|
We understand that this topic evokes strong feelings. In the interest of maintaining a necessary and productive discussion, we will be taking a strong stance against posters that clearly do not contribute to this aim. Dishonest and bad faith arguments, victim blaming, and attacks on other users, will be strictly moderated. A post which only serves to muddy the waters and dishonestly portray the nature of assault and harassment (and corresponding accusations) is also unwelcome. |
On June 27 2020 04:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2020 03:53 mcgormack wrote:On June 27 2020 03:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 27 2020 03:39 mcgormack wrote:On June 27 2020 03:33 Qikz wrote:On June 27 2020 03:28 mcgormack wrote:On June 27 2020 03:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 27 2020 03:17 mcgormack wrote:Not sure how to feel about this one. The other events were stuff that would get a person fired from a job, and arguably deserved to be public. In this one, the events are fairly vague, and bottomline, we're talking about a long-lasting relationship between two consenting adults that was perceived as toxic and psychologically abusive by one person, but nothing illegal and no harassment. I honestly don't think that this deserves to be public. Just because he's a D-list esports celebrity, if there's no crime, it doesn't justify Rapid's private life getting revealed in details and debated on a public forum. You may have missed that that's yet another non-consensual dick pic situation. This one isn't too clear. They had been talking for a week, and there was consent and sex in their relationship. It was consent based on emotional abuse, wtf how can you be so dense. This relationship lasted for years. You can't claim to be sexually harassed by someone who sent you a dick pic if you've engaged in an intimate relationship afterwards.The nature of the emotional abuse itself is very vague. And the thing is, while emotional abuse may be immoral, it hurts, but it is not a crime, and it won't get anyone fired out of any job. This is where I draw the line, it doesn't deserve to be public. Are we now gonna judge everyone with any amount of internet fame who has had a toxic relationship in the past? You absolutely can. You can be sexually harassed by anyone, regardless of your previous or present or future relationship. You can be harassed by your spouse, even. If someone sends a dick pic and you go along with it and reply ''hot'', it's not sexual harassment. ''Unsollicited'' isn't the key word to determine if it's harassment or not. It's ''unwanted''. In this case, she went along with it, and engaged in a relationship with the guy. There is no harassment, period. That simply isn't what happened though. The word "hot" appears exactly zero times in her story. The entire sentence reads "He sent me an unsolicited dick pic soon after (this was within a week of talking and dming)." And yes, when it comes to consent, something being unsolicited is good enough to establish a lack of consent. I feel like you're trying to make a semantics argument that, while "unwanted" is bad, "unsolicited" is neutral, and neutral is fine. That's false. Neutral is not necessarily fine. That's why you always, always, always ask for consent. It's not the case that dick pics are assumed to be consensual unless the recipient vocally turns them down. That thinking is backwards. Instead, it is the case that dick pics are assumed to be non-consensual unless the recipient vocally asks for one or gives you permission to send one after you ask. Consent is never assumed.
Unsollicited is not harassment. Unwelcome is. The reaction of the receiver is critical in determining if it's harassment or not. If you welcome the behaviour, it is not harassment.
You can't claim to have been harassed by someone if you've received the act positively and then engaged in a relationship with that person for years. Are you serious?
https://www.un.org/womenwatch/osagi/pdf/whatissh.pdf
|
On June 27 2020 04:16 AttackZerg wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2020 03:56 mcgormack wrote:On June 27 2020 03:52 AttackZerg wrote:On June 27 2020 03:47 mcgormack wrote:On June 27 2020 03:38 AttackZerg wrote:On June 27 2020 03:28 mcgormack wrote:On June 27 2020 03:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 27 2020 03:17 mcgormack wrote:Not sure how to feel about this one. The other events were stuff that would get a person fired from a job, and arguably deserved to be public. In this one, the events are fairly vague, and bottomline, we're talking about a long-lasting relationship between two consenting adults that was perceived as toxic and psychologically abusive by one person, but nothing illegal and no harassment. I honestly don't think that this deserves to be public. Just because he's a D-list esports celebrity, if there's no crime, it doesn't justify Rapid's private life getting revealed in details and debated on a public forum. You may have missed that that's yet another non-consensual dick pic situation. This one isn't too clear. They had been talking for a week, and there was consent and sex in their relationship. Having sex with someone, having a relationship with someone - does not make you immune from acting inappropriately. Most victims are preyed upon by people they know. I agree. Here, we've left the sexual assault discussion. We've even left the sexual harassment discussion. We're entered the private abusive relationship discussion. Nothing illegal and nothing that would make anyone lose his job in any context. This doesn't deserve to be public and debated. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. There are a million things I could do to my girlfriend that are horrible, illegal and wrong. Fucking someone does not provide immunity. And, lol at your other point. Any of my employees who I treated like this... I would be fired and open to suit from my company and the victim. Just no. Yes, you can do a million things that are illegal to your wife. Here, nothing illegal. only things that are claimed to be immoral, and no specifics. Are we gonna publicly judge everyone who did ''wrong'' things to their spouse now? We've derailled completely from the initial sexual harassment discussion. She was not a coworker and had nothing to do with his job. She was his intimate relationship. No one gets fired for having an emotionally abusive relationship at home. You have derailed completely by claiming that things "Cannot be wrong because X". You have argued that people shouldn't be able to be open with their own stories. I did not bring up workplace laws. You did. You have decided that you think these matters should be kept private and that is your contention. I am disagreeing. You decided this is okay behavior or at least not worth considering and you are arguing for the right to keep toxic things quiet. I disagree. I didn't climb into anyones bedroom window to observe these events, I am a bystander who spent hours listening to the worst caster ever only to find out that he was even worse off the mic. And a fuck-ton of people knew and he was still a 'celebrity' empowered by us, the fan-base, the people sponsors are paying to have exclusive access to. Yeah it is our business if the people we give platforms are mistreating that trust. Maybe Rapid could have just been a good person and then everything would be quiet because there wouldn't be years and years of the same behavior to report on. Maybe, if people who knew what he was years ago said something, we could have prevented his ability to use the power he gained from us to hurt people. Maybe, if the people who DID say something years ago were believed, then we could have had this horrible conversation back then and against, stopped this years ago. Instead we let sleeping dogs lie until it burst. We need sunlight not more closed door conversations. Those haven't worked.
