (I'm curious because I saw a friend get swatted on the bum by a towel in a locker room, circa 1982. He seemed fine at the time, but now, I wonder...)
Rusty Trombone wrote: Good grief. What's next? Level Mt. Rushmore? Hell, those mysoginistic bastards didn't allow women to speak...via ballot box. Ridiculous.
Are you serious?
Also, what's the statute of limitations on taking umbrage for perceived slights to others? (I'm curious because I saw a friend get swatted on the bum by a towel in a locker room, circa 1982. He seemed fine at the time, but now, I wonder...)
When people stop celebrating the event in question. Nobody is demanding that we hunt down the man in the picture and throw him in jail (if he's even still alive), they're just asking that we stop praising what he did.
Yeah, we need to stop celebrating acts like this so that people stop doing things like this in modern times. Oh, they don't? Weird.
So maybe people aren't actually celebrating the act of going up and kissing strangers to enjoy the end of wars and are just enjoying a well- shot iconic photo. I would say that 70 odd years on - if no one has freaked out or sued at this point, let it slide.
No, because of the pose. Arm around the waist and bending someone backwards = romantic/sexual. I can't believe this is actually something that needs to be explained.
Actually, the arm is not around the waist and the hand is closed like the upper hand. The hand at the waist does nor appear to be holding any cloth.
Now the nurse is grabbing his neckerchief.
Peregrine wrote:
focusedfire wrote:Also, take note that the sailor is not using his hands to hold/grope the nurse. A very key sign of intent.
Err, what? He's very clearly using his hands to hold her. The fact that it isn't the kind of groping you'd get in a porn film doesn't change the intent.
No, he isn't. He is using his arms and taking great care to not have his palms touching her. To someone raised in recent years I can understand why they might not understand the significance of this but it is a huge sign as to his intent.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peregrine wrote:
focusedfire wrote:As I pointed out, a case could quite probably be made for an assault but not so much for a sexual assault. This is because a kiss in of itself is not sexual unless there is sexual intent as the motivation.
And in this case it's clearly sexual.
To you, to a jury of reasonable peers, No.
Peregrine wrote:
focusedfire wrote:Because the sailor is taking great care to not grope the nurse.
Perhaps because it's 1945 and they're in public? Is "but he's not ripping off her clothes and ing her in public" your best argument?
The argument is intent. Just because you have an extremely cynical mind that automatically assumes kiss =sexual intent does not mean that everyone else does.
Peregrine wrote:
focusedfire wrote:Any DA that cares about his conviction ratio would take one look at the photo and settle for a plain assault charge.
Well yes, sexual assault is notoriously hard to prove in court because so few people take it seriously and will look for any excuse they can get to dismiss it as "it wasn't that serious" or "the victim was asking for it". The fact that the prosecution would settle for an easier charge does not mean that we should follow their example when discussing it outside of court.
You might want to look at actual prosecution/conviction rates and why so many charges end up being dropped/ overturned or before you continue with the misconception about difficulty in obtaining sexual assault convictions or any other type of conviction for that matter.
In a she said/he said case with no other evidence the law in many ways favors the purported victim...unless the defendant can afford $50,000 cash to get a decent defense.
This is why poor and working-class people get convicted at much higher percentage rates than the affluent.
On a similar note, does this mean the pulitzer prize-winning photo of Phan Thi Kim Phuc is child pornography and should be removed from history books/classes?
VorpalBunny74 wrote: On a similar note, does this mean the pulitzer prize-winning photo of Phan Thi Kim Phuc is child pornography and should be removed from history books/classes?
Is this your idea of an honest argument? Seriously I wanna check here. You're putting these words in this order forward as "Yeah, I disagree these folks and this is my actual counterpoint. I intended this to be demonstrative of why they're wrongheaded here". Can you just verify that. Can you just check off yes/no: "Yeah I thought this was a good good way to illustrate a point"?
Like I said, just checking. It's totally fine if this is your idea of good thing to post.
Also, suddenly there's a huge slew of 'feminism' activism threads in the off topic board
Actually no. You are patently incorrect in that statement.
There's a huge slew of threads going 'look at the stupid feminist', with some people in those threads defending the feminists, but there have been very very few threads that have been explicitly feminist in nature.
VorpalBunny74 wrote: On a similar note, does this mean the pulitzer prize-winning photo of Phan Thi Kim Phuc is child pornography and should be removed from history books/classes?
My opinion on this whole issue hinges on the truth about the original event and photo that the sculpture was based on.
Has the couple been identified or otherwise come forward?
Was the kiss consensual?
Do we actually know the truth, or does nobody really know, and are just jumping to conclusions based on their own preconceptions and/or ideology?
If it was not consensual = then the sculpture is in very bad taste and is a distortion of history, and should indeed be removed out of respect for the woman.
If it was consensual, then the people kicking up a fuss over it should stfu and stop distorting history to advance their ideological agendas.
Sigvatr wrote: tl;dr: Some French women are desperately looking for attention and claim that the Unconditional Surrender statue portrays and glorifies a "sexual assault" and needs to be taken down.
The same feminist group asked for the removal of the Mademoiselle.
France has officially solved all the possible gender-equality issues. We only have to deal with petty first world problems now.
Do starving people complain about the excessive amount of foam in their latte?
Sining wrote: Feminism activism in the sense the threads are about feminist activists. But hey, feel free to think up your own interpretation
that doesn't make sense though. A 'feminism activism' thread would logically pertain to feminism activism, not the activists.
Besides which, if your point about there being so many threads about feminism is a complaint that there are too many, then maybe you shouldn't have created the only other thread relating to feminism in the OT?
Yes, because you can have feminism activism without feminism activists. Literally wth -_-
Also, I never said it was a complaint. I just remarked there are several; including one that's been closed by a mod. Good job looking for things to complain about though
Chongara wrote: Is this your idea of an honest argument? Seriously I wanna check here. You're putting these words in this order forward as "Yeah, I disagree these folks and this is my actual counterpoint. I intended this to be demonstrative of why they're wrongheaded here". Can you just verify that. Can you just check off yes/no: "Yeah I thought this was a good good way to illustrate a point"?
Like I said, just checking. It's totally fine if this is your idea of good thing to post.
Oh yes, it is an honest argument. Why one and not the other? One documents the celebration of wars end, one documents the horror of civilian suffering during warfare.
One may or may not have consent. One definitely does not have consent, and contains a naked minor. Both should be whitewashed from history, according to original requirements.
So, why is this disturbing you? Honest question.
Iron_Captain wrote: What is pornographic about that picture? Do you see all naked children automatically as pornographic?
I. . . is this a language barrier issue? Please see above if you want to see the point I was making (the point: this is a silly issue)
Sining wrote: Yes, because you can have feminism activism without feminism activists. Literally wth -_-
Also, I never said it was a complaint. I just remarked there are several; including one that's been closed by a mod. Good job looking for things to complain about though
Maybe not, but when a person such as yourself (who has been fairly critical of feminists in basically every thread I've seen you in) makes a comment about threads about feminism, in a thread where people have largely been critical of feminism, the assumption most people would make us that you see it as a bad thing, rather than you just 'making an observation'.
Also, which feminism thread got locked by a Mod? I can't find any.
Also, I would argue that whilst it is impossible to have feminism activism without feminist activists, it is entirely possible to have a feminism activism thread without feminism activists.
They further pointed out that even the photographer who took the picture from where the sculpture was based from, Alfred Eisenstaedt, said that the said sailor in the picture and the statue had grabbed and attempted to kiss all the women around him before he took the shot.
