|
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 04:47 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
Either I grossly misunderstood your post or dick pic is mentioned on page 1: Unwanted letters, telephone calls, or materials of a sexual nature.
That is sexual harassment.
Whether it's a relationship or not doesn't make any difference whatsoever.
If you think quoting a guideline for identifying workplace sexual harassment will tell anyone that there cannot be sexual harassment in a relationship you are so far off, the closest you could be is Mercury.
|
On June 27 2020 04:00 WarSame wrote:
For the people who are waiting for Rapid's response to these accusations, I wonder if they would be willing to wait for the response to that response as well? And the response to that response to the response? How far does the conversation have to go before you are willing to consider the viewpoints settled? 1 level deep?
I judged him as guilty from the moment I read the accusations, but I'm waiting on a response because that feels fair to me. In my mind's eye, I am siding with the victim but give the accuser a shot to say something. Obviously, others will say that this is enabling the accused and I can see how one could look at it that way, especially given that the odds are stacked against the victim from the get go.
I don't know how I'd respond once I hear his response. I don't know if my position will change from what he says (most likely not). I'm near the end of patience waiting for a response. I'm ready to just say "lock him up". The fact is that I've already casted him as guilty and he will forever be a creep and guilty in my mind now, even if he's exonerated. I realize that victims start with and typically end with the short end of the stick. I realize that to even be accused in the first place, it means the odds of them being guilty are statistically very, very high.
Even with this, I feel like my thought process is flawed, based on the off chance that he may actually redeem himself. I feel like I want more objectivity to make the right decision. Why? Because I'm putting myself first, I'm imagining myself in his situation. I would want to have my side of the story before people cast judgement on me, because that's human self-preservation. If I put myself in the victim's situation (an honest attempt, but the reality is that I'll never know how it feels), I would want mainly to feel protected, heard, supported, then to receive justice. Ultimately I'm focused on imagining myself with what I can familiarize with best, the accused in this case (because I'm a man, not because I'm a rapist or sexual harasser). I don't know what it feels like to be a victim, I will probably never know.
That's the issue I have with these things, it's based on subjective degree and magnitude. It's not black or white. I don't want to be subjective on it but I feel like I have to be, because that's all I have to work with. I am actively thinking about how to maximize objectivity, because removing subjectivity is impossible. For someone like me, I believe that listening is the best first step. This is how one could bridge the gap from switching the primary perspective from the accused to the victim.
My beliefs are the manifestation of my values, so is everyone else's. We are debating the manifestations of our values, when perhaps we should be debating the values and why we have them. To me, as I read this thread, I feel like we are arguing on the surface level, akin to speaking different languages. There is little to no progress or understanding happening here when we are not addressing the underlying reasons for our beliefs. What I believe happens is that it just deepens division. Beliefs are associated with identity, attack the beliefs and you attack someone's identity.
Anyways, to directly answer your question, he's probably got until the end of today or the weekend, at the latest. How did I decide that? It was based on feeling.
|
On June 27 2020 04:58 Artisreal wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2020 04:47 mcgormack wrote: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:
[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. 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 Either I grossly misunderstood your post or dick pic is mentioned on page 1: Unwanted letters, telephone calls, or materials of a sexual nature. That is sexual harassment. Whether it's a relationship or not doesn't make any difference whatsoever. If you think quoting a guideline for identifying workplace sexual harassment will tell anyone that there cannot be sexual harassment in a relationship you are so far off, the closest you could be is Mercury.
Here's what I said earlier for the full context :
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.
Is it not my opinion. It is the law.
----
Again, unwanted is very different from unsollicitated.
|
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....
She might even lie and say that you sent her an unsollicited dick pic years ago when you hadn't :/
It's a dangerous world out there
|
On June 27 2020 04:58 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2020 04:52 Silvanel wrote: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.
This is a rule i follow personally. But this isnt really about that, my point is that people who once were truly in love, can do terrible things to each other when things go south. I have witnessed this first hand. One day it is "I love when she takes control and ties me up", years later it is "Your honor she is beating me when kids dont watch".
|
|
|
On June 27 2020 05:03 mcgormack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2020 04:58 Artisreal wrote:On June 27 2020 04:47 mcgormack wrote: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:
[quote]
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 Either I grossly misunderstood your post or dick pic is mentioned on page 1: Unwanted letters, telephone calls, or materials of a sexual nature. That is sexual harassment. Whether it's a relationship or not doesn't make any difference whatsoever. If you think quoting a guideline for identifying workplace sexual harassment will tell anyone that there cannot be sexual harassment in a relationship you are so far off, the closest you could be is Mercury. Here's what I said earlier for the full context : 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. Is it not my opinion. It is the law. ---- Again, unwanted is very different from unsollicitated.
Fair enough. I understand your viewpoint.
I don't understand how it's unwanted but maybe that's legalese.