Some things deserve to be discussed and debated publicly, and some don't. We have to draw the line somewhere.
I don't know where you draw the line. I draw it where our justice system does.
Literally everyone has an ex who can talk shit about him or her, and everyone has an ex who they can talk shit about if they want. By claiming that someone was abusive with no specifics, we're not making any progress here. We're entering Chris Hardwick territory now.
|
On June 27 2020 04:26 mcgormack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2020 04:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 27 2020 03:53 mcgormack wrote:On June 27 2020 03:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 27 2020 03:39 mcgormack wrote:On June 27 2020 03:33 Qikz wrote:On June 27 2020 03:28 mcgormack wrote:On June 27 2020 03:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 27 2020 03:17 mcgormack wrote:Not sure how to feel about this one. The other events were stuff that would get a person fired from a job, and arguably deserved to be public. In this one, the events are fairly vague, and bottomline, we're talking about a long-lasting relationship between two consenting adults that was perceived as toxic and psychologically abusive by one person, but nothing illegal and no harassment. I honestly don't think that this deserves to be public. Just because he's a D-list esports celebrity, if there's no crime, it doesn't justify Rapid's private life getting revealed in details and debated on a public forum. You may have missed that that's yet another non-consensual dick pic situation. This one isn't too clear. They had been talking for a week, and there was consent and sex in their relationship. It was consent based on emotional abuse, wtf how can you be so dense. This relationship lasted for years. You can't claim to be sexually harassed by someone who sent you a dick pic if you've engaged in an intimate relationship afterwards.The nature of the emotional abuse itself is very vague. And the thing is, while emotional abuse may be immoral, it hurts, but it is not a crime, and it won't get anyone fired out of any job. This is where I draw the line, it doesn't deserve to be public. Are we now gonna judge everyone with any amount of internet fame who has had a toxic relationship in the past? You absolutely can. You can be sexually harassed by anyone, regardless of your previous or present or future relationship. You can be harassed by your spouse, even. If someone sends a dick pic and you go along with it and reply ''hot'', it's not sexual harassment. ''Unsollicited'' isn't the key word to determine if it's harassment or not. It's ''unwanted''. In this case, she went along with it, and engaged in a relationship with the guy. There is no harassment, period. That simply isn't what happened though. The word "hot" appears exactly zero times in her story. The entire sentence reads "He sent me an unsolicited dick pic soon after (this was within a week of talking and dming)." And yes, when it comes to consent, something being unsolicited is good enough to establish a lack of consent. I feel like you're trying to make a semantics argument that, while "unwanted" is bad, "unsolicited" is neutral, and neutral is fine. That's false. Neutral is not necessarily fine. That's why you always, always, always ask for consent. It's not the case that dick pics are assumed to be consensual unless the recipient vocally turns them down. That thinking is backwards. Instead, it is the case that dick pics are assumed to be non-consensual unless the recipient vocally asks for one or gives you permission to send one after you ask. Consent is never assumed. Unsollicited is not harassment. Unwanted is. The reaction of the receiver is critical in determining if it's harassment or not. You can't claim to have been harassed by someone if you've received the act positively and then engaged in a relationship with that person for years. Are you serious? https://www.un.org/womenwatch/osagi/pdf/whatissh.pdf
For argument's sake, let's say you're right and that this dick pic did not constitute harassment, because she seemed to enjoy it as evidenced by continuing the friendship and into a sexual relationship. Thus we must necessarily agree that if the recipient is disgusted by the pic and ceases all contact with the person, then that constitutes harassment. As you say, the reaction of the receiver.
Doesn't that still mean that the dick pic was sent without knowing which of the two reactions will occur? Wouldn't this be, thus, considered character evidence - a testimony to existence of the behavior in question, which (again, for argument's sake) is not problematic in this case, but can easily be in others? To put it a different way, even if you personally don't believe it to be harassment or inappropriate for whatever reason, isn't this a valuable piece of information to share as we gather testimonials from people who WERE negatively affected by his actions?
|
On June 27 2020 04:26 mcgormack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2020 04:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 27 2020 03:53 mcgormack wrote:On June 27 2020 03:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 27 2020 03:39 mcgormack wrote:On June 27 2020 03:33 Qikz wrote:On June 27 2020 03:28 mcgormack wrote:On June 27 2020 03:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 27 2020 03:17 mcgormack wrote:Not sure how to feel about this one. The other events were stuff that would get a person fired from a job, and arguably deserved to be public. In this one, the events are fairly vague, and bottomline, we're talking about a long-lasting relationship between two consenting adults that was perceived as toxic and psychologically abusive by one person, but nothing illegal and no harassment. I honestly don't think that this deserves to be public. Just because he's a D-list esports celebrity, if there's no crime, it doesn't justify Rapid's private life getting revealed in details and debated on a public forum. You may have missed that that's yet another non-consensual dick pic situation. This one isn't too clear. They had been talking for a week, and there was consent and sex in their relationship. It was consent based on emotional abuse, wtf how can you be so dense. This relationship lasted for years. You can't claim to be sexually harassed by someone who sent you a dick pic if you've engaged in an intimate relationship afterwards.The nature of the emotional abuse itself is very vague. And the thing is, while emotional abuse may be immoral, it hurts, but it is not a crime, and it won't get anyone fired out of any job. This is where I draw the line, it doesn't deserve to be public. Are we now gonna judge everyone with any amount of internet fame who has had a toxic relationship in the past? You absolutely can. You can be sexually harassed by anyone, regardless of your previous or present or future relationship. You can be harassed by your spouse, even. If someone sends a dick pic and you go along with it and reply ''hot'', it's not sexual harassment. ''Unsollicited'' isn't the key word to determine if it's harassment or not. It's ''unwanted''. In this case, she went along with it, and engaged in a relationship with the guy. There is no harassment, period. That simply isn't what happened though. The word "hot" appears exactly zero times in her story. The entire sentence reads "He sent me an unsolicited dick pic soon after (this was within a week of talking and dming)." And yes, when it comes to consent, something being unsolicited is good enough to establish a lack of consent. I feel like you're trying to make a semantics argument that, while "unwanted" is bad, "unsolicited" is neutral, and neutral is fine. That's false. Neutral is not necessarily fine. That's why you always, always, always ask for consent. It's not the case that dick pics are assumed to be consensual unless the recipient vocally turns them down. That thinking is backwards. Instead, it is the case that dick pics are assumed to be non-consensual unless the recipient vocally asks for one or gives you permission to send one after you ask. Consent is never assumed. Unsollicited is not harassment. Unwelcome is. The reaction of the receiver is critical in determining if it's harassment or not. If you welcome the behaviour, it is not harassment. You can't claim to have been harassed by someone if you've received the act positively and then engaged in a relationship with that person for years. Are you serious? https://www.un.org/womenwatch/osagi/pdf/whatissh.pdf
Now you're asserting that it was a positive reception? Doubling down on what unsolicited implies, in terms of consent, is not okay. She literally starts her entire story with "Reid and i have had an emotionally abusive relationship for years." This is not positive. This is denying that she's telling the truth when she says she was "abused" and "groomed" and "without my consent" and "Over time we developed a very one sided relationship where my sole purpose was to sexually gratify him" and "The sexual pressure he placed on me became something i ignored and kind of expected. But what could i have done when in order to talk to the person i had feelings for and confided in required me to get him off before we could hold a decent conversation? I felt ashamed but I hid it well" and "I expressed my feelings to him on many occasions, but that was in vain" and "Telling him i’m hurt meant being apologized to in the moment, and objectified the next morning. To Be open and vulnerable invites him to take advantage of that. He exploited my feelings for him. I questioned my morals, sacrificed my own self worth, my sanity, and my pride to do whatever would make him happy." It's the whole damn story.