This is where it clearly becomes sexual assault. It has nothing to do with the nurse in the picture, whether she was alright with it after the fact or not. Once he grabbed her and forced his lips to hers and did not let her pull back from it, that is Sexual Assault.
focusedfire wrote:Have personally witnessed perfectly straight men kiss other men when overjoyed. Some were when their team won the championship others were after much more serious/dangerous events concerning survival.
Have any of your perfectly straight male friends gone out and found other perfectly straight males they did not know and forced them in to a kiss by restraining their head so they could not flee? Because if not, I do not see how your consenting male friends have anything in relation to what happened here.
Sining wrote: Yes, because you can have feminism activism without feminism activists. Literally wth -_-
Also, I never said it was a complaint. I just remarked there are several; including one that's been closed by a mod. Good job looking for things to complain about though
Maybe not, but when a person such as yourself (who has been fairly critical of feminists in basically every thread I've seen you in) makes a comment about threads about feminism, in a thread where people have largely been critical of feminism, the assumption most people would make us that you see it as a bad thing, rather than you just 'making an observation'.
Also, which feminism thread got locked by a Mod? I can't find any.
Also, I would argue that whilst it is impossible to have feminism activism without feminist activists, it is entirely possible to have a feminism activism thread without feminism activists.
In the same vein I'd like to remind you that being critical of people who are feminists is different than being critical of feminists. Unless you don't realise that feminism has several very different viewpoints ranging from the crazy want to kill 75% of men to the wants equality for both genders type. Don't lump everyone in one segment just cause it fits your narrative better.
All right, the sailor should have been bound, beaten, and slapped into the deepest, darkest hole to be found based of people assumptions of an old picture depicting the celebrations at the end of WW2.
The nurse should have gotten all the therapy she needed along with a substantial settlement from the government because they should have seen him for the mad dog he was, yet allowed him to wonder the streets.
Of course, one of the female candidates as subject of the picture disagrees:
Relapse wrote: All right, the sailor should have been bound, beaten, and slapped into the deepest, darkest hole to be found based of people assumptions of an old picture depicting the celebrations at the end of WW2.
The nurse should have gotten all the therapy she needed along with a substantial settlement from the government because they should have seen him for the mad dog he was, yet allowed him to wonder the streets.
Of course, one of the female candidates as subject of the picture disagrees:
Relapse wrote: All right, the sailor should have been bound, beaten, and slapped into the deepest, darkest hole to be found based of people assumptions of an old picture depicting the celebrations at the end of WW2.
The nurse should have gotten all the therapy she needed along with a substantial settlement from the government because they should have seen him for the mad dog he was, yet allowed him to wonder the streets.
Yeah, because people are really suggesting anything even remotely like that...
Of course, one of the female candidates as subject of the picture disagrees:
Sure, he got lucky and kissed someone that wasn't bothered by it. That doesn't mean we should approve of it. Imagine that a drunk driver runs over your mailbox, but you were going to replace it tomorrow anyway. You might not be as bothered by the loss as some people, but that doesn't mean that the drunk driver's actions were ok. You know why? Because they didn't know that you were going to be fine with it, they took the risk that you wouldn't and just got lucky. Same thing here. He didn't know she would be fine with being kissed, he just did it.
Sining wrote: Yes, because you can have feminism activism without feminism activists. Literally wth -_-
Also, I never said it was a complaint. I just remarked there are several; including one that's been closed by a mod. Good job looking for things to complain about though
Maybe not, but when a person such as yourself (who has been fairly critical of feminists in basically every thread I've seen you in) makes a comment about threads about feminism, in a thread where people have largely been critical of feminism, the assumption most people would make us that you see it as a bad thing, rather than you just 'making an observation'.
Also, which feminism thread got locked by a Mod? I can't find any.
Also, I would argue that whilst it is impossible to have feminism activism without feminist activists, it is entirely possible to have a feminism activism thread without feminism activists.
In the same vein I'd like to remind you that being critical of people who are feminists is different than being critical of feminists. Unless you don't realise that feminism has several very different viewpoints ranging from the crazy want to kill 75% of men to the wants equality for both genders type. Don't lump everyone in one segment just cause it fits your narrative better.
Well done, I guess? Your snippy remark that uses the same logic as a point I was making has shown me the error of my ways or something? I mean, you've responded to my point that feminism and feminists are separate entities by going 'we'll actually feminists and Feminists are separate things!'. I know. I would however point out that seemingly all of the threads that I could find were considered to be the same sort of radical feminism by most of the posters in those threads.
Also, what narrative?
Also also, you still haven't said which feminism thread was locked by the mods.
focusedfire wrote:Have personally witnessed perfectly straight men kiss other men when overjoyed. Some were when their team won the championship others were after much more serious/dangerous events concerning survival.
Have any of your perfectly straight male friends gone out and found other perfectly straight males they did not know and forced them in to a kiss by restraining their head so they could not flee? Because if not, I do not see how your consenting male friends have anything in relation to what happened here.
You have made an assumption that has lead to an erroneous presumption.
No where did I state that said observed individuals were "my friends".
This is the problem with assumptions...such as what the french feminists that are protesting the statue and as some have done in this thread. It leads to incorrect presumption based wholly upon what the individual is imagining and leaves no room for other possibilities.
Now, to your question.
The incidences that I referred to were with strangers and the person doing the kissing used both hands to grab the other persons head while planting the kiss.
One instance was when the Red Sox broke the Babe's curse. The individual in question was an acquaintance. He kissed a guy he didn't know that was standing next to him..
Have seen behaviour similar to this when a gambler hits big in a casino.
The times of danger were during military service and will leave it at that.
Again, one can not assume that a kiss=sexual act. Such assumptions ignore intent. Doing such also precludes the recognition of cultural differences.
"I can't think of anybody who considered that as an assault," said Friedman, who exchanges Christmas cards with Mendonsa every year and has appeared with him at several reunion events. "It was a happy event."
"There is just no way that there was anything bad about it," she said....."
So, yeah...better things for them to spend their energy on...
LuciusAR wrote: A similar photo taken in a modern conflict would probably face difficulty getting published.
I actually think the exact opposite, unless you are talking about getting published in one of the big name "respectable" places where photos get published. (by this I'm talking about Times, Newsweek, NYT, Die Welt, etc)
With the prevalence of the internet, it is, IMO far too easy for people to put just about anything up on instagram, pinterest or whatever other sites people can use to post their photos. Hell, they can even get their wordpress blogs or whatever bloggers use as a medium for publishing pictures.
LuciusAR wrote: A similar photo taken in a modern conflict would probably face difficulty getting published.
I actually think the exact opposite, unless you are talking about getting published in one of the big name "respectable" places where photos get published. (by this I'm talking about Times, Newsweek, NYT, Die Welt, etc)
Not to put words in anyones mouth, but I'm pretty sure that's what he's talking about.
Peregrine wrote: Sure, he got lucky and kissed someone that wasn't bothered by it. That doesn't mean we should approve of it. Imagine that a drunk driver runs over your mailbox, but you were going to replace it tomorrow anyway. You might not be as bothered by the loss as some people, but that doesn't mean that the drunk driver's actions were ok. You know why? Because they didn't know that you were going to be fine with it, they took the risk that you wouldn't and just got lucky. Same thing here. He didn't know she would be fine with being kissed, he just did it.
This, times a million. Being really, really, really, REALLY swear-to-God-honest happy about something doesn't make it OK to go around forcing yourself on anyone, just like being really, really, really, REALLY completely smashed doesn't make it OK either. You're responsible for your own actions.
Peregrine wrote: Sure, he got lucky and kissed someone that wasn't bothered by it. That doesn't mean we should approve of it. Imagine that a drunk driver runs over your mailbox, but you were going to replace it tomorrow anyway. You might not be as bothered by the loss as some people, but that doesn't mean that the drunk driver's actions were ok. You know why? Because they didn't know that you were going to be fine with it, they took the risk that you wouldn't and just got lucky. Same thing here. He didn't know she would be fine with being kissed, he just did it.
