Unconditional surrender...?

[ippy]

Getting back to the topic, in my opinion no one, male or female, should kiss or be intimate with another person without their express permission, even if they seem to be up for it.

Well L R we're all here, someone had to start things off, although I can see where one person's cheeky isn't necessarily cheeky to someone else.

Maybe there would be a few less people around, if we prosecuted everyone that chanced their arm, now that might be a good thing?

Regards, ippy.

[Roses]

Well L R we're all here, someone had to start things off, although I can see where one person's cheeky isn't necessarily cheeky to someone else.

Maybe there would be a few less people around, if we prosecuted everyone that chanced their arm, now that might be a good thing?

Regards, ippy.

Chancing one's arm is another person's idea of assault.

[Steve H]

Getting back to the topic, in my opinion no one, male or female, should kiss or be intimate with another person without their express permission, even if they seem to be up for it.

I think we all agree about that, but some of us have no sense of proportion or historical and cultural changes (not you).

[Roses]

I think we all agree about that, but some of us have no sense of proportion or historical and cultural changes (not you).

So you are saying that it was ok for men to take advantage of women in the past?

[Steve H]

So you are saying that it was ok for men to take advantage of women in the past?

[Sighs wearily.] No, but historical and cultural conditions are a mitigating factor, and a quick snog on an occasion of celebration and gaiety is hardly  as bad as violent rape. There are degrees of advantage-taking. I have said all this before, but some people never read other people's posts, or if they do, ignore what they've read.

[ProfessorDavey]

[Sighs wearily.] No, but historical and cultural conditions are a mitigating factor, and a quick snog on an occasion of celebration and gaiety is hardly  as bad as violent rape. There are degrees of advantage-taking. I have said all this before, but some people never read other people's posts, or if they do, ignore what they've read.

But we aren't addressing the original act, caught on camera and clearly imbued with the context of the time and the specific circumstances of VJ day. No - we are discussing a sculpture created in the last 10 years or so (in our current time and context) to celebrate this particular act, but which detaches the act from its original time, its original context and its original mitigating factors (if those are relevant).

The sculpture shows a man all over a woman who is clearly not a consensual active participant and is called 'Unconditional surrender'.

[Roses]

[Sighs wearily.] No, but historical and cultural conditions are a mitigating factor, and a quick snog on an occasion of celebration and gaiety is hardly  as bad as violent rape. There are degrees of advantage-taking. I have said all this before, but some people never read other people's posts, or if they do, ignore what they've read.

A quick snog is a violation of a person's privacy and is WRONG if the snogger hasn't obtained consent first.

[Nearly Sane]

[Sighs wearily.] No, but historical and cultural conditions are a mitigating factor, and a quick snog on an occasion of celebration and gaiety is hardly  as bad as violent rape. There are degrees of advantage-taking. I have said all this before, but some people never read other people's posts, or if they do, ignore what they've read.

Has anyone suggested a non consensual kiss, which is still assault, is as bad as a violent rape?

[Steve H]

A quick snog is a violation of a person's privacy and is WRONG if the snogger hasn't obtained consent first.

I AGREE! How many times do I have to say it? FFS!

[Nearly Sane]

I AGREE! How many times do I have to say it? FFS!

The problem is in using language like a 'quick snog' you play down that it is assault.

[Steve H]

Has anyone suggested a non consensual kiss, which is still assault, is as bad as a violent rape?

You and LR have at least strongly implied it.

[Nearly Sane]

You and LR have at least strongly implied it.

Where?

[ProfessorDavey]

I AGREE! How many times do I have to say it? FFS!

In which case why would you support the creation and display of a sculpture in the past few years that shows that non-consensual act, devoid of any mitigating context and named 'Unconditional surrender', which without context surely will be taken to imply the unconditional surrender of the woman to the man.

[ippy]

But we aren't addressing the original act, caught on camera and clearly imbued with the context of the time and the specific circumstances of VJ day. No - we are discussing a sculpture created in the last 10 years or so (in our current time and context) to celebrate this particular act, but which detaches the act from its original time, its original context and its original mitigating factors (if those are relevant).

The sculpture shows a man all over a woman who is clearly not a consensual active participant and is called 'Unconditional surrender'.

Based an a very well known and understood photo taken when the reactions of the people involved were perfectly in keeping with the mood of that time where it's obvious there was no intention of that male sailor to occasion harm on that female or any other female that might of happened to be within his reach.

The naming of the present day sculpture could be questioned because its title doesn't relate to the original photo taken on that exceptionally joyful V J day all of those years ago and this out of character title when compared to that old extremely well known photo, can as it has here lead to a misunderstanding of the original, the photo.

ippy.

[Roses]

You and LR have at least strongly implied it.