|
On June 27 2020 04:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2020 03:53 mcgormack wrote:On June 27 2020 03:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 27 2020 03:39 mcgormack wrote:On June 27 2020 03:33 Qikz wrote:On June 27 2020 03:28 mcgormack wrote:On June 27 2020 03:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 27 2020 03:17 mcgormack wrote:Not sure how to feel about this one. The other events were stuff that would get a person fired from a job, and arguably deserved to be public. In this one, the events are fairly vague, and bottomline, we're talking about a long-lasting relationship between two consenting adults that was perceived as toxic and psychologically abusive by one person, but nothing illegal and no harassment. I honestly don't think that this deserves to be public. Just because he's a D-list esports celebrity, if there's no crime, it doesn't justify Rapid's private life getting revealed in details and debated on a public forum. You may have missed that that's yet another non-consensual dick pic situation. This one isn't too clear. They had been talking for a week, and there was consent and sex in their relationship. It was consent based on emotional abuse, wtf how can you be so dense. This relationship lasted for years. You can't claim to be sexually harassed by someone who sent you a dick pic if you've engaged in an intimate relationship afterwards.The nature of the emotional abuse itself is very vague. And the thing is, while emotional abuse may be immoral, it hurts, but it is not a crime, and it won't get anyone fired out of any job. This is where I draw the line, it doesn't deserve to be public. Are we now gonna judge everyone with any amount of internet fame who has had a toxic relationship in the past? You absolutely can. You can be sexually harassed by anyone, regardless of your previous or present or future relationship. You can be harassed by your spouse, even. If someone sends a dick pic and you go along with it and reply ''hot'', it's not sexual harassment. ''Unsollicited'' isn't the key word to determine if it's harassment or not. It's ''unwanted''. In this case, she went along with it, and engaged in a relationship with the guy. There is no harassment, period. That simply isn't what happened though. The word "hot" appears exactly zero times in her story. The entire sentence reads "He sent me an unsolicited dick pic soon after (this was within a week of talking and dming)." And yes, when it comes to consent, something being unsolicited is good enough to establish a lack of consent. I feel like you're trying to make a semantics argument that, while "unwanted" is bad, "unsolicited" is neutral, and neutral is fine. That's false. Neutral is not necessarily fine. That's why you always, always, always ask for consent. It's not the case that dick pics are assumed to be consensual unless the recipient vocally turns them down. That thinking is backwards. Instead, it is the case that dick pics are assumed to be non-consensual unless the recipient vocally asks for one or gives you permission to send one after you ask. Consent is never assumed.
Would it be sexual harassment if I send nudes to my girlfriend if I don't specificially ask her if she wants them?
Not what happened here but you have to be careful to not say sexual harassment to absolutely everything slightly non-consensual. If she engaged in a relationship afterwards with him she clearly wasn't opposed to them and shouldn't claim sexual harassment afterwards.
|
On June 27 2020 04:30 mcgormack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2020 04:16 AttackZerg wrote:On June 27 2020 03:56 mcgormack wrote:On June 27 2020 03:52 AttackZerg wrote:On June 27 2020 03:47 mcgormack wrote:On June 27 2020 03:38 AttackZerg wrote:On June 27 2020 03:28 mcgormack wrote:On June 27 2020 03:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 27 2020 03:17 mcgormack wrote:Not sure how to feel about this one. The other events were stuff that would get a person fired from a job, and arguably deserved to be public. In this one, the events are fairly vague, and bottomline, we're talking about a long-lasting relationship between two consenting adults that was perceived as toxic and psychologically abusive by one person, but nothing illegal and no harassment. I honestly don't think that this deserves to be public. Just because he's a D-list esports celebrity, if there's no crime, it doesn't justify Rapid's private life getting revealed in details and debated on a public forum. You may have missed that that's yet another non-consensual dick pic situation. This one isn't too clear. They had been talking for a week, and there was consent and sex in their relationship. Having sex with someone, having a relationship with someone - does not make you immune from acting inappropriately. Most victims are preyed upon by people they know. I agree. Here, we've left the sexual assault discussion. We've even left the sexual harassment discussion. We're entered the private abusive relationship discussion. Nothing illegal and nothing that would make anyone lose his job in any context. This doesn't deserve to be public and debated. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. There are a million things I could do to my girlfriend that are horrible, illegal and wrong. Fucking someone does not provide immunity. And, lol at your other point. Any of my employees who I treated like this... I would be fired and open to suit from my company and the victim. Just no. Yes, you can do a million things that are illegal to your wife. Here, nothing illegal. only things that are claimed to be immoral, and no specifics. Are we gonna publicly judge everyone who did ''wrong'' things to their spouse now? We've derailled completely from the initial sexual harassment discussion. She was not a coworker and had nothing to do with his job. She was his intimate relationship. No one gets fired for having an emotionally abusive relationship at home. You have derailed completely by claiming that things "Cannot be wrong because X". You have argued that people shouldn't be able to be open with their own stories. I did not bring up workplace laws. You did. You have decided that you think these matters should be kept private and that is your contention. I am disagreeing. You decided this is okay behavior or at least not worth considering and you are arguing for the right to keep toxic things quiet. I disagree. I didn't climb into anyones bedroom window to observe these events, I am a bystander who spent hours listening to the worst caster ever only to find out that he was even worse off the mic. And a fuck-ton of people knew and he was still a 'celebrity' empowered by us, the fan-base, the people sponsors are paying to have exclusive access to. Yeah it is our business if the people we give platforms are mistreating that trust. Maybe Rapid could have just been a good person and then everything would be quiet because there wouldn't be years and years of the same behavior to report on. Maybe, if people who knew what he was years ago said something, we could have prevented his ability to use the power he gained from us to hurt people. Maybe, if the people who DID say something years ago were believed, then we could have had this horrible conversation back then and against, stopped this years ago. Instead we let sleeping dogs lie until it burst. We need sunlight not more closed door conversations. Those haven't worked. Some things deserve to be discussed and debated publicly, and some don't. We have to draw the line somewhere. I don't know where you draw the line. I draw it where our justice system does.
