Sportsman pinches podium girls bum

[WeX 10]

Would people have such a huge problem if this was what actually happened?

 

http://acidcow.com/pics/20130403/acid_picdump_80.jpg

[gnvqsos 10]

Can you post an image?

 

Ooh err!.......

 

---------- Post added 03-04-2013 at 08:00 ----------

 

Well I for one appreciate Mike's attitude and posts on this thread, very refreshing, it's really laddish behaviour on the part of Pete Sagan who should confine his bottom-pinching to his own wife (if he has one) if horseplay is acceptable at these tournaments then maybe someone should stick a nosebag over his head and then he won't be tempted.

 

As someone with many associates in the alternative community,it is quite upsetting if posters assume Pete Sangan is heterosexual.Many gays are good cyclists.

[mikem8634 10]

Would people have such a huge problem if this was what actually happened?

 

http://acidcow.com/pics/20130403/acid_picdump_80.jpg

 

I would have exactly the same problem.

 

My issue with this is not necessarily the act of pinching a girl's bottom. I have no idea of the circumstances, I don't think any of us do, she could be his wife for all I know.

 

I do, however, take exception to the automatic thought of it being just harmless fun because an act like that can, indeed, be harmless and it can equally so be very harmful. It is that doubt that renders behaviour like this inappropriate and it is that doubt that the law caters for.

 

Pinching somebody's bottom (or genitals as in the photoshopped image) can be sexual assault and the person who determines whether or not it is is the one being pinched, not the one who is pinching and just thinks it is harmless fun. That point alone should make any civilised individual refrain from such behaviour unless they have a pretty cast-iron guarantee that they have permission.

[AdamSmith 10]

I would have exactly the same problem.

 

My issue with this is not necessarily the act of pinching a girl's bottom. I have no idea of the circumstances, I don't think any of us do, she could be his wife for all I know.

 

I do, however, take exception to the automatic thought of it being just harmless fun because an act like that can, indeed, be harmless and it can equally so be very harmful. It is that doubt that renders behaviour like this inappropriate and it is that doubt that the law caters for.

 

Pinching somebody's bottom (or genitals as in the photoshopped image) can be sexual assault and the person who determines whether or not it is is the one being pinched, not the one who is pinching and just thinks it is harmless fun. That point alone should make any civilised individual refrain from such behaviour unless they have a pretty cast-iron guarantee that they have permission.

 

ooh i bet your a bundle of fun at parties too:hihi:

[mikem8634 10]

ooh i bet your a bundle of fun at parties too:hihi:

 

Ad hominem.

Edited April 3, 2013 by mikem8634

[AdamSmith 10]

Ad hominem.

 

touche!

[mikem8634 10]

touche!

 

Definition of TOUCHÉ

 

—used to acknowledge a hit in fencing or the success or appropriateness of an argument, an accusation, or a witty point

 

Thanks, glad you agree and managed to get there in the end. However, I would prefer that you engaged with the debate rather than just vacilated between insults and compliments.

Edited April 3, 2013 by mikem8634

[Murphy Jnr 10]

I'm indifferent to all views on this. As far as the law goes, it's duty bound to come up with a definition of what is and what is not sexual assault if only to arrive at a decision should a case be brought.

 

If she or any female takes offence then I suppose there is a case to be answered, if not then I assume that the action never bothered her.

[cgksheff 44]

.............

 

Pinching somebody's bottom ........ can be sexual assault and the person who determines whether or not it is is the one being pinched,.......

 

At last!

 

However, a court/jury will also be involved in the determination.

[mikem8634 10]

At last!

 

However, a court/jury will also be involved in the determination.

 

Why at last?

 

I said the same in my first post on the topic - albeit by using quotes. The issue is one of consent and interpretation of the act by the (for want or a better word) victim.

 

 

This shows that the act itself can qualify as a sexual assault.

Some interesting and pertinent information -

 

Sexual assault is any involuntary sexual act in which a person is threatened, coerced, or forced to engage against their will, or any sexual touching of a person who has not consented.

 

 

This, however, shows that it is not always, necessarily the case.

What is sexual assault?

Firstly, it's worth us pointing out here that deciding if you've been sexually assaulted is a personal thing. What doesn't bother one person can deeply upset another. But the the law on sexual assault is actually quite clear - it describes it as being touched sexually without your consent.This includes what might be seen by many as harmless fun, like being groped in a club or forced into a kiss.

The fact is you don't have to put up with inappropriate behaviour, so if you didn't want to be groped or kissed, then in the eyes of the law it's sexual assault.

http://www.thesite.org/homelawandmoney/law/victimsofcrime/wasitsexualassault

Edited April 3, 2013 by mikem8634

[cgksheff 44]

Why at last?

.............

 

Because you said:

 

"sexual assault is exactly what it is".

[mikem8634 10]

Because you said:

 

"sexual assault is exactly what it is".

 

Oh, I see...

 

Yes I did, but not in isolation, I followed that up with a much more nuanced explanation as quoted in my last post.

 

Why didn't you just mention that in the beginning rather than implying I had not covered the legal aspect of the situation properly? It would have saved a few posts. I intended it as a kind of headline to directly challenge the incorrect assertion that it was clearly not a sexual assault.

 

Still, fair point. Sexual assault is exactly what it could be...

Edited April 3, 2013 by mikem8634