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.awesome guy wrote: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.USN_Hokie wrote: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.awesome guy wrote:Though not actually assault, I consider a public dick beating within the same spirit of sexual assault.cwtcr hokie wrote: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 assaultWestEndHokie39 wrote: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.awesome guy wrote:Yep
So if you believe half of the #metoo on twitter
Forum rules
Be Civil. Go Hokies.
Be Civil. Go Hokies.
-
- Posts: 13399
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:25 pm
Re: So if you believe half of the #metoo on twitter
- 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
That's incorrect.cwtcr hokie wrote: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.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.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.
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
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
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.
-
- Posts: 13399
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:25 pm
Re: So if you believe half of the #metoo on twitter
That's incorrect.ip_law-hokie wrote:cwtcr hokie wrote: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.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.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.
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
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
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/
got it
- 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
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assaultcwtcr hokie wrote:That's incorrect.ip_law-hokie wrote:cwtcr hokie wrote: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.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.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.
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
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
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/
got it
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.
-
- Posts: 13399
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:25 pm
Re: So if you believe half of the #metoo on twitter
great, except in real life nobody gets charged with assault without actually making contact, again they may be charged with something elseip_law-hokie wrote:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assaultcwtcr hokie wrote:That's incorrect.ip_law-hokie wrote:cwtcr hokie wrote: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.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.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.
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
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
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/
got it
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- 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
That's incorrect.cwtcr hokie wrote:great, except in real life nobody gets charged with assault without actually making contact, again they may be charged with something elseip_law-hokie wrote:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assaultcwtcr hokie wrote:That's incorrect.ip_law-hokie wrote:cwtcr hokie wrote: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.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
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
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/
got it
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
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.