As the sender you cannot know how the receiver will react though. Kind of a serious gamble to do imo.
|
On June 27 2020 04:58 mcgormack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2020 04:52 AttackZerg wrote: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:
[quote]
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 s.
"
Indian Penal Code
a) For women
Section 509 of the IPC deals with words, gestures or acts intended to insult the modesty of a woman. As per the section, whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any words, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen, by such woman, shall be liable for punishment.
Acts such as cyber flashing of genitalia, pornography and sexual sounds fall primarily under this section of the law. This is the section which has been previously applied by the police in instances of cyber flashing along with Section 67 of the IT Act.
Section 354A(iii) on the other hand provides that a man who shows pornography against the will of a woman, shall be guilty of the offence of sexual harassment and shall be punished.
Cyber flashing pertaining specifically to pornography, including pornographic content hidden in videos, links or files appearing to deal with some other subject matter on the surface, or in cases where the sender convinces the receiver to open a file or media, misleading them to believe that it contains something other rather than the pornographic content hidden in it, is most likely to be held liable under this Section of the IPC.
Exposing a woman to pornography against her will over video call should also technically fall under the ambit of this section.
b) For children
In the case of children, Section 293 of the IPC provides punishment for whoever distributes, exhibits or circulates to any person under the age of twenty years any obscene object, or attempts to do so. This section should reasonably apply to cyber flashing of pornography, genitalia and other such obscene objects to children.
c) For Men
The IPC seems to be lacking any provisions for crimes in which the victim of cyber flashing or sexual harassment may be a man.
The Information Technology Act, 2000
Most of the provisions of the IT Act are largely gender-neutral. Thus, the sections mentioned below apply equally in the cases of men, women and children.
Section 67 of the Act prescribes punitive action for publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form. Cyber flashing of genitalia or other similar obscene or repulsive items shall fall under this section. This section has been previously used by the police to book offenders of cyber flashing.
Similarly, Section 67A deals with punishment for publishing or transmitting of material containing sexually explicit act, etc., in electronic form. Cyber flashing of pornography shall attract this Section of the IT Act.
In the special circumstance where one gets cyber flashed with child pornography, Section 67B, which provides for punishment for publishing or transmitting material depicting children in sexually explicit act in electronic form, along with Section 13 read with Section 14 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, which pertain to the issue of usage of children for pornographic purposes, shall also apply.
"
They don't use unsolicited in there laws - they call them cyber flashers.
So Rapid would be classified as a cyber flasher under the Indian penal system, section 509 and would also, potentially qualify for another section, whether or not his victims felt they had been duped or tricked into viewing his pictures.
The link you provided covers it too. But you aren't worried about what the law says, that was just what you were saying to prove a point, until it didn't work anymore.
Source
www.barandbench.com
|
I think it's pretty gross that this debate is even had at all. The argument that dick pics should be ok because the law says so, ignoring whether that's even true, is gross on two fronts. First is the "legality is morality" angle, which I find morally inhibitive, but then there's the "these are the rules that make this personal interaction always ok" shit. Just talk to people. Respect them. And if you're worried about offending someone, maybe just don't do the thing. Don't look for the technicality. Nobody likes that guy.
Also for whatever it's worth, I think dick pics are gross. Nobody I know likes them, and nobody that any of them knows likes them. I cannot see any reason why this is a hill worth dying on.
|
|
|
All this about dicks and pics of them is getting way into the weeds.
|
On June 27 2020 05:18 DeepElemBlues wrote:
All this about dicks and pics of them is getting way into the weeds.
This is the most serious conversation about dicks and pics I've ever seen.
|
|
|
On June 27 2020 05:16 NewSunshine wrote:
I think it's pretty gross that this debate is even had at all. The argument that dick pics should be ok because the law says so, ignoring whether that's even true, is gross on two fronts. First is the "legality is morality" angle, which I find morally inhibitive, but then there's the "these are the rules that make this personal interaction always ok" shit. Just talk to people. Respect them. And if you're worried about offending someone, maybe just don't do the thing. Don't look for the technicality. Nobody likes that guy.
Also for whatever it's worth, I think dick pics are gross. Nobody I know likes them, and nobody that any of them knows likes them. I cannot see any reason why this is a hill worth dying on.
I agree with both of your main points here. I hate both the "it is legal thus it is moral" argument and the "loophole-seeking" aspect that somehow often gets involved in these discussions about sexual harassment. Ethics should guide laws, not the other way around. And people really need to stop trying to find the minimum loophole to barely legally not be a sexual harasser, and instead look for enthusiastic consent in their partners. If they are not into it, don't do it. (Whatever "it" is) If you have to keep prodding them to get consent, don't do it. And if at any point during your doing of it it becomes even slightly unclear if they are still okay with it, stop and make sure.
