So if you believe half of the #metoo on twitter

Your Virginia Tech Politics and Religion source
Forum rules
Be Civil. Go Hokies.
cwtcr hokie
Posts: 13399
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:25 pm

Re: So if you believe half of the #metoo on twitter

Post by cwtcr hokie »

awesome guy wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
cwtcr hokie wrote:
WestEndHokie39 wrote:
awesome guy wrote:YepImage
A female acquaintance on Facebook detailed her assaults. A perv dropped trou and began pleasuring himself in front of her and another time she thinks she was followed. I don't know her well enough to point out that neither of those instances were assault and that the first instance was, in fact, illegal.
So if a woman goes out without a bra and a loose shirt and I can see her chest I guess I am assaulted, or the ladies that decide not to wear any underwear and short skirts. I agree if a dude drops his pants and is playing with himself that is gross and rude but that is not an assault
Though not actually assault, I consider a public dick beating within the same spirit of sexual assault.
Your sig line gave me thought that a lot of these women offended by male sexuality are the same ones who dressed up as anthropomorphic vaginas and got in mens' faces.
Yep, they're morons. Same people that flash their tits and then claim to be ladies. They can't accept that behavior earns labels as they want to act like trash and be thought of as classy. Cognitive dissonance.
The ironic thing about this whole sex discussion is sex sells, look at movies, look at any media. Why are the fugly chicks not models? Sorry ladies but sex sells and don't tell me that females that are blessed with good looks do not use that to their advantage.
User avatar
ip_law-hokie
Posts: 19133
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
Alma Mater: Manchester
Location: New York, NY

Re: So if you believe half of the #metoo on twitter

Post by ip_law-hokie »

cwtcr hokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
Major Kong wrote:I think there is a huge difference in re to a woman who has been sexually assaulted and a woman who has had a guy wave his private parts in her general direction...but that is just me.
You guys are confusing assault and battery. Many jurisdictions, and the common law, require touching for battery. Assault requires only a reasonable apprehension.

Sexual assault is a separate definition. But cranking one out to someone, live and in living color, is sexual assault in the non-UWS world.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
not sure where you are getting that assault is apprehension, huh??? I am afraid so that is an assault...no not per the cops. Now the person can be threatening and if using threatening language can be charged with that (communicating threats) but for assault you will need contact in some form. That does not mean the person that is doing something is not going to be charged with some other crime.

If your theory held true anytime a woman does not wear a bra or underwear and others can see her female parts she could be charged with assault
That's incorrect.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
cwtcr hokie
Posts: 13399
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:25 pm

Re: So if you believe half of the #metoo on twitter

Post by cwtcr hokie »

ip_law-hokie wrote:
cwtcr hokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
Major Kong wrote:I think there is a huge difference in re to a woman who has been sexually assaulted and a woman who has had a guy wave his private parts in her general direction...but that is just me.
You guys are confusing assault and battery. Many jurisdictions, and the common law, require touching for battery. Assault requires only a reasonable apprehension.

Sexual assault is a separate definition. But cranking one out to someone, live and in living color, is sexual assault in the non-UWS world.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
not sure where you are getting that assault is apprehension, huh??? I am afraid so that is an assault...no not per the cops. Now the person can be threatening and if using threatening language can be charged with that (communicating threats) but for assault you will need contact in some form. That does not mean the person that is doing something is not going to be charged with some other crime.

If your theory held true anytime a woman does not wear a bra or underwear and others can see her female parts she could be charged with assault
That's incorrect.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/

got it
User avatar
ip_law-hokie
Posts: 19133
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
Alma Mater: Manchester
Location: New York, NY

Re: So if you believe half of the #metoo on twitter

Post by ip_law-hokie »

cwtcr hokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
cwtcr hokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
Major Kong wrote:I think there is a huge difference in re to a woman who has been sexually assaulted and a woman who has had a guy wave his private parts in her general direction...but that is just me.
You guys are confusing assault and battery. Many jurisdictions, and the common law, require touching for battery. Assault requires only a reasonable apprehension.

Sexual assault is a separate definition. But cranking one out to someone, live and in living color, is sexual assault in the non-UWS world.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
not sure where you are getting that assault is apprehension, huh??? I am afraid so that is an assault...no not per the cops. Now the person can be threatening and if using threatening language can be charged with that (communicating threats) but for assault you will need contact in some form. That does not mean the person that is doing something is not going to be charged with some other crime.

If your theory held true anytime a woman does not wear a bra or underwear and others can see her female parts she could be charged with assault
That's incorrect.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/

got it
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
cwtcr hokie
Posts: 13399
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:25 pm

Re: So if you believe half of the #metoo on twitter

Post by cwtcr hokie »

ip_law-hokie wrote:
cwtcr hokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
cwtcr hokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
Major Kong wrote:I think there is a huge difference in re to a woman who has been sexually assaulted and a woman who has had a guy wave his private parts in her general direction...but that is just me.
You guys are confusing assault and battery. Many jurisdictions, and the common law, require touching for battery. Assault requires only a reasonable apprehension.

Sexual assault is a separate definition. But cranking one out to someone, live and in living color, is sexual assault in the non-UWS world.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
not sure where you are getting that assault is apprehension, huh??? I am afraid so that is an assault...no not per the cops. Now the person can be threatening and if using threatening language can be charged with that (communicating threats) but for assault you will need contact in some form. That does not mean the person that is doing something is not going to be charged with some other crime.

If your theory held true anytime a woman does not wear a bra or underwear and others can see her female parts she could be charged with assault
That's incorrect.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/

got it
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
great, except in real life nobody gets charged with assault without actually making contact, again they may be charged with something else
User avatar
ip_law-hokie
Posts: 19133
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
Alma Mater: Manchester
Location: New York, NY

Re: So if you believe half of the #metoo on twitter

Post by ip_law-hokie »

cwtcr hokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
cwtcr hokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
cwtcr hokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote: You guys are confusing assault and battery. Many jurisdictions, and the common law, require touching for battery. Assault requires only a reasonable apprehension.

Sexual assault is a separate definition. But cranking one out to someone, live and in living color, is sexual assault in the non-UWS world.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
not sure where you are getting that assault is apprehension, huh??? I am afraid so that is an assault...no not per the cops. Now the person can be threatening and if using threatening language can be charged with that (communicating threats) but for assault you will need contact in some form. That does not mean the person that is doing something is not going to be charged with some other crime.

If your theory held true anytime a woman does not wear a bra or underwear and others can see her female parts she could be charged with assault
That's incorrect.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/

got it
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
great, except in real life nobody gets charged with assault without actually making contact, again they may be charged with something else
That's incorrect.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
Post Reply