This, times a million. Being really, really, really, REALLY swear-to-God-honest happy about something doesn't make it OK to go around forcing yourself on anyone, just like being really, really, really, REALLY completely smashed doesn't make it OK either. You're responsible for your own actions.
Its a million times wrong.
Here is a logic chain showing why:
1. It's a depiction of an actual historical event.
2. Artistic interpretation about the feelings of the people involved is no more than that artistic interpretation, we can each have our own opinion.
3. There is no historical evidence to suggest that the event was in any way improper for the time.
4. If it is considered improper now, it is social revisionism at its worst. Editing history to pander to modern dogmas.
3. By applying extreme ideological thinking as a forced interpretation is of itself highly amoral. It denies creative interpretation and forces fanatic ideology to be the norm.
4. To demand the destruction of an artform due to said extremist interpretation is also amoral and dangerous. Its similar to the Taliban blowing up Buddha statues.
The feminist extremists calling for the removal of the artwork should be told to put up and shut up. The fact that people are defending this type of extremist intolerance show how far the social conditioning has brainwashed the current generation.
In a nutshell. To 'steal a kiss' in the 1940's was acceptable, get over it. Also we don't know about the couple involved, body language or what they are thinking, the event captures a scene from a still image. Somehow we are expected to assume the female figure had an ideology similar to current age feminist extremists, and that somehow she was being 'abused' and considered herself such.
Whwether people would kiss a stranger like that today is irrelevant, its a historical depiction and should not be tampered to fit i9n with doctrinal thinking. Progressive liberal culture thinks itself developed and superior, however the repeated instances of revisionism, intolerance and censorial atttitude prove that socially we are moving backwards not forwards.
Like I said before: you don't have to pretend it never happened or try to punish the people involved in the event, but there is no reason to celebrate it either.
Its a icon of VJ Day, a snapshot of the celebrations and depics the 'thank God its all over moment' that transcends normal behaviour.
Do you really approve of the whitewashing of history to accommodate intolerant sensitivities? Is that really progressive, or just backward.
We are supposedly living in the free Western world, yet if our art doesn't conform to revisionist doctrine some people call for it to be expunged, and the rest are expected to follow , normally on the fear or being labeled bigots. Why would you be so naive as to condone that Stalinist thinking. Please wake up.
Its a icon of VJ Day, a snapshot of the celebrations and depics the 'thank God its all over moment' that transcends normal behaviour.
I don't think that anybody in this thread has argued that it's not an icon of VJ Day. Or that it is not a snapshot of the celebrations or that it depicts the "thank God it's all over monent" that transcends normal behavior.
Do you really approve of the whitewashing of history to accommodate intolerant sensitivities?
What a weird question since I already answered it a couple of times, but to repeat myself:
d-usa wrote: Like I said before: you don't have to pretend it never happened
But maybe you don't understand the definition of whitewashing.
Is that really progressive, or just backward.
It's backward to pretend that the only two options are "pretend it never happened and whitewash history" and "celebrate what he did" when you have a whole lot of other options such as "acknowledge that it happened, explain why it happened, explain why he said he did it, explain the culture that existed at the time, compare it to the culture that exists today, examine how the event was viewed in the 1940s, how the event might be viewed today, and how that viewpoint might have shifted over the last 6 decades."
Or, you know: Examine history.
We are supposedly living in the free Western world,
And depending on the art, who purchased it, and where it is displayed. If it is a piece that is purchased with public funds and displayed in a public area then the public has a certain right to voice their concerns and their opinions.
yet if our art doesn't conform to revisionist doctrine some people call for it to be expunged,
Again, there is no need for it to be expunged. There is a huge difference between "not celebrating something" and "pretending something never happened".
and the rest are expected to follow, normally on the fear or being labeled bigots.
They don't have to follow, but everybody else has every right to call them whatever they want to call them. Something something "free speech means I can make whatever art I want" something something "how dare people use their free speech to call out my art"
Why would you be so naive as to condone that Stalinist thinking. Please wake up.
Horrible reading comprehension. Wrong definition of whitewashing. Wrong definition of Stalinist thinking.
Ouze wrote: Stalinist! Of all the names I see being bandied about on these fora, I must say, that is a rare gem.
Is there a Soviet version of Godwinning? I think that might have happened.
Give it time.
In a medium that is intended for the free expression and exchange of ideas, surely someone will want to add another means of censoring historical references rather than discuss why such may or may not be accurate.
focusedfire wrote:Have personally witnessed perfectly straight men kiss other men when overjoyed. Some were when their team won the championship others were after much more serious/dangerous events concerning survival.
Have any of your perfectly straight male friends gone out and found other perfectly straight males they did not know and forced them in to a kiss by restraining their head so they could not flee? Because if not, I do not see how your consenting male friends have anything in relation to what happened here.
You have made an assumption that has lead to an erroneous presumption.
No where did I state that said observed individuals were "my friends".
This is the problem with assumptions...such as what the french feminists that are protesting the statue and as some have done in this thread. It leads to incorrect presumption based wholly upon what the individual is imagining and leaves no room for other possibilities.
Now, to your question.
The incidences that I referred to were with strangers and the person doing the kissing used both hands to grab the other persons head while planting the kiss.
One instance was when the Red Sox broke the Babe's curse. The individual in question was an acquaintance. He kissed a guy he didn't know that was standing next to him..
Have seen behaviour similar to this when a gambler hits big in a casino.
The times of danger were during military service and will leave it at that.
Again, one can not assume that a kiss=sexual act. Such assumptions ignore intent. Doing such also precludes the recognition of cultural differences.
Later,
ff
Oh, I apologize for making that assumption.
But you have still yet to address the fact that we have a witness. (the photographer) This man approached multiple women attempting to force them in to a kiss.
The fact that these men were in danger due to their Military Service should have no bearing on this argument at all. When you walk up to somebody and force them in to a kiss, it is sexual assault.
Also, as an edit. I would like to say that your argument that this kiss was not sexual is kind of silly considering he is kissing her with an open mouth. I have never had a person stick their tongue in my mouth non-sexually. Maybe I am just sheltered.
focusedfire wrote:Have personally witnessed perfectly straight men kiss other men when overjoyed. Some were when their team won the championship others were after much more serious/dangerous events concerning survival.
Have any of your perfectly straight male friends gone out and found other perfectly straight males they did not know and forced them in to a kiss by restraining their head so they could not flee? Because if not, I do not see how your consenting male friends have anything in relation to what happened here.
You have made an assumption that has lead to an erroneous presumption.
No where did I state that said observed individuals were "my friends".
This is the problem with assumptions...such as what the french feminists that are protesting the statue and as some have done in this thread. It leads to incorrect presumption based wholly upon what the individual is imagining and leaves no room for other possibilities.
Now, to your question.
The incidences that I referred to were with strangers and the person doing the kissing used both hands to grab the other persons head while planting the kiss.
One instance was when the Red Sox broke the Babe's curse. The individual in question was an acquaintance. He kissed a guy he didn't know that was standing next to him..
Have seen behaviour similar to this when a gambler hits big in a casino.
The times of danger were during military service and will leave it at that.
Again, one can not assume that a kiss=sexual act. Such assumptions ignore intent. Doing such also precludes the recognition of cultural differences.
Later,
ff
Oh, I apologize for making that assumption.
But you have still yet to address the fact that we have a witness. (the photographer) This man approached multiple women attempting to force them in to a kiss.
The fact that these men were in danger due to their Military Service should have no bearing on this argument at all. When you walk up to somebody and force them in to a kiss, it is sexual assault.
