Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The name kind of puts a odd spin on it. Like is it a reference to japan or to the kiss?

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.

Aesop the God Awful wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Goliath wrote:


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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

 Ouze wrote:

 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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

Incorrect. Economics impacts protest energy too. If you take

oh forget it

Malala WON THE NOBEL!

Wait, seriously, where were you going to go with that? Cause I'm not 100% sure I picked the right example.

 d-usa wrote:


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.

PhantomViper wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 whembly wrote:
All this does seems silly... oui?

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.

Feminists have their lunatic fringe like other groups.

We can laugh them off, tell them where to get off, and it is no way misogynist to do so.

There is no obligation to give in to every hysterical demand just because: progressive feminism.

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.

But we project modern values on the past all the time, especially when deciding which parts of the past to honor and celebrate.

 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.

Relapse wrote:

 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:

Relapse wrote:

 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.

Relapse wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 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.

Sexual assault????

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.


Later,
ff

 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.

Don't you be judging how focusedfire kisses his siblings/parents.

 focusedfire wrote:

femifundies
...
feminazi.

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.

 d-usa wrote:

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.

Peregrine wrote:

 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.

Later,
ff

 focusedfire wrote:
Because it is a man kissing a woman?

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.

 Hordini wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

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.

A guy tipping a lady back like that and kissing her is pretty romantic. I don't think we do that anymore*, and that's probably a sad thing.



edit: About 2 seconds after I posted, I realized I better amend that to make it clear the kissee should want to be kissed.

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.

 Peregrine wrote:


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.


Later,
ff