Well since your argument is that unsolicited dick pics aren't harassment but the justice system in the united states and in europe believes it to be criminal . Then you disagree with yourself.
It is a crime to digitally flash someone.
The crime is labeled as sexual harassment.
Do you need links to the laws? Now that you have been informed that the justice system DOES consider this a crime of sexual harassment, would you like to change your opinion?
|
On June 27 2020 04:36 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2020 04:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 27 2020 03:53 mcgormack wrote:On June 27 2020 03:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 27 2020 03:39 mcgormack wrote:On June 27 2020 03:33 Qikz wrote:On June 27 2020 03:28 mcgormack wrote:On June 27 2020 03:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 27 2020 03:17 mcgormack wrote:Not sure how to feel about this one. The other events were stuff that would get a person fired from a job, and arguably deserved to be public. In this one, the events are fairly vague, and bottomline, we're talking about a long-lasting relationship between two consenting adults that was perceived as toxic and psychologically abusive by one person, but nothing illegal and no harassment. I honestly don't think that this deserves to be public. Just because he's a D-list esports celebrity, if there's no crime, it doesn't justify Rapid's private life getting revealed in details and debated on a public forum. You may have missed that that's yet another non-consensual dick pic situation. This one isn't too clear. They had been talking for a week, and there was consent and sex in their relationship. It was consent based on emotional abuse, wtf how can you be so dense. This relationship lasted for years. You can't claim to be sexually harassed by someone who sent you a dick pic if you've engaged in an intimate relationship afterwards.The nature of the emotional abuse itself is very vague. And the thing is, while emotional abuse may be immoral, it hurts, but it is not a crime, and it won't get anyone fired out of any job. This is where I draw the line, it doesn't deserve to be public. Are we now gonna judge everyone with any amount of internet fame who has had a toxic relationship in the past? You absolutely can. You can be sexually harassed by anyone, regardless of your previous or present or future relationship. You can be harassed by your spouse, even. If someone sends a dick pic and you go along with it and reply ''hot'', it's not sexual harassment. ''Unsollicited'' isn't the key word to determine if it's harassment or not. It's ''unwanted''. In this case, she went along with it, and engaged in a relationship with the guy. There is no harassment, period. That simply isn't what happened though. The word "hot" appears exactly zero times in her story. The entire sentence reads "He sent me an unsolicited dick pic soon after (this was within a week of talking and dming)." And yes, when it comes to consent, something being unsolicited is good enough to establish a lack of consent. I feel like you're trying to make a semantics argument that, while "unwanted" is bad, "unsolicited" is neutral, and neutral is fine. That's false. Neutral is not necessarily fine. That's why you always, always, always ask for consent. It's not the case that dick pics are assumed to be consensual unless the recipient vocally turns them down. That thinking is backwards. Instead, it is the case that dick pics are assumed to be non-consensual unless the recipient vocally asks for one or gives you permission to send one after you ask. Consent is never assumed. Would it be sexual harassment if I send nudes to my girlfriend if I don't specificially ask her if she wants them? Not what happened here but you have to be careful to not say sexual harassment to absolutely everything slightly non-consensual. If she engaged in a relationship afterwards with him she clearly wasn't opposed to them and shouldn't claim sexual harassment afterwards.
It could absolutely be sexual harassment. I already said it could be with a spouse; girlfriend is even easier to reach. It entirely depends on the context of your relationship; if you and your girlfriend decide that sending each other nudes is okay, then you've provided consent and it's not harassment. (This is also not permanent, and can be changed at a later date if you or she wants.) If you just assume that it's consensual and it turns out that she's offended by it, then you've just harassed your girlfriend. Hopefully, it would be addressed and reconciled and not the end of the relationship, but there's no global fine print that being in a relationship permits dick pics. Every relationship is different, which is why you can't assume a new girlfriend will behave and act the same way as an ex-girlfriend. Everyone is different.
Edit: Also, the rest of the story makes it clear that she felt abused. See all of the quotes I cited in my previous post.
|
@AttackZerg
European countries has vastly different justice systems it would be more prudent to say "multiple eureapn countries" not Europe. Unless You are one of those guys who belives Europe ends on on the Oder river.
|
On June 27 2020 04:41 Silvanel wrote:
@AttackZerg
European countries has vastly different justice systems it would be more prudent to say "multiple eureapn countries" not Europe. Unless You are one of those guys who belives Europe ends on on the Oder river.
Fair enough.
I was inaccurate. Several European countries and many of the united states, is a more accurate statement for sure.
Thank you.
|
Better questions would be, should this particular action with these particular circumstances be punished? Should it be punished years later?