Also, as an edit. I would like to say that your argument that this kiss was not sexual is kind of silly considering he is kissing her with an open mouth. I have never had a person stick their tongue in my mouth non-sexually. Maybe I am just sheltered.
1) Apology accepted. Thank you
2)I have never argued that the sailor wasn't trying to kiss other women. Only that a forced kiss does not automatically equate to sexual assault. A strong case for assault? Yes. Sexual Assault? Not so much.
3)The men having served in extremely dangerous situations is not an excuse. Rather it would be viewed as a factor in the intent. Remember that intent is a very important part of the law in criminal cases.
Also, you are incorrect about what the charge would be. A DA worth his law degree would make sure that the police did the proper investigation. A part of that investigation would be to take into account all mitigating factors in order to determine if he can make a case that there was malicious(sexual in this case) intent. I will now refer you back to my reply in #2.
4)In reference to your edited addition, imo, you are again making an assumption. There is no evidence in the original photo or the statue that it was a "French Kiss" or "Florentine Kiss" Their faces are pressed together and that is all that can be made out. Any open mouths are something your imagination is adding.
In fact such kisses were very rare in that time frame. Various sources disagree on when it first started to appear in the U.S. but it was not a tolerated public act until the 60s to 70s and many would say that it has never really become an accepted public behaviour.
It is very important that one looks at the evidence for what is there and nothing more before casting allegations of sexual assault about. An innocent persons life could be ruined by an accusation that was based upon assumption rather than fact. I'm not talking about the Sailor here, I am cautioning against hasty allegation based upon something that people "feel" that they saw rather than what was actually witnessed.
I am sorry, but you are grazing over obvious signs in the picture and in the statue. The fact that his mouth is open is shown by the placement of his cheeks and his chin.
Also, it is ridiculous to argue that it was not a "French Kiss" based on the time this photo was taken. Because you know, Humans all realized they could use their tongues to kiss whenever somebody gave it a name.
Your whole argument is riddled with holes. The fact that he is dipping her back shows romantic intent. You can CLEARLY see on the statue, which is the piece in question, that his mouth is open. Unless of course he has a ridiculously long chin. I mean, we are talking a Leno++ chin here.
when you have a whole lot of other options such as "acknowledge that it happened, explain why it happened, explain why he said he did it, explain the culture that existed at the time, compare it to the culture that exists today, examine how the event was viewed in the 1940s, how the event might be viewed today, and how that viewpoint might have shifted over the last 6 decades.".....
Because the very post you were replying to included them:
1. It's a depiction of an actual historical event.
2. Artistic interpretation about the feelings of the people involved is no more than that artistic interpretation, we can each have our own opinion.
3. There is no historical evidence to suggest that the event was in any way improper for the time.
4. If it is considered improper now, it is social revisionism at its worst. Editing history to pander to modern dogmas.
3. By applying extreme ideological thinking as a forced interpretation is of itself highly amoral. It denies creative interpretation and forces fanatic ideology to be the norm.
4. To demand the destruction of an artform due to said extremist interpretation is also amoral and dangerous. Its similar to the Taliban blowing up Buddha statues.
This is what I have done.
Not long ago, certainly within our own adult lifetimes, if a dogmatised minority group called for the public withdrawal of a free artform their objection would be noticed, and noted and accepted as within their own right of free speech and life will go on.
Nowadays the free expression is under threat or community action because the community cannot easily stand up to pressure from the demands of vocal minorities.
Its an alarming pattern of how free expression is eroded by a changing (and narrowing) of the consensus. It has never ended well in the past.
We are supposedly living in the free Western world,
And depending on the art, who purchased it, and where it is displayed. If it is a piece that is purchased with public funds and displayed in a public area then the public has a certain right to voice their concerns and their opinions.
Yes they do, controversy in art is nothing new. Hover a radical feminist group wants the artwork destroyed and are given too much credence to their barbarism. Because progressivism is becoming more mainstream.
yet if our art doesn't conform to revisionist doctrine some people call for it to be expunged,
Again, there is no need for it to be expunged. There is a huge difference between "not celebrating something" and "pretending something never happened".
However the radical feminist do want it expunged, this is the issue.
It is an issue symptomic of the times.
Art controversy is nothing new, what is new is a rise of progressive ideology. Whereas before if a minority group disliked something it would be acknowledged that they did not, end of issue.
Nowadays when some minority groups disapprove the mainstream society has a tendency to grant extra leeway to accommodate the disapproval for fear of being labeled intolerant or bigoted.
It would not be the first time that a harmless legal artform, or activity, is halted by order in case it offends a minority group. Ever time this happens life becomes one step more restrictive.
Feminists dont have to like the statue, and I acknowledge that art can be controversial.
However modern progressive feminists feel empowered enough to demand a removal of the statue, and can potentially use the progressive movements peer pressure to enforce the demand.
Amongst other more literal definitions. It doesnt exclusively refer to government, organised crime or big business.
Let us see:
Revisioist group wants to remove statue because the historical record of an event that past peacefully doesn't tally with their opinions of gender relationships seven decades later.
gloss over - check, suppress - check
An fair definition
You dont need the moustache, nuclear weapons or hordes of soldiers......
Though let us not be caught up on the semantics but on the comparions and the reason and relevance of the comparisons, because not enough people see it frankly.
The moral parallels between progressive liberalism and perhaps ironically Stalinism are there to see. Stalinism is a good analogy because progressivism uses many of the same tools as the Soviet system (under Stalin and others). Progressivism creates an illusory moral high ground, sets itself up as having right to condemn and encourages a bandwagon affect amongst others to reinforce its position. The bandwagon of itself being reinforced by peer pressure and fear of label.
The link to Stalin is the transition from pre-Soviet to Soviet culture and how the rights and customs of the peoples were stripped, sometimes directly through dictat, but more often by a creeping doctrinal change that set up a new revisionist morality and forced other through peer pressure to accept it as canon.
I could have just as well said Orwellian.
Here is the rub:
The Consensus is being changed by minority peer pressure, in the name of expanding tolerance of others while in actuality becoming increasingly intolerant.
In this case feminists want people to become increasingly tolerant towards female right (a laudable goal) but try to achieve that by practicing and encouraging intolerance towards whatever they don't like.
The very essence of the Stalinist/Orwellian thinking is how the goal is completely opposed to the methodology, and people simply don't see the difference or the danger.
Point remains is that progressivism makes demands that would normally not be empowered to make, such as historical revisionism. When those demands are met new ground is taken and the demands become more reaching. There is also a brainwashing via the 'progressive' changes to education. Thankfully for you, you dont have that in the US to any great degree as your education system is more insulated than our own. For example free thinking is protected in the American classroom as you habitually teach 'under the flag' and thus doctrinal changes are better resisted. So it is not surprising that you do not see what is happening in Europe.
Now the current incident of the statue is not a microcosm of that, so you wont see all the above in it, but it is a symptom of a waypoint within the process.
In this case feminists want people to become increasingly tolerant towards female right
And another wrong definition to the list.
You should be careful with all those long words.
When someone takes a post, and finds on line quotes half if it and says its 'wrong' without explaining why, its a sign that they cant actually deal with the argument being presented.
The rest of your post is just all over the place, I would have whiplash trying to follow all the weird logical jumps you are making.
Try re-reading then, there are no 'wierd logical jumps' it reads straight.
If you are going to complain about 'wrong definitions' then presumably you can read plain English.
If you cant understand the argument go ahead and say so, if its unclear to you ask what is unclear and I will try and clarify
In this case feminists want people to become increasingly tolerant towards female right
And another wrong definition to the list.
You should be careful with all those long words.