However, i think a small group of people who like dick pics do surely exists. I don't think a single sex-related act you can imagine exists that no one would like. Enthusiastic consent is always king, though.
|
On June 27 2020 05:14 AttackZerg wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2020 04:58 mcgormack wrote:On June 27 2020 04:52 AttackZerg wrote: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:
[quote]
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 s. " Indian Penal Code a) For women Section 509 of the IPC deals with words, gestures or acts intended to insult the modesty of a woman. As per the section, whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any words, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen, by such woman, shall be liable for punishment. Acts such as cyber flashing of genitalia, pornography and sexual sounds fall primarily under this section of the law. This is the section which has been previously applied by the police in instances of cyber flashing along with Section 67 of the IT Act. Section 354A(iii) on the other hand provides that a man who shows pornography against the will of a woman, shall be guilty of the offence of sexual harassment and shall be punished. Cyber flashing pertaining specifically to pornography, including pornographic content hidden in videos, links or files appearing to deal with some other subject matter on the surface, or in cases where the sender convinces the receiver to open a file or media, misleading them to believe that it contains something other rather than the pornographic content hidden in it, is most likely to be held liable under this Section of the IPC. Exposing a woman to pornography against her will over video call should also technically fall under the ambit of this section. b) For children In the case of children, Section 293 of the IPC provides punishment for whoever distributes, exhibits or circulates to any person under the age of twenty years any obscene object, or attempts to do so. This section should reasonably apply to cyber flashing of pornography, genitalia and other such obscene objects to children. c) For Men The IPC seems to be lacking any provisions for crimes in which the victim of cyber flashing or sexual harassment may be a man. The Information Technology Act, 2000 Most of the provisions of the IT Act are largely gender-neutral. Thus, the sections mentioned below apply equally in the cases of men, women and children. Section 67 of the Act prescribes punitive action for publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form. Cyber flashing of genitalia or other similar obscene or repulsive items shall fall under this section. This section has been previously used by the police to book offenders of cyber flashing. Similarly, Section 67A deals with punishment for publishing or transmitting of material containing sexually explicit act, etc., in electronic form. Cyber flashing of pornography shall attract this Section of the IT Act. In the special circumstance where one gets cyber flashed with child pornography, Section 67B, which provides for punishment for publishing or transmitting material depicting children in sexually explicit act in electronic form, along with Section 13 read with Section 14 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, which pertain to the issue of usage of children for pornographic purposes, shall also apply. " They don't use unsolicited in there laws - they call them cyber flashers. So Rapid would be classified as a cyber flasher under the Indian penal system, section 509 and would also, potentially qualify for another section, whether or not his victims felt they had been duped or tricked into viewing his pictures. The link you provided covers it too. But you aren't worried about what the law says, that was just what you were saying to prove a point, until it didn't work anymore. Source www.barandbench.com
Ok so we've got one line in her story where we've established that she would have been sexually harassed by her ex-boyfriend if they had been in India, and about 30 lines about how their relationship that lasted for years was unhealthy.
|
On June 27 2020 05:03 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2020 04:52 Silvanel wrote: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.... She might even lie and say that you sent her an unsollicited dick pic years ago when you hadn't :/ It's a dangerous world out there
Please keep in mind that Melanie received the dick pic within one week of first talking with Rapid, not within a year and not changing her mind about anything: "He sent me an unsolicited dick pic soon after (this was within a week of talking and dming)."
|
To be clear, I only focused on the justice system, because his argument was to push away an accusation on the basis that "it isn't the justice system".
I don't think you need a judge and jury to find this conduct wrong.
If you need a law to make you not sexually harass people, then you are a crap person.
|
|
|
On June 27 2020 05:30 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2020 05:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 27 2020 05:03 Nebuchad wrote:On June 27 2020 04:52 Silvanel wrote: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.... She might even lie and say that you sent her an unsollicited dick pic years ago when you hadn't :/ It's a dangerous world out there Please keep in mind that Melanie received the dick pic within one week of first talking with Rapid, not within a year and not changing her mind about anything: "He sent me an unsolicited dick pic soon after (this was within a week of talking and dming)." I think Neb was just trying another tact of sarcastically pointing out that you can protect yourself from these lying females some people seem to be afraid by simply not sending a dick pic.
Gotcha. I didn't pick up on the sarcasm.
|
Eh i cannot agree here as much as i dislike guys who just send dick picks to women who didnt ask for them and didnt want em.
But if you engage in a romantic relation shortly after and stay in it, you validate that you wanted those picks. Because it would be pretty gross to get the picks unwanted and thus you'd never start a relationship with such a person.
If my wife of 14 years marriage sends me nudes without me explicitly asking for it, we divorce tomorrow, then i get to say she sexually harassed me just because there is no explicit permission from my side in the chat?
Sounds hillarious no?
My example is more extreme then reality here, but i hope you get my argument.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