You take a pic of Mr. Happy and send it out to someone unsolicited, there is a chance they respond positively, in which case there isn't really a victim so in that particular instance with that particular circumstance no it isn't harassment.
But guess what the far larger chance is they respond negatively and if they do then yeah you have harassed them. Period. It's your dick. Do you show your dick, unsolicited, to people in real life? No. Hope not, anyway. Is there really a meaningful difference between that and unsolicited dick pics? No, not really.
This is why you should not send out unsolicited dick pics at all because it displays a lack of regard for the person you're sending them to. Maybe they'll be like haha or omg that's hot and it's not a thing. Maybe they'll be like wtf or not respond at all and it is a thing (pls pun police don't execute me). You don't know. They didn't ask you for a picture of your dick. They didn't indicate in any way that they want a picture of your dick. You don't know! When you don't know and you do it anyway... you don't care.
|
On June 27 2020 03:53 mcgormack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2020 03:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 27 2020 03:39 mcgormack wrote:On June 27 2020 03:33 Qikz wrote:On June 27 2020 03:28 mcgormack wrote:On June 27 2020 03:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 27 2020 03:17 mcgormack wrote:Not sure how to feel about this one. The other events were stuff that would get a person fired from a job, and arguably deserved to be public. In this one, the events are fairly vague, and bottomline, we're talking about a long-lasting relationship between two consenting adults that was perceived as toxic and psychologically abusive by one person, but nothing illegal and no harassment. I honestly don't think that this deserves to be public. Just because he's a D-list esports celebrity, if there's no crime, it doesn't justify Rapid's private life getting revealed in details and debated on a public forum. You may have missed that that's yet another non-consensual dick pic situation. This one isn't too clear. They had been talking for a week, and there was consent and sex in their relationship. It was consent based on emotional abuse, wtf how can you be so dense. This relationship lasted for years. You can't claim to be sexually harassed by someone who sent you a dick pic if you've engaged in an intimate relationship afterwards.The nature of the emotional abuse itself is very vague. And the thing is, while emotional abuse may be immoral, it hurts, but it is not a crime, and it won't get anyone fired out of any job. This is where I draw the line, it doesn't deserve to be public. Are we now gonna judge everyone with any amount of internet fame who has had a toxic relationship in the past? You absolutely can. You can be sexually harassed by anyone, regardless of your previous or present or future relationship. You can be harassed by your spouse, even. If someone sends a dick pic and you go along with it and reply ''hot'', it's not sexual harassment. ''Unsollicited'' isn't the key word to determine if it's harassment or not. It's ''unwanted''. In this case, she went along with it, and engaged in a relationship with the guy. There is no harassment, period.
If that is your honest opinion I feel sorry for any of your future partners. It is maybe 30 years ago that in the German parliament a woman spoke about rape during marriage and this was a foreign concept for virtually all men present who burst into laughter.
You are 30 years behind. If someone is in a partnership with you, you are entitled to exactly that, and really no more, apart from what your partner wants to give you.
Than means, in some cases zilch of the booty call, intercourse, sex, Bunga bunga. Not even a boobie squeeze or even a hug.
If your partner wants you to stop sending dick pics all of a sudden you accept that.
What the fuxk man?
|
Guys asking for rulebooks because who would ever talk to their gf and find out what she is and isn't okay with 😐
|
On June 27 2020 04:36 AttackZerg wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2020 04:30 mcgormack wrote:On June 27 2020 04:16 AttackZerg wrote:On June 27 2020 03:56 mcgormack wrote:On June 27 2020 03:52 AttackZerg wrote:On June 27 2020 03:47 mcgormack wrote:On June 27 2020 03:38 AttackZerg wrote:On June 27 2020 03:28 mcgormack wrote:On June 27 2020 03:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 27 2020 03:17 mcgormack wrote:
[quote]
Not sure how to feel about this one.
The other events were stuff that would get a person fired from a job, and arguably deserved to be public.
In this one, the events are fairly vague, and bottomline, we're talking about a long-lasting relationship between two consenting adults that was perceived as toxic and psychologically abusive by one person, but nothing illegal and no harassment. I honestly don't think that this deserves to be public. Just because he's a D-list esports celebrity, if there's no crime, it doesn't justify Rapid's private life getting revealed in details and debated on a public forum. You may have missed that that's yet another non-consensual dick pic situation. This one isn't too clear. They had been talking for a week, and there was consent and sex in their relationship. Having sex with someone, having a relationship with someone - does not make you immune from acting inappropriately. Most victims are preyed upon by people they know. I agree. Here, we've left the sexual assault discussion. We've even left the sexual harassment discussion. We're entered the private abusive relationship discussion. Nothing illegal and nothing that would make anyone lose his job in any context. This doesn't deserve to be public and debated. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. There are a million things I could do to my girlfriend that are horrible, illegal and wrong. Fucking someone does not provide immunity. And, lol at your other point. Any of my employees who I treated like this... I would be fired and open to suit from my company and the victim. Just no. Yes, you can do a million things that are illegal to your wife. Here, nothing illegal. only things that are claimed to be immoral, and no specifics. Are we gonna publicly judge everyone who did ''wrong'' things to their spouse now? We've derailled completely from the initial sexual harassment discussion. She was not a coworker and had nothing to do with his job. She was his intimate relationship. No one gets fired for having an emotionally abusive relationship at home. You have derailed completely by claiming that things "Cannot be wrong because X". You have argued that people shouldn't be able to be open with their own stories. I did not bring up workplace laws. You did. You have decided that you think these matters should be kept private and that is your contention. I am disagreeing. You decided this is okay behavior or at least not worth considering and you are arguing for the right to keep toxic things quiet. I disagree. I didn't climb into anyones bedroom window to observe these events, I am a bystander who spent hours listening to the worst caster ever only to find out that he was even worse off the mic. And a fuck-ton of people knew and he was still a 'celebrity' empowered by us, the fan-base, the people sponsors are paying to have exclusive access to. Yeah it is our business if the people we give platforms are mistreating that trust. Maybe Rapid could have just been a good person and then everything would be quiet because there wouldn't be years and years of the same behavior to report on. Maybe, if people who knew what he was years ago said something, we could have prevented his ability to use the power he gained from us to hurt people. Maybe, if the people who DID say something years ago were believed, then we could have had this horrible conversation back then and against, stopped this years ago. Instead we let sleeping dogs lie until it burst. We need sunlight not more closed door conversations. Those haven't worked. Some things deserve to be discussed and debated publicly, and some don't. We have to draw the line somewhere. I don't know where you draw the line. I draw it where our justice system does. Well since your argument is that unsolicited dick pics aren't harassment but the justice system in the united states and in europe believes it to be criminal . Then you disagree with yourself. It is a crime to digitally flash someone. The crime is labeled as sexual harassment. Do you need links to the laws? Now that you have been informed that the justice system DOES consider this a crime of sexual harassment, would you like to change your opinion?
I don't know why you keep deforming and twisting every single thing I say.
With the (few) facts that we know of, there is no tribunal in the US that would condemn Rapid for harassment against this girl. They were in couple for years and she went along with receiving the pic.
I never claimed that unsolicited dick pics were not harassment. I don't even know how you could understand that. I was on board with him getting fired from the beginning. I said that dick pics that had been WELCOMED were not harassment.
|
On June 27 2020 04:44 Artisreal wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2020 03:53 mcgormack wrote:On June 27 2020 03:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 27 2020 03:39 mcgormack wrote:On June 27 2020 03:33 Qikz wrote:On June 27 2020 03:28 mcgormack wrote:On June 27 2020 03:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 27 2020 03:17 mcgormack wrote:Not sure how to feel about this one. The other events were stuff that would get a person fired from a job, and arguably deserved to be public. In this one, the events are fairly vague, and bottomline, we're talking about a long-lasting relationship between two consenting adults that was perceived as toxic and psychologically abusive by one person, but nothing illegal and no harassment. I honestly don't think that this deserves to be public. Just because he's a D-list esports celebrity, if there's no crime, it doesn't justify Rapid's private life getting revealed in details and debated on a public forum. You may have missed that that's yet another non-consensual dick pic situation. This one isn't too clear. They had been talking for a week, and there was consent and sex in their relationship. It was consent based on emotional abuse, wtf how can you be so dense. This relationship lasted for years. You can't claim to be sexually harassed by someone who sent you a dick pic if you've engaged in an intimate relationship afterwards.The nature of the emotional abuse itself is very vague. And the thing is, while emotional abuse may be immoral, it hurts, but it is not a crime, and it won't get anyone fired out of any job. This is where I draw the line, it doesn't deserve to be public. Are we now gonna judge everyone with any amount of internet fame who has had a toxic relationship in the past? You absolutely can. You can be sexually harassed by anyone, regardless of your previous or present or future relationship. You can be harassed by your spouse, even. If someone sends a dick pic and you go along with it and reply ''hot'', it's not sexual harassment. ''Unsollicited'' isn't the key word to determine if it's harassment or not. It's ''unwanted''. In this case, she went along with it, and engaged in a relationship with the guy. There is no harassment, period. If that is your honest opinion I feel sorry for any of your future partners. It is maybe 30 years ago that in the German parliament a woman spoke about rape during marriage and this was a foreign concept for virtually all men present who burst into laughter. You are 30 years behind. If someone is in a partnership with you, you are entitled to exactly that, and really no more, apart from what your partner wants to give you. Than means, in some cases zilch of the booty call, intercourse, sex, Bunga bunga. Not even a boobie squeeze or even a hug. If your partner wants you to stop sending dick pics all of a sudden you accept that. What the fuxk man?
Is it not my opinion. It is the law.
https://www.un.org/womenwatch/osagi/pdf/whatissh.pdf
|
On June 27 2020 04:36 AttackZerg wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2020 04:30 mcgormack wrote:On June 27 2020 04:16 AttackZerg wrote:On June 27 2020 03:56 mcgormack wrote:On June 27 2020 03:52 AttackZerg wrote:On June 27 2020 03:47 mcgormack wrote:On June 27 2020 03:38 AttackZerg wrote:On June 27 2020 03:28 mcgormack wrote:On June 27 2020 03:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 27 2020 03:17 mcgormack wrote:
[quote]
Not sure how to feel about this one.
The other events were stuff that would get a person fired from a job, and arguably deserved to be public.
In this one, the events are fairly vague, and bottomline, we're talking about a long-lasting relationship between two consenting adults that was perceived as toxic and psychologically abusive by one person, but nothing illegal and no harassment. I honestly don't think that this deserves to be public. Just because he's a D-list esports celebrity, if there's no crime, it doesn't justify Rapid's private life getting revealed in details and debated on a public forum. You may have missed that that's yet another non-consensual dick pic situation. This one isn't too clear. They had been talking for a week, and there was consent and sex in their relationship. Having sex with someone, having a relationship with someone - does not make you immune from acting inappropriately. Most victims are preyed upon by people they know. I agree. Here, we've left the sexual assault discussion. We've even left the sexual harassment discussion. We're entered the private abusive relationship discussion. Nothing illegal and nothing that would make anyone lose his job in any context. This doesn't deserve to be public and debated. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. There are a million things I could do to my girlfriend that are horrible, illegal and wrong. Fucking someone does not provide immunity. And, lol at your other point. Any of my employees who I treated like this... I would be fired and open to suit from my company and the victim. Just no. Yes, you can do a million things that are illegal to your wife. Here, nothing illegal. only things that are claimed to be immoral, and no specifics. Are we gonna publicly judge everyone who did ''wrong'' things to their spouse now? We've derailled completely from the initial sexual harassment discussion. She was not a coworker and had nothing to do with his job. She was his intimate relationship. No one gets fired for having an emotionally abusive relationship at home. You have derailed completely by claiming that things "Cannot be wrong because X". You have argued that people shouldn't be able to be open with their own stories. I did not bring up workplace laws. You did. You have decided that you think these matters should be kept private and that is your contention. I am disagreeing. You decided this is okay behavior or at least not worth considering and you are arguing for the right to keep toxic things quiet. I disagree. I didn't climb into anyones bedroom window to observe these events, I am a bystander who spent hours listening to the worst caster ever only to find out that he was even worse off the mic. And a fuck-ton of people knew and he was still a 'celebrity' empowered by us, the fan-base, the people sponsors are paying to have exclusive access to. Yeah it is our business if the people we give platforms are mistreating that trust. Maybe Rapid could have just been a good person and then everything would be quiet because there wouldn't be years and years of the same behavior to report on. Maybe, if people who knew what he was years ago said something, we could have prevented his ability to use the power he gained from us to hurt people. Maybe, if the people who DID say something years ago were believed, then we could have had this horrible conversation back then and against, stopped this years ago. Instead we let sleeping dogs lie until it burst. We need sunlight not more closed door conversations. Those haven't worked. Some things deserve to be discussed and debated publicly, and some don't. We have to draw the line somewhere. I don't know where you draw the line. I draw it where our justice system does. Well since your argument is that unsolicited dick pics aren't harassment but the justice system in the united states and in europe believes it to be criminal . Then you disagree with yourself. It is a crime to digitally flash someone. The crime is labeled as sexual harassment. Do you need links to the laws? Now that you have been informed that the justice system DOES consider this a crime of sexual harassment, would you like to change your opinion?
Don't take the fact that i quoted you to mean that i disagree, i just wanted to get in on the dick pic discussion and took the newest post in that chain.
The problem, as always, is context.
1) If my wife asks me to send her a dick pic, and i do, that is obviously no problem.
2) If my wife makes it very clear that she likes getting dick pics all the time, but didn't tell me specifically to send her a dick pic today, and i send her one, that is probably also fine.
8) On the other end, if i randomly send dick pics to people i don't know or who haven't consented at all, that is clearly not okay.
The problem is clearly somewhere in between 2 and 8. As a reasonable person, there is a simple solution. If you are uncertain about sending dick pics, don't send them. Maybe ask first. If it is not a situation where it would be acceptable to ask first, it is also not acceptable to send. This is, for example, the case if there in any situation where a sexual relationship would be abusive, like when there is a huge power differential. It is also true if you barely know the other person.
If there is any doubt whatsoever, err on the side of not sending dick pics.
As a question of personal choice, this whole thing is thus pretty easy. Don't be in the grey area.
The harder question is what to do about people who fall in the grey areas somewhere in between 2 and 8. Because it is hard to find the actual cutoff stuff between "just barely acceptable" and "no longer acceptable".
|
On June 27 2020 04:47 mcgormack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2020 04:44 Artisreal wrote:On June 27 2020 03:53 mcgormack wrote:On June 27 2020 03:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 27 2020 03:39 mcgormack wrote:On June 27 2020 03:33 Qikz wrote:On June 27 2020 03:28 mcgormack wrote:On June 27 2020 03:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 27 2020 03:17 mcgormack wrote:Not sure how to feel about this one. The other events were stuff that would get a person fired from a job, and arguably deserved to be public. In this one, the events are fairly vague, and bottomline, we're talking about a long-lasting relationship between two consenting adults that was perceived as toxic and psychologically abusive by one person, but nothing illegal and no harassment. I honestly don't think that this deserves to be public. Just because he's a D-list esports celebrity, if there's no crime, it doesn't justify Rapid's private life getting revealed in details and debated on a public forum. You may have missed that that's yet another non-consensual dick pic situation. This one isn't too clear. They had been talking for a week, and there was consent and sex in their relationship. It was consent based on emotional abuse, wtf how can you be so dense. This relationship lasted for years. You can't claim to be sexually harassed by someone who sent you a dick pic if you've engaged in an intimate relationship afterwards.The nature of the emotional abuse itself is very vague. And the thing is, while emotional abuse may be immoral, it hurts, but it is not a crime, and it won't get anyone fired out of any job. This is where I draw the line, it doesn't deserve to be public. Are we now gonna judge everyone with any amount of internet fame who has had a toxic relationship in the past? You absolutely can. You can be sexually harassed by anyone, regardless of your previous or present or future relationship. You can be harassed by your spouse, even. If someone sends a dick pic and you go along with it and reply ''hot'', it's not sexual harassment. ''Unsollicited'' isn't the key word to determine if it's harassment or not. It's ''unwanted''. In this case, she went along with it, and engaged in a relationship with the guy. There is no harassment, period. If that is your honest opinion I feel sorry for any of your future partners. It is maybe 30 years ago that in the German parliament a woman spoke about rape during marriage and this was a foreign concept for virtually all men present who burst into laughter. You are 30 years behind. If someone is in a partnership with you, you are entitled to exactly that, and really no more, apart from what your partner wants to give you. Than means, in some cases zilch of the booty call, intercourse, sex, Bunga bunga. Not even a boobie squeeze or even a hug. If your partner wants you to stop sending dick pics all of a sudden you accept that. What the fuxk man? Is it not my opinion. It is the law. https://www.un.org/womenwatch/osagi/pdf/whatissh.pdf
That source literally says that "Unwanted letters, telephone calls, or materials of a sexual nature" are sexual harassment lol.
|
On June 27 2020 04:26 mcgormack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2020 04:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 27 2020 03:53 mcgormack wrote:On June 27 2020 03:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 27 2020 03:39 mcgormack wrote:On June 27 2020 03:33 Qikz wrote:On June 27 2020 03:28 mcgormack wrote:On June 27 2020 03:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 27 2020 03:17 mcgormack wrote:Not sure how to feel about this one. The other events were stuff that would get a person fired from a job, and arguably deserved to be public. In this one, the events are fairly vague, and bottomline, we're talking about a long-lasting relationship between two consenting adults that was perceived as toxic and psychologically abusive by one person, but nothing illegal and no harassment. I honestly don't think that this deserves to be public. Just because he's a D-list esports celebrity, if there's no crime, it doesn't justify Rapid's private life getting revealed in details and debated on a public forum. You may have missed that that's yet another non-consensual dick pic situation. This one isn't too clear. They had been talking for a week, and there was consent and sex in their relationship. It was consent based on emotional abuse, wtf how can you be so dense. This relationship lasted for years. You can't claim to be sexually harassed by someone who sent you a dick pic if you've engaged in an intimate relationship afterwards.The nature of the emotional abuse itself is very vague. And the thing is, while emotional abuse may be immoral, it hurts, but it is not a crime, and it won't get anyone fired out of any job. This is where I draw the line, it doesn't deserve to be public. Are we now gonna judge everyone with any amount of internet fame who has had a toxic relationship in the past? You absolutely can. You can be sexually harassed by anyone, regardless of your previous or present or future relationship. You can be harassed by your spouse, even. If someone sends a dick pic and you go along with it and reply ''hot'', it's not sexual harassment. ''Unsollicited'' isn't the key word to determine if it's harassment or not. It's ''unwanted''. In this case, she went along with it, and engaged in a relationship with the guy. There is no harassment, period. That simply isn't what happened though. The word "hot" appears exactly zero times in her story. The entire sentence reads "He sent me an unsolicited dick pic soon after (this was within a week of talking and dming)." And yes, when it comes to consent, something being unsolicited is good enough to establish a lack of consent. I feel like you're trying to make a semantics argument that, while "unwanted" is bad, "unsolicited" is neutral, and neutral is fine. That's false. Neutral is not necessarily fine. That's why you always, always, always ask for consent. It's not the case that dick pics are assumed to be consensual unless the recipient vocally turns them down. That thinking is backwards. Instead, it is the case that dick pics are assumed to be non-consensual unless the recipient vocally asks for one or gives you permission to send one after you ask. Consent is never assumed. Unsollicited is not harassment.