When someone takes a post, and finds on line quotes half if it and says its 'wrong' without explaining why, its a sign that they cant actually deal with the argument being presented.
I am sincerely sorry, with all those big long words in your posts I figured you would know why your take on feminism is wrong.
Of course it has also been my experience that if someone tries that hard with all those big long words, then they are really just regurgitating stuff and there isn't much of a point to even try to argue with that.
Peregrine wrote: Sure, he got lucky and kissed someone that wasn't bothered by it. That doesn't mean we should approve of it. Imagine that a drunk driver runs over your mailbox, but you were going to replace it tomorrow anyway. You might not be as bothered by the loss as some people, but that doesn't mean that the drunk driver's actions were ok. You know why? Because they didn't know that you were going to be fine with it, they took the risk that you wouldn't and just got lucky. Same thing here. He didn't know she would be fine with being kissed, he just did it.
This, times a million. Being really, really, really, REALLY swear-to-God-honest happy about something doesn't make it OK to go around forcing yourself on anyone, just like being really, really, really, REALLY completely smashed doesn't make it OK either. You're responsible for your own actions.
Its a million times wrong.
Here is a logic chain showing why:
1. It's a depiction of an actual historical event.
4. If it is considered improper now, it is social revisionism at its worst. Editing history to pander to modern dogmas.
Every time there's a thread even remotely related to history you're in it complaining about revisionism, but guess what? It's not revisionism to point out that there's social dynamics involved that were not recognized at the time. It's not revisionism to argue for the elimination of harmful social practices. No one's arguing that we strike the entire thing from history books, we're arguing that making a statue celebrating the sexual assault of a woman as a symbol for peace is fundamentaly twisted.
I think I have to agree with d-usa, you really need to stop using those big words a bit. If there was a call to remove any mention of the event from the history books, that'd be revisionism. We're not pretending it didn't happen, we're just not willing to celebrate it and shrug it off as "harmless".
3. By applying extreme ideological thinking as a forced interpretation is of itself highly amoral. It denies creative interpretation and forces fanatic ideology to be the norm.
As opposed to forcing people to believe sexual assault is somehow OK because "he was really caught up in the moment, honestly you guys!"?
4. To demand the destruction of an artform due to said extremist interpretation is also amoral and dangerous. Its similar to the Taliban blowing up Buddha statues.
I think you'll find that believing sexual abuse is wrong is not an extremist interpretation (interpretation of what, by the way?) in France.
3. There is no historical evidence to suggest that the event was in any way improper for the time.
And in the 1800's there was nothing wrong with lynching black people. That doesn't mean we have to celebrate it today.
For a start
A lynching is quite different from a kiss. Also in the 19th century lynchings were wrong, its just that people had the power to perform them. Lynchings were always wrong even in their time period.
I will let you withdraw this analogy rather than tear further into it.
As for celebration of what you see as an evil. You take away the circumstances which made the day different. Maybe even in the 40's that kiss may well have been unacceptable, though I defend the comments made earlier that the act of kissing has changed since the 40's and that the expectation of both genders was for a kiss to be 'a chance' taken by the male. Nowadays you are expected to find out first, then kiss, though this is confused as there is still the attitude of 'do you have the courage to come up and kiss me' directly conficting with 'any contact can be taken as sexual assault'. Both cultures exist side by side and it generally depends on the personality of the people concerned.
However dogmas are rarely there to make anyone any more free.
4. If it is considered improper now, it is social revisionism at its worst. Editing history to pander to modern dogmas.
Every time there's a thread even remotely related to history you're in it complaining about revisionism, but guess what? It's not revisionism to point out that there's social dynamics involved that were not recognized at the time. It's not revisionism to argue for the elimination of harmful social practices. No one's arguing that we strike the entire thing from history books, we're arguing that making a statue celebrating the sexual assault of a woman as a symbol for peace is fundamentaly twisted.
Revisionism is a current social problem. For example your instance to label the artwork definitively as sexual assault. If you are uncomfortable with the artwork so be it. But by adding a cultural label to it, out of the context of its time I might add, and using that as an excuse to call for its removal is unhealthy.
If this was de facto sexual assault then, as you had the photographic evidence, why was the sailor not facing charges? Nobody appears to have asked, who is this man, lets find this man; and you can't for a moment argue that the image was not widely proliferated.
It's fair to assume the image was acceptable in its time.
Thus to make it out to be anything else is revisionism.
I think I have to agree with d-usa, you really need to stop using those big words a bit. If there was a call to remove any mention of the event from the history books, that'd be revisionism. We're not pretending it didn't happen, we're just not willing to celebrate it and shrug it off as "harmless".
If I use the 'big words' its because I am more aware of the societal changes, and the pitfalls of some of said changes, and am not afraid to speak out about them, even if that means I am not politically correct.
3. By applying extreme ideological thinking as a forced interpretation is of itself highly amoral. It denies creative interpretation and forces fanatic ideology to be the norm.
As opposed to forcing people to believe sexual assault is somehow OK because "he was really caught up in the moment, honestly you guys!"?
Very widely published image, not taken as sexual assault at the time because it wasnt. No arrest, negligible negative commentary (I cant definitively say there was none), widely published imagery.
Its clear to anyone that in 1945 they were not looking at the image and seeing 'sexual assault'. It didn't come into it. The sort of magazine and newspaper that showed the image would probably not want material of that nature published.
However we do see plenty of evidence that from the point of view of the time (and many still now) it captured time image of someone caught up in the moment. And iof the photographer claims the sailor was looking for someone to kiss, and followed him expecting to get an image that he could use as an icon of the day then its very clear that that was how the image was taken to be.
When you superimpose a modern dogma on top of a historical event, let alone one that is not universally accepted as true to the case, and insist that its meaning be stamped over the orginal meaning then 'revisionism' is a fair and logical label to the change.
4. To demand the destruction of an artform due to said extremist interpretation is also amoral and dangerous. Its similar to the Taliban blowing up Buddha statues.
I think you'll find that believing sexual abuse is wrong is not an extremist interpretation (interpretation of what, by the way?) in France.
Stop trying to be patronising. All this 'I think you'll find that believing sexual abuse is wrong' and 'big words' crap does you no service.
You discredit yourself, by being unable to string together a logical argument while being patronising about the opposed point of view expresses your ignorance perfectly.
You are slightly better at it than d-usa, while your arguments don't tally up with a very well reported historical account, you did at least forward some sort of reply.
For a start
A lynching is quite different from a kiss. Also in the 19th century lynchings were wrong, its just that people had the power to perform them. Lynchings were always wrong even in their time period.
As for celebration of what you see as an evil. You take away the circumstances which made the day different. Maybe even in the 40's that kiss may well have been unacceptable, though I defend the comments made earlier that the act of kissing has changed since the 40's and that the expectation of both genders was for a kiss to be 'a chance' taken by the male. Nowadays you are expected to find out first, then kiss, though this is confused as there is still the attitude of 'do you have the courage to come up and kiss me' directly conficting with 'any contact can be taken as sexual assault'. Both cultures exist side by side and it generally depends on the personality of the people concerned.
However dogmas are rarely there to make anyone any more free.
Fine then. In much of the 1800's slavery was legal in parts of the United States. Does that mean that we today, in theory, have to condone using statues of suffering slaves as a celebration of something?
Dogmas such as "it wasn't considered bad then, so we can't think it's wrong now!!!11!!"?
4. If it is considered improper now, it is social revisionism at its worst. Editing history to pander to modern dogmas.
Every time there's a thread even remotely related to history you're in it complaining about revisionism, but guess what? It's not revisionism to point out that there's social dynamics involved that were not recognized at the time. It's not revisionism to argue for the elimination of harmful social practices. No one's arguing that we strike the entire thing from history books, we're arguing that making a statue celebrating the sexual assault of a woman as a symbol for peace is fundamentaly twisted.