I certainly haven't said it is as bad, but to snog someone without permission is on the slippery slope towards rape, imo.

[Nearly Sane]

I certainly haven't said it is as bad, but to snog someone without permission is on the slippery slope towards rape, imo.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

[ProfessorDavey]

Based an a very well known and understood photo

So you say - I disagree. I suspect many, probably most people will never have seen this photo and even if they had wouldn't understand the context. For those people the sculpture is completely without context.

taken when the reactions of the people involved were perfectly in keeping with the mood of that time where it's obvious there was no intention of that male sailor to occasion harm on that female or any other female that might of happened to be within his reach.

But that context is completely absent in the sculpture.

The naming of the present day sculpture could be questioned

Indeed is deeply questionable when applied to a sculpture of a man all over a woman who is clearly not an active participant in the act.

because its title doesn't relate to the original photo taken on that exceptionally joyful V J day all of those years ago

Indeed - there is nothing about the sculpture which provides one iota of indication that it relates to VJ day. Note the original photo was called "VJ day in Times Square"

and this out of character title when compared to that old extremely well known photo, can as it has here lead to a misunderstanding the original, the photo.

Which brings me back to my original point - I don't think that the photo is well enough known to assume that everyone (indeed most people) who see the sculpture would automatically recognise the context and time of the original photo.

[Steve H]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

Quite - and the related "logical conclusion" argument is fallacious, as well.

[ippy]

So you say - I disagree. I suspect many, probably most people will never have seen this photo and even if they had wouldn't understand the context. For those people the sculpture is completely without context.
But that context is completely absent in the sculpture.
Indeed is deeply questionable when applied to a sculpture of a man all over a woman who is clearly not an active participant in the act.
Indeed - there is nothing about the sculpture which provides one iota of indication that it relates to VJ day. Note the original photo was called "VJ day in Times Square"
Which brings me back to my original point - I don't think that the photo is well enough known to assume that everyone (indeed most people) who see the sculpture would automatically recognise the context and time of the original photo.

If you've got just the slightest interest in photography, WW 2 history or famous photographers, where have you been hiding and there's a little bit of misrepresenting my words in your post, why's that?

You're making it look as though I've said things I haven't said, using what looks to me like a bit of inventive cut and paste.

ippy.

[ProfessorDavey]

If you've got just the slightest interest in photography, WW 2 history or famous photographers, where have you been hiding and there's a little bit of misrepresenting my words in your post, why's that?

But many people who may see the sculpture will not have the slightest interest in photography, WW 2 history or famous photographers. You seem to be implying that everyone (or even most people) who see the sculpture will know the photo and immediately recognise the context. I don't think that it true by a long stretch.

[ippy]

But many people who may see the sculpture will not have the slightest interest in photography, WW 2 history or famous photographers. You seem to be implying that everyone (or even most people) who see the sculpture will know the photo and immediately recognise the context. I don't think that it true by a long stretch.

So no one uses Mr Google?

ippy

[ProfessorDavey]

So no one uses Mr Google?

ippy

But that is bizarre reverse engineering.

If you didn't know that the sculpture was based on a photo (that you also didn't know existed) why on earth would you go googling to work out what photo is was based on. It makes no sense.

In order to make the notion of googling the link with the photo have any sense you'd need to already know there was a link to a photo.

[Robbie]

There was a link posted early on in the thread that showed both the photograph and the sculpture and gave information. I must admit on first glance I had little idea what it was about, had never seen the photograph before. To me it seems an odd thing to make a sculpture from the photograph in this day and age and am not surprised about the opposition and 'me too' graffiti. The photograph is a piece of history, that surely could have been enough.

[ProfessorDavey]

There was a link posted early on in the thread that showed both the photograph and the sculpture and gave information. I must admit on first glance I had little idea what it was about, had never seen the photograph before. To me it seems an odd thing to make a sculpture from the photograph in this day and age and am not surprised about the opposition and 'me too' graffiti. The photograph is a piece of history, that surely could have been enough.

I agree - the photo is iconic and firmly embedded in its context and time. Whether that mitigates for the behaviour of the sailor is for individuals to determine, but the photo is a historical record of an individual event (the embrace and kiss) at a larger historically significant event (VJ day in Times Sq).

I've no idea what possessed the sculpture to recreate this scene - firstly simply to faithfully recreate a photo as a sculpture seems devoid in creativity. Secondly from an artistic and historic standpoint the sculpture is devalued compared to the photo as it is neither of the time, nor in context. Finally the use of the name "Unconditional surrender" alongside the sculpture of a man all over a woman who is clearly not participating and detached from its context seems ill advised at best and pretty crass to me.

[Steve H]

If you didn't know what the sculpture was based on, you wouldn't know that the kiss portrayed wasn't fully consensual.