Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Sriram on November 28, 2019, 05:53:55 AM
-
Hi everyone,
Statue of sailor kissing a nurse. Unconditional surrender....or #MeToo moment of male privilege...?!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconditional_Surrender_(sculpture)
Cheers.
Sriram
This link is not taking us directly to the site for some reason. Just follow the other link please.
-
Hi everyone,
Statue of sailor kissing a nurse. Unconditional surrender....or #MeToo moment of male privilege...?!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconditional_Surrender_(sculpture)
Cheers.
Sriram
This link is not taking us directly to the site for some reason. Just follow the other link please.
The link is broken because the forum's automatic link parsing is omitting the final ")". Try this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconditional_Surrender_(sculpture) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconditional_Surrender_(sculpture))
-
Ah...thanks a lot, jeremyp. :)
-
Hi everyone,
Statue of sailor kissing a nurse. Unconditional surrender....or #MeToo moment of male privilege...?!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconditional_Surrender_(sculpture)
Cheers.
Sriram
This link is not taking us directly to the site for some reason. Just follow the other link please.
I didn't know about this statue but it's another lovely work of art, just think of the smiles it must cause all around what a joy.
Regards, ippy.
-
I suppose the pair of them did surrender to an impulse to embrace and kiss but we don't know anything else about them - they could just be actors posing for a photograph.
After a war, I expect there were plenty of overjoyed couples who thought they may never again see each other and were delighted to do so - as well as those who lost their loved one.
I can't see anything particularly remarkable about the picture - which has somehow been made into a sculpture - but I suppose if nothing else, it's hopeful.
-
I suppose the pair of them did surrender to an impulse to embrace and kiss but we don't know anything else about them - they could just be actors posing for a photograph.
We probably do know quite a lot about them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-J_Day_in_Times_Square
I can't see anything particularly remarkable about the picture - which has somehow been made into a sculpture - but I suppose if nothing else, it's hopeful.
Well, if the sailor is the most likely candidate, he had just found out that he had been reprieved from almost certain death. It is hopeful, but it's a photo of somebody who has gone from having no hope to having hope.
-
The crucial bit in the link seems to be
'The widely agreed-upon identity of the female subject in the photo, dental assistant Greta Zimmer Friedman, had also explicitly stated that the kiss in question was not a consensual act.' Hence the #MeToo issues
-
The crucial bit in the link seems to be
'The widely agreed-upon identity of the female subject in the photo, dental assistant Greta Zimmer Friedman, had also explicitly stated that the kiss in question was not a consensual act.' Hence the #MeToo issues
It was a different time and, as I said above, the sailor in question had just received a reprieve, so I'm inclined to cut him a little slack.
-
It was a different time and, as I said above, the sailor in question had just received a reprieve, so I'm inclined to cut him a little slack.
It wasn't a different time in terms of consent. And do you think being reprieved is a pass on the idea of consent?
-
I suppose the pair of them did surrender to an impulse to embrace and kiss but we don't know anything else about them - they could just be actors posing for a photograph.
After a war, I expect there were plenty of overjoyed couples who thought they may never again see each other and were delighted to do so - as well as those who lost their loved one.
I can't see anything particularly remarkable about the picture - which has somehow been made into a sculpture - but I suppose if nothing else, it's hopeful.
Apparently, they were complete strangers - he yielded to an impulse, grabbed her, and kissed her. In recent years, some feminists-by-numbers have whipped themselves up into an outrage over it, and accused him od swxual harrassment. Nowadays, he might well get into trouble, but she isn't exactly resisting, and I think they're both enjoying the moment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-J_Day_in_Times_Square
-
It wasn't a different time in terms of consent. And do you think being reprieved is a pass on the idea of consent?
It was a kiss. I detest this idea of looking for things in the past just so we can be offended about it.