Revisionism is a current social problem. For example your instance to label the artwork definitively as sexual assault. If you are uncomfortable with the artwork so be it. But by adding a cultural label to it, out of the context of its time I might add, and using that as an excuse to call for its removal is unhealthy.
If this was de facto sexual assault then, as you had the photographic evidence, why was the sailor not facing charges? Nobody appears to have asked, who is this man, lets find this man; and you can't for a moment argue that the image was not widely proliferated.
It's fair to assume the image was acceptable in its time.
Thus to make it out to be anything else is revisionism.
I'd imagine the sailor wasn't facing charges for a number of reasons, chief among them being that the 40s were hardly a bastion of equality.
You're going to have to stop strawmanning me BTW. Find somewhere where I've said that the image wasn't acceptable in society in general when it was taken. You keep saying that this is what we're arguing, even after we've repeatedly called you out on it. We're arguing that the action should have been unacceptable, not that it was. Read our posts before assuming you know what we're saying next time.
I think I have to agree with d-usa, you really need to stop using those big words a bit. If there was a call to remove any mention of the event from the history books, that'd be revisionism. We're not pretending it didn't happen, we're just not willing to celebrate it and shrug it off as "harmless".
If I use the 'big words' its because I am more aware of the societal changes, and the pitfalls of some of said changes, and am not afraid to speak out about them, even if that means I am not politically correct.
3. By applying extreme ideological thinking as a forced interpretation is of itself highly amoral. It denies creative interpretation and forces fanatic ideology to be the norm.
As opposed to forcing people to believe sexual assault is somehow OK because "he was really caught up in the moment, honestly you guys!"?
Very widely published image, not taken as sexual assault at the time because it wasnt. No arrest, negligible negative commentary (I cant definitively say there was none), widely published imagery.
Its clear to anyone that in 1945 they were not looking at the image and seeing 'sexual assault'. It didn't come into it. The sort of magazine and newspaper that showed the image would probably not want material of that nature published.
However we do see plenty of evidence that from the point of view of the time (and many still now) it captured time image of someone caught up in the moment. And iof the photographer claims the sailor was looking for someone to kiss, and followed him expecting to get an image that he could use as an icon of the day then its very clear that that was how the image was taken to be.
When you superimpose a modern dogma on top of a historical event, let alone one that is not universally accepted as true to the case, and insist that its meaning be stamped over the orginal meaning then 'revisionism' is a fair and logical label to the change.
Non-acceptance of sexual assault isn't a dogma. Further, as we've said countless times, we're not asking for the removal or the changing of the meaning of the image in a historical context, we're just questioning whether we ought to use it as a symbol for peace, given that it has some rather profoundly negative implications by today's understanding of sexual assault.
4. To demand the destruction of an artform due to said extremist interpretation is also amoral and dangerous. Its similar to the Taliban blowing up Buddha statues.
I think you'll find that believing sexual abuse is wrong is not an extremist interpretation (interpretation of what, by the way?) in France.
Stop trying to be patronising. All this 'I think you'll find that believing sexual abuse is wrong' and 'big words' crap does you no service.
You discredit yourself, by being unable to string together a logical argument while being patronising about the opposed point of view expresses your ignorance perfectly.
You are slightly better at it than d-usa, while your arguments don't tally up with a very well reported historical account, you did at least forward some sort of reply.
Sorry that I'm not being politically correct, but at least I read what you're actually writing before replying.
Is that why they posed with the dead bodies, collected bones as trophies and had the kids pull the teeth out of the skull to take home, turned the lynching into a postcard, send the postcards to people talking about the "barbecue" they had last night?
Should we turn this into a statue? Should we put the message from the postcard on the base? And should we then complain about historical revisionism when people are forcing their 2014 view of lynchings onto a piece of art that celebrates an emotional day for the people that were perfectly okay with it?
Fine then. In much of the 1800's slavery was legal in parts of the United States. Does that mean that we today, in theory, have to condone using statues of suffering slaves as a celebration of something?
Dogmas such as "it wasn't considered bad then, so we can't think it's wrong now!!!11!!"?
Well I gave you the option to walk away from your bad analogy.
Slavery, lynching they were both wrong then.
You see a kiss is a kiss, its not inherently wrong, a wrong can be attached to it by society, and even so that right or wrong is debatable.
With slavery or murder it is inherently wrong. Some societies may make excuses for it but human conscience knows that it is wrong to deprive liberty or to kill another human being.
Even so you can have artwork expressing slavery in public galleries. The 19th century Orientalist movement made slavery a popular theme, and images on the theme by major Orientalist painters adorn the walls of major art galleries. So even while slavery was dopmne away with it was depicted in the art of post-abolitionist Europe.
What do you make of that, should in your opinion those pictures be removed from galleries for 'celebrating' slavery?
I'd imagine the sailor wasn't facing charges for a number of reasons, chief among them being that the 40s were hardly a bastion of equality.
However sexual assault was still a crime, and there was clear photographic evidence.
You could however admit that as the image was not seen in the context of sexual assault in 1945 then it shouldn't be looked at as iconography of sexual assault.
You're going to have to stop strawmanning me BTW. Find somewhere where I've said that the image wasn't acceptable in society in general when it was taken. You keep saying that this is what we're arguing, even after we've repeatedly called you out on it. We're arguing that the action should have been unacceptable, not that it was. Read our posts before assuming you know what we're saying next time.
I am not strawmanning. You are claiming its an image of sexual assault. It is not.
The image was widely circulated and thus there was opportunity for a concensus against the image to grow, it simply was not there.
Your insistance that the 'action should have been unacceptable' is revisionist.
Kisses like that occur today and they may or may not be sexual assault, it depends on the context and also on the state of militant progressive feminism. The feminist movement doesn't speak for all women, though it claims to. There is a counter movement amongst women making exactly that point. To some women being kissed is an invasion, to others its part of the natural courting cycle. Much depends on the cultures and the individual. To impose an ideology that natural courting actions are de facto sexual assault is alarming.
Now admittedly the kiss depicted is a little extreme, but it was taken on the context of the day. This has to be so because that is how it was seen in 1945, and that is how it was presented worldwide, why that image was chosen to represent the spirit of VJ day and why therefore from a historical context it is relevant for that purpose today. To remove or deny that is revisionism and to reinterpret the context is an unwanted imposition of feminist dogma.
The latter is important because the event as seen as in individual moment in history is
Its not sexual assault. Therefore its your dogma.
If it was sexual assault it would have been sexual assault in 1945.
The individuals concerned had good time to make comments or start proceedings to that effect.
Society had a window in which to comment on or reject the images.
Further, as we've said countless times, we're not asking for the removal or the changing of the meaning of the image in a historical context, we're just questioning whether we ought to use it as a symbol for peace, given that it has some rather profoundly negative implications by today's understanding of sexual assault.
It was good enough in 1945 to depict the end of the war. Are you saying you know better than the survivors?
Secondly the 'profoundly negative implications' are debatable at most, they are not de facto. There is a wide debate on female sexuality and feminists are but one player. They do not have sole arbitration on the social process, though increasingly they are getting this way by demand and accusation as part of progressivism.
You ought to have seen this being from Sweden, but I will understand if you have not, its hard to see the changes from the inside, and progressive dogma is even more of a problem in Sweden than in the UK.
While men are unable to counter feminist argument within a progressive consensus, women frequently do. A lot of women believe in the traditional roles in courting, and that 'stealing a kiss' is part of the natural way not a sex crime.
