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.

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?

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

A similar photo taken in a modern conflict would probably face difficulty getting published.

 LuciusAR wrote:
A similar photo taken in a modern conflict would probably face difficulty getting published.

It depends on how famous either person was.

This is a prime example of turning a non-problem into a problem.

 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?

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

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.

Is that your rebuttal?

Also, suddenly there's a huge slew of 'feminism' activism threads in the off topic board

Sining wrote:
Is that your rebuttal?

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.

Feminism activism in the sense the threads are about feminist activists. But hey, feel free to think up your own interpretation

This does not seem to be the first time feminists complain about this photo/statue
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2213805/Romantic-moment-sex-assault-Feminist-blogger-slams-Kissing-Sailor-iconic-1945-Times-Square-photo-drunken-predator.html
http://www.navytimes.com/article/20121019/NEWS/210190332/Famous-kissers-weigh-photo-controversy

 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?

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

What is pornographic about that picture? Do you see all naked children automatically as pornographic?

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.

 Goliath wrote:

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:

http://www.navytimes.com/article/20121019/NEWS/210190332/Famous-kissers-weigh-photo-controversy

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:

http://www.navytimes.com/article/20121019/NEWS/210190332/Famous-kissers-weigh-photo-controversy

Except we have an eyewitness. The photographer, not all of these people claiming to be the Nurse.

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:

http://www.navytimes.com/article/20121019/NEWS/210190332/Famous-kissers-weigh-photo-controversy

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:

 Goliath wrote:

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.

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:
Oh yes, it is an honest argument.

Ok then. Thanks for confirming that.

Dreadwinter wrote:

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

Friedman doesn't see a problem.

"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...

 Chongara wrote:

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:
Oh yes, it is an honest argument.

Ok then. Thanks for confirming that.

No problem my friend

 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.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 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.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 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.