-
His future wife Rita was also present with him. What came over him to suddenly grab a stranger and kiss her that way...is difficult to say. :)
Many #Metoo supporters are having a field day on this....writing graffiti on the statue and stuff like that..... :D
-
It was a kiss. I detest this idea of looking for things in the past just so we can be offended about it.
surely that's up to the person who was 'kissed', not you?
-
surely that's up to the person who was 'kissed', not you?
I'm not saying anyone has the right to go around kissing people willy nilly but this is just stupid.
-
I'm not saying anyone has the right to go around kissing people willy nilly but this is just stupid.
Your sentence is contradictory
-
Your sentence is contradictory
Was the woman he kissed particularly traumatised by the incident? If not, why make a thing of it now?
-
Was the woman he kissed particularly traumatised by the incident? If not, why make a thing of it now?
The now is because of the statue, and it becoming clear that it was an assault.
-
It wasn't a different time in terms of consent. And do you think being reprieved is a pass on the idea of consent?
She doesn't appear to be struggling. Lighten up.
-
She doesn't appear to be struggling. Lighten up.
Why should I lighten up at your support for an assault?
-
The now is because of the statue, and it becoming clear that it was an assault.
That didn't really answer my question. So far this just confirms to me that this is a case of looking into the past specifically to find something to be offended about. There was a bird that put her hand on my arse whilst I was playing pool 25 years ago, but then she was fit and I liked it. But that was without my permission. Same thing. It trivialises real cases of assault.
-
That didn't really answer my question. So far this just confirms to me that this is a case of looking into the past specifically to find something to be offended about. There was a bird that put her hand on my arse whilst I was playing pool 25 years ago, but then she was fit and I liked it. But that was without my permission. Same thing. It trivialises real cases of assault.
Kissing someone without consent is real assault. The assumption made was that the woman consented. We have since found put that that appears to be incorrect. The statue is s new work so that combined with the information about the lack of consent makes it look like a celebration of the assault.
-
Why should I lighten up at your support for an assault?
Because you're being unbelievably pompous and self-righteous.
-
Because you're being unbelievably pompous and self-righteous.
And you just think assault is a laughing matter
-
And you just think assault is a laughing matter
Your "and" logicslly implies that you agree thast you ARE being pompous and self-righteous.
-
Your "and" logicslly implies that you agree thast you ARE being pompous and self-righteous.
Of course you can be pompous and self righteous and right on an issue. Just saying, making no judgement.
-
Your "and" logicslly implies that you agree thast you ARE being pompous and self-righteous.
If it makes you happy to think that on you go. You probably think that the woman shouldn't have said anything and was being 'hyper-confessional.'
-
Of course strictly speaking he was wrong to do it (if it really was the two people mentioned in the wiki article), nobody has the right to grab and kiss another without their consent. It's also ridiculous to say she didn't object, it probably took her quite by surprise and was all over in no time. She didn't know what hit her! However I doubt she was scarred for life tho' that isn't the point.
Bit late now for anyone to moan about it but I'm surprised it's considered suitable to be a statue in a prominent place, hope that doesn't indicate society is sliding backwards.
-
Of course strictly speaking he was wrong to do it (if it really was the two people mentioned in the wiki article), nobody has the right to grab and kiss another without their consent. It's also ridiculous to say she didn't object, it probably took her quite by surprise and was all over in no time. She didn't know what hit her! However I doubt she was scarred for life tho' that isn't the point.
Bit late now for anyone to moan about it but I'm surprised it's considered suitable to be a statue in a prominent place, hope that doesn't indicate society is sliding backwards.
I think the details of it may well not have been known. I hadn't known it had been made into a statue or that it had been non consensual till this thread.
-
Any bloke who kissed me without my permission would have my foot connecting with their nether regions.
-
The link is broken because the forum's automatic link parsing is omitting the final ")". Try this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconditional_Surrender_(sculpture) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconditional_Surrender_(sculpture))
The original photo clearly iconic, but the sculpture, in my opinion, is a bit creepy and rubbish (and that's without the back story).