I have not missed the fact that you have completely ignored the objection to the feminist movement, especially from women, in favour of the progressive consensus which demands specific moral tags to gender iconography based on feminist dogma as absolute standards. You should be concerned that you cant even think of the alternatives, when the alternatives become unthinkable your objectivity is taken away. That is the very essence of brainwashing and is the reason why I find this form of progressive dogma so dangerous.
As for 'today's understanding of sexual assault'. Sexual assault is a crime therefore it requires a burden of proof, and an accusation. We need to move away from the ideology that someone else other than the participants are the arbitors as to whether an event is sexual assault. The only exceptions to that would be in a person not in their majority. So if the female in the image was underage or mentally incapable, society can speak for her. Otherwise it should butt out.
However feminist extremists and their apologists know whats best for everyone, and insist on doing all the 'correct' thinking.
When one group claims a monopoly on opinion on an arbitrary social issue society should beware.
Is that why they posed with the dead bodies, collected bones as trophies and had the kids pull the teeth out of the skull to take home, turned the lynching into a postcard, send the postcards to people talking about the "barbecue" they had last night?
De-humanisation. Its a conscous process used to get people to believe and do things that are inherently wrong.
Due to the bestial side of man its easy to achieve.
For example how quickly people were turned against verious minority groups. Former Yugoslavia for example. How verious ethnic groups got along ok, then in the sapce of a few years were slaughtering each other.
They knew it was wrong, and the same sort of grizzly events took place.
d-usa wrote: Did you seriously just claim that if some guy rapes a women and she doesn't report it, then it wasn't a rape?
Is there a big word for that level of outlandish thinking?
Well as I didnt mention rape but kissing you are clearly clutching at straws here.
i will have to assume you know the difference between a kiss and rape, but by claiming that I mean one and not the other as a means of trying to critique an argument is low even for you.
Evidently you dont have anything intelligent to add.
End of discussion.
You specifically and clearly mentioned sexual assault, and that it's not sexual assault without an an accusation.
But hey, feel free to do some revising of history there and change your statement. But you will be forever be the "it's not sexual assault if she doesn't complain about it afterwards" guy to me.
Fine then. In much of the 1800's slavery was legal in parts of the United States. Does that mean that we today, in theory, have to condone using statues of suffering slaves as a celebration of something?
Dogmas such as "it wasn't considered bad then, so we can't think it's wrong now!!!11!!"?
Well I gave you the option to walk away from your bad analogy.
Slavery, lynching they were both wrong then.
You see a kiss is a kiss, its not inherently wrong, a wrong can be attached to it by society, and even so that right or wrong is debatable.
With slavery or murder it is inherently wrong. Some societies may make excuses for it but human conscience knows that it is wrong to deprive liberty or to kill another human being.
And randomly invading people's privacy, removing from them their right to decide what actions to participate in, isn't? Please. You DON'T get to assume that people want to kiss you, any less than you get to assume that people are perfectly happy to give you their stuff that you just happened to find in their living room. It's not your choice to make. It's about as debatable as the heliocentric model.
Even so you can have artwork expressing slavery in public galleries. The 19th century Orientalist movement made slavery a popular theme, and images on the theme by major Orientalist painters adorn the walls of major art galleries. So even while slavery was dopmne away with it was depicted in the art of post-abolitionist Europe.
What do you make of that, should in your opinion those pictures be removed from galleries for 'celebrating' slavery?
No, because they're not being used to celebrate anything at all. They're not upheld as something positive and happy.
However sexual assault was still a crime, and there was clear photographic evidence.
You could however admit that as the image was not seen in the context of sexual assault in 1945 then it shouldn't be looked at as iconography of sexual assault.
By which logic the Rape of Nanking wasn't a crime against humanity, as that term had not yet been invented. That's insane.
You're going to have to stop strawmanning me BTW. Find somewhere where I've said that the image wasn't acceptable in society in general when it was taken. You keep saying that this is what we're arguing, even after we've repeatedly called you out on it. We're arguing that the action should have been unacceptable, not that it was. Read our posts before assuming you know what we're saying next time.
I am not strawmanning. You are claiming its an image of sexual assault. It is not.
The image was widely circulated and thus there was opportunity for a concensus against the image to grow, it simply was not there.
Your insistance that the 'action should have been unacceptable' is revisionist.
Kisses like that occur today and they may or may not be sexual assault, it depends on the context and also on the state of militant progressive feminism. The feminist movement doesn't speak for all women, though it claims to. There is a counter movement amongst women making exactly that point. To some women being kissed is an invasion, to others its part of the natural courting cycle. Much depends on the cultures and the individual. To impose an ideology that natural courting actions are de facto sexual assault is alarming.
Now admittedly the kiss depicted is a little extreme, but it was taken on the context of the day. This has to be so because that is how it was seen in 1945, and that is how it was presented worldwide, why that image was chosen to represent the spirit of VJ day and why therefore from a historical context it is relevant for that purpose today. To remove or deny that is revisionism and to reinterpret the context is an unwanted imposition of feminist dogma.
The latter is important because the event as seen as in individual moment in history is
Come on, read what you're responding to. You've repeatedly gone on as if though d-usa and myself were arguing for the removal of the subject at hand from history books entirely, claiming we want to "whitewash" it. I'm asking you to show where we did that, without deflecting the issue again.
Why is it revisionist of me to claim that this is a case of sexual assault, but not revisionist of you to claim that lynchings or murder is "inherently wrong"? You're being a hypocrite.
Its not sexual assault. Therefore its your dogma.
If it was sexual assault it would have been sexual assault in 1945.
The individuals concerned had good time to make comments or start proceedings to that effect.
Society had a window in which to comment on or reject the images.
I guess the firebombings of Dresden weren't warcrimes either? After all, society had a window to bring Arthur "Bomber" Harris to justice. Or, we could take the non-insane approach and realize that just because things were acceptable in the past it does not follow that we have to consider them acceptable today. And before you start ranting about revisionism again, the previous statement does not preclude us from studying the past in order to understand it, but neither are we obliged to repeat the mistakes of the past out of some sort of misplaced sensitivity.
Further, as we've said countless times, we're not asking for the removal or the changing of the meaning of the image in a historical context, we're just questioning whether we ought to use it as a symbol for peace, given that it has some rather profoundly negative implications by today's understanding of sexual assault.
It was good enough in 1945 to depict the end of the war. Are you saying you know better than the survivors?
Appeal to authority. And yes, I'm saying we as society, in hindsight, know better on some issues, including women's rights. If I claimed we know better when it comes to natural science than 70 years ago, would you dispute that? Then why would sociology and anthropology be any different?
Secondly the 'profoundly negative implications' are debatable at most, they are not de facto. There is a wide debate on female sexuality and feminists are but one player. They do not have sole arbitration on the social process, though increasingly they are getting this way by demand and accusation as part of progressivism.
You ought to have seen this being from Sweden, but I will understand if you have not, its hard to see the changes from the inside, and progressive dogma is even more of a problem in Sweden than in the UK.
Yes, being the most egalitarian country in the world is certainly a problem. Well put.
While men are unable to counter feminist argument within a progressive consensus, women frequently do. A lot of women believe in the traditional roles in courting, and that 'stealing a kiss' is part of the natural way not a sex crime.
I have not missed the fact that you have completely ignored the objection to the feminist movement, especially from women, in favour of the progressive consensus which demands specific moral tags to gender iconography based on feminist dogma as absolute standards. You should be concerned that you cant even think of the alternatives, when the alternatives become unthinkable your objectivity is taken away. That is the very essence of brainwashing and is the reason why I find this form of progressive dogma so dangerous.
You're being a hypocrite again. If murder and slavery is inherently wrong, why is it so damn unconcieveable that forcing your will on another human being is just as wrong, by definition? It's just as natural and inherent to humans to kill each other as it is to force ourselves on someone unwilling, but apparently only one of them is abhorrent, while the other is "debatable".