I haven't twisted your words. I have read and responded to them.
You said it isn't harassment unless a justice system says so. Some say so.
You said unsolicited is not harassment, some places consider it harassment and a crime.
You claim things shouldn't be spoken about in public unless the justice system would agree, some justice system do agree.
I have not twisted your words. They are you words, viewable to all.
To make it very clear - YOU ARE WRONG, unsolicited dick pictures are a crime.
You draw the line with the justice system until the moment you find out the justice system doesn't agree with you.
|
On June 27 2020 04:45 Nebuchad wrote:
Guys asking for rulebooks because who would ever talk to their gf and find out what she is and isn't okay with 😐
The problem here is, that your partner might be fine with this today, but years later You have a fall out and this is used against You.
Not saying that this is a case here, but this is something that happenes everday even outside SC. There is nothing as toxic as bad divorce, i mean the shit people do just to hurt each other....
|
On June 27 2020 04:52 AttackZerg wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2020 04:26 mcgormack wrote:On June 27 2020 04:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 27 2020 03:53 mcgormack wrote:On June 27 2020 03:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 27 2020 03:39 mcgormack wrote:On June 27 2020 03:33 Qikz wrote:On June 27 2020 03:28 mcgormack wrote:On June 27 2020 03:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 27 2020 03:17 mcgormack wrote:
[quote]
Not sure how to feel about this one.
The other events were stuff that would get a person fired from a job, and arguably deserved to be public.
In this one, the events are fairly vague, and bottomline, we're talking about a long-lasting relationship between two consenting adults that was perceived as toxic and psychologically abusive by one person, but nothing illegal and no harassment. I honestly don't think that this deserves to be public. Just because he's a D-list esports celebrity, if there's no crime, it doesn't justify Rapid's private life getting revealed in details and debated on a public forum. You may have missed that that's yet another non-consensual dick pic situation. This one isn't too clear. They had been talking for a week, and there was consent and sex in their relationship. It was consent based on emotional abuse, wtf how can you be so dense. This relationship lasted for years. You can't claim to be sexually harassed by someone who sent you a dick pic if you've engaged in an intimate relationship afterwards.The nature of the emotional abuse itself is very vague. And the thing is, while emotional abuse may be immoral, it hurts, but it is not a crime, and it won't get anyone fired out of any job. This is where I draw the line, it doesn't deserve to be public. Are we now gonna judge everyone with any amount of internet fame who has had a toxic relationship in the past? You absolutely can. You can be sexually harassed by anyone, regardless of your previous or present or future relationship. You can be harassed by your spouse, even. If someone sends a dick pic and you go along with it and reply ''hot'', it's not sexual harassment. ''Unsollicited'' isn't the key word to determine if it's harassment or not. It's ''unwanted''. In this case, she went along with it, and engaged in a relationship with the guy. There is no harassment, period. That simply isn't what happened though. The word "hot" appears exactly zero times in her story. The entire sentence reads "He sent me an unsolicited dick pic soon after (this was within a week of talking and dming)." And yes, when it comes to consent, something being unsolicited is good enough to establish a lack of consent. I feel like you're trying to make a semantics argument that, while "unwanted" is bad, "unsolicited" is neutral, and neutral is fine. That's false. Neutral is not necessarily fine. That's why you always, always, always ask for consent. It's not the case that dick pics are assumed to be consensual unless the recipient vocally turns them down. That thinking is backwards. Instead, it is the case that dick pics are assumed to be non-consensual unless the recipient vocally asks for one or gives you permission to send one after you ask. Consent is never assumed. Unsollicited is not harassment. I haven't twisted your words. I have read and responded to them. You said it isn't harassment unless a justice system says so. Some say so. You said unsolicited is not harassment, some places consider it harassment and a crime. You claim things shouldn't be spoken about in public unless the justice system would agree, some justice system do agree. I have not twisted your words. They are you words, viewable to all. To make it very clear - YOU ARE WRONG, unsolicited dick pictures are a crime. You draw the line with the justice system until the moment you find out the justice system doesn't agree with you.
Find me a single text of law about sexual harassment with the word ''unsollicited''. Unwelcome is the criteria, always.
If the receiver reacts positively to the behavior, either being catcalled, whistled, called ''honey'', or receiving a dick pic, and proceeds to engage with that person in an intimate relationship that lasts for years, obviously that person cannot claim to have been sexually harassed for that event years later.
If you do not agree with that statement, well I'm glad that our justice system does.
|
On June 27 2020 04:52 Silvanel wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2020 04:45 Nebuchad wrote:
Guys asking for rulebooks because who would ever talk to their gf and find out what she is and isn't okay with 😐 The problem here is, that your partner might be fine with this today, but years later You have a fall out and this is used against You. Not saying that this is a case here, but this is something that happenes everday even outside SC. There is nothing as toxic as bad divorce, i mean the shit people do just to hurt each other....
When in doubt, don't send dick pics. It's an easy rule to follow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