I'm with NS on this one - I'd never through the photo looked to be two people in a mutual embrace, she seems completely passive and so it would seem as it wasn't wanted nor consensual on her part.
-
By the photographer Alfred Eisenstaedt.....
"In Times Square on V.J. Day I saw a sailor running along the street grabbing any and every girl in sight. Whether she was a grandmother, stout, thin, old, didn't make a difference. I was running ahead of him with my Leica looking back over my shoulder but none of the pictures that were possible pleased me. Then suddenly, in a flash, I saw something white being grabbed. I turned around and clicked the moment the sailor kissed the nurse."
Clearly the sailor had gone 'bonkers' because of the victory over Japan....
-
It seems reasonable to me that we reevaluate events as attitudes change, and while this photograph and statue once seemed to be perhaps joyfully innocent and iconic now seems inappropriate: this seems no different to reevaluating, say, TV programmes that were once popular but are now more or less toxic - like 'Love Thy Neighbour', which even UK Gold doesn't touch.
-
It seems reasonable to me that we reevaluate events as attitudes change, and while this photograph and statue once seemed to be perhaps joyfully innocent and iconic now seems inappropriate: this seems no different to reevaluating, say, TV programmes that were once popular but are now more or less toxic - like 'Love Thy Neighbour', which even UK Gold doesn't touch.
I agree
And there are a couple of other features of the sculpture which are disconcerting at the least.
The first is that in the sculpture, as opposed to the photo, the two people are completely alone. In the photo there are all sorts of other people in the background, so the context is clear. In the sculpture there is no context just a man all over a woman.
Secondly the title - again with context 'Unconditional surrender' would apply to VJ - but without context it speak to me that the unconditional surrender is her to him - and that doesn't sit well.
-
By the photographer Alfred Eisenstaedt.....
"In Times Square on V.J. Day I saw a sailor running along the street grabbing any and every girl in sight. Whether she was a grandmother, stout, thin, old, didn't make a difference. I was running ahead of him with my Leica looking back over my shoulder but none of the pictures that were possible pleased me. Then suddenly, in a flash, I saw something white being grabbed. I turned around and clicked the moment the sailor kissed the nurse."
Clearly the sailor had gone 'bonkers' because of the victory over Japan....
It is a great photo, statues not that interesting. It seems obvious that one can't "consent" to a strangers spontaneous assault. These days hopefully he would be stopped earlier in his rampage - but wars don't end in the way that they did then.
-
It is a great photo, statues not that interesting. It seems obvious that one can't "consent" to a strangers spontaneous assault. These days hopefully he would be stopped earlier in his rampage - but wars don't end in the way that they did then.
And also the idea that because Greta Zimmer Friedman 'doesn't appear to be struggling' is a piece of victim blaming.
-
If it makes you happy to think that on you go. You probably think that the woman shouldn't have said anything and was being 'hyper-confessional.'
The woman didn't say anything - no-one knows for surew who she was.
-
It seems reasonable to me that we reevaluate events as attitudes change, and while this photograph and statue once seemed to be perhaps joyfully innocent and iconic now seems inappropriate: this seems no different to reevaluating, say, TV programmes that were once popular but are now more or less toxic - like 'Love Thy Neighbour', which even UK Gold doesn't touch.
Your post reveals the hyper-sensitivity and determination to be offended of many nowadays: 'Love Thy Neighbour' was a rubbish sitcom, but it was, like the BBC's much better ''Till Death Us Do Part', also anathema to programmers nowadays, anti-racist: The bigotted white bloke was portrayed as an idiot, and his black neighbour as much cleverer and wittier and more likeable, and who always got the better of the white bloke in arguments. It was taking the piss out of racists and racism, as was TDUDP.
-
Your post reveals the hyper-sensitivity and determination to be offended of many nowadays: 'Love Thy Neighbour' was a rubbish sitcom, but