I'm only seeing one narrow-minded person here, and it's not myself or d-usa.
As for 'today's understanding of sexual assault'. Sexual assault is a crime therefore it requires a burden of proof, and an accusation. We need to move away from the ideology that someone else other than the participants are the arbitors as to whether an event is sexual assault. The only exceptions to that would be in a person not in their majority. So if the female in the image was underage or mentally incapable, society can speak for her. Otherwise it should butt out.
No. No we friggin' shouldn't. The concept that the law applies equally is the friggin' cornerstone of the rule of law. Just consider the fact that someone could well be intimidated into not filing a complaint. Does that mean the crime didn't happen all of a sudden?
However feminist extremists and their apologists know whats best for everyone, and insist on doing all the 'correct' thinking.
When one group claims a monopoly on opinion on an arbitrary social issue society should beware.
You do realize you went from making a statement of how things ought to be to condemning people who think they know how things ought to be in the next sentence, yes?
Sigvatr wrote: // Title changed to be less offensive and more to the point
Still being a douche about it though. The argument being presented is a legitimate one, whereas you've not proven in any way that it's just down to "attention seeking".
You specifically and clearly mentioned sexual assault, and that it's not sexual assault without an an accusation.
I had to mention sexual assault only for clarity in the process of refuting it, and hadn't mentioned rape at all.
Its not sexual assault because NOBODY complained about it afterwards.
Not only not me, or her, but the press, society etc etc etc.
The picture was known from an entirely different context, there was every opportunity to place a sexual assault label on it, and it didnt happen because it wasn't sexual assault to them.
To me it was just a kiss, to you and some others its sexual assault.
The difference is that I am backed up by well documented consensus of history
But hey, feel free to do some revising of history there and change your statement. But you will be forever be the "it's not sexual assault if she doesn't complain about it afterwards" guy to me.
Think what you will, it is no consequence.
I remain forever be the "it's not sexual assault if human civilisation doesn't complain about it afterwards" guy.
Between the "it's not sexual assault if the person sexually assaulting you doesn't do it for sexual reasons" argument and now the "it's not sexual assault if the victim doesn't say anything" argument this thread has managed to provide two of the most despicable statements on Dakka. I am sincerely sorry that there will be survivors of sexual assault who have to read this gak.
Dreadwinter wrote: I am sorry, but you are grazing over obvious signs in the picture and in the statue. The fact that his mouth is open is shown by the placement of his cheeks and his chin.
And you should be sorry. Accusing me of your actions. I am glazing over nothing, rather I am not allowing my imagination to add details that are not there.
Now I must admit that you aren't so much glazing over as repainting the whole picture. Your whole view seems to be filtered by seedy details that your imagination is adding.
As to the placement of cheeks and chin in the statue? Your argument here would suggest that you are fairly young and have little or no exposure to the films of that time. There are many instances of kisses that look similar and "French Kissing" was prohibited by the "Production Code of 1934"(Also refered to as the Will Hayes Act in reference to the name of the man who was appointed to oversee the industry.) For the new at that time medium of t.v., there was "Standards and Practices" that did essentially the same thing.
Oh yeah, you might want to look at the original photo before making any other claims about whether the sailor was french kissing the nurse. You just might find that the sculptor took some artistic license when translating a 2 dimensional image into a 3 dimensional sculpture.
Dreadwinter wrote:Also, it is ridiculous to argue that it was not a "French Kiss" based on the time this photo was taken. Because you know, Humans all realized they could use their tongues to kiss whenever somebody gave it a name.
Your reply here strongly suggest that you are young(under 30) and have had little to no contact with anyone from that generation.
I say this because you show an arrogant lack of knowledge in this part of your reply.
I am old enough to have personally seen french kissing go from a prosecute-able "lewd act" to mainstream acceptance. I believe that the laws may still be on the books in Boston and New York City.
Your entire view on the subject seems to be coloured by an ingrained cynical perception that precludes you from not only seeing more innocent alternative views but is warping what you personal perceptions.
By any chance are you a SJW?
Dreadwinter wrote:Your whole argument is riddled with holes. The fact that he is dipping her back shows romantic intent. You can CLEARLY see on the statue, which is the piece in question, that his mouth is open. Unless of course he has a ridiculously long chin. I mean, we are talking a Leno++ chin here.
Really? Is my argument full of holes or are you in such a rush to outrage and judgement that you are taking a moment in time out of context?
Lets see.
Is he dipping her? Or did he catch a woman in mid-stride that is then being knocked back by his exuberant kiss?
If you cannot even consider the second and more likely scenario then you are blinded by your own assumptions.
... You know...after reading this last part of your reply I believe that the problem you are having is that you are looking at the statue in isolation rather than referring back to the photofrom which it was inspired.
The statue was sculpted by an artist to express what he felt rather than just being a copy of the picture. Also, the picture is just a captured moment in time and people understand that about photos. The moment in a flowing series of moments does not translate as well in sculpted form.
If you are wondering why I am continuing at this point, it is because I feel it is a mitzveh to point out the problems with the image you have fabricated.
According to your version you make the nurse out to be a bit of an easy woman by the standards of the times that she lived in.
According to you, this young woman not only fails to resist a random strangers sexual assault but apparently welcomes such by reciprocating a french kiss(a prosecute-able lewd act at that time).
Lastly, In all of this I have never said categorically that this was not a sexual assault, rather that it was not likely to be viewed as such under the law. That there is a difference between a kiss and a sexual act. The difference is intent. And in a court system that is supposed to be innocent unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, any DA that tried to take this to trial as a sexual assault would likely and rightly get their ass handed to them.
It isn't... I believe it is normally housed in an American museum, or art gallery or some such, but is currently on loan to a museum near the Normandy Beaches.
Its not sexual assault because NOBODY complained about it afterwards.
So if I kill someone and chuck the body into a volcano it's not murder, because no one complained afterwards?
The contorted means by which you twist an argument to state something abhorrent that it does not support show that you have nothing valid to say.
i will have to assume you are not a complete drooling moron and can actually distinguish between a massacre, or a brutal murder and a kiss.
You are just saying all this because you have long run out of any room for rational argument.
Sigvatr wrote: // Title changed to be less offensive and more to the point
Still being a douche about it though. The argument being presented is a legitimate one, whereas you've not proven in any way that it's just down to "attention seeking".
He summed it up reasonably well.
There is room for feminists to make their own interpretation of the artwork, they have no right to impose it as a definitive interpretation on everyone. and label the artwork and the event it is based on a de facto affront.
Is this 'desperate attention craving'? That remains to be seen. Its certainly both revisionist and doctrinarian.
d-usa wrote: Between the "it's not sexual assault if the person sexually assaulting you doesn't do it for sexual reasons" argument and now the "it's not sexual assault if the victim doesn't say anything" argument this thread has managed to provide two of the most despicable statements on Dakka. I am sincerely sorry that there will be survivors of sexual assault who have to read this gak.
Your failure to understand the concept of intent in term of criminal prosecution is mind-boggling and frightening in a way that makes me both sad and happy.
Sad at how little comprehension there is of how the law is supposed to work.
Happy that you are not a DA or Judge.
Btw, your labeling of of the fact that one needs to prove intent in such a case as "despicable" is very enlightening.
I guess by your standards that anyone who tries to defend themselves against such a charge is automatically guilty and despicable.
There is no logic in your post above, instead there is only zealous political correctness masquerading as empathy.
Your attempt to use victims of sexual assault who might read this thread as a tool to manipulate the opinions of others is what is truly despicable.. Using sexual assault victims to hide the fact that you have no argument, only an agenda is as low as one can get.
)
ing her in public" your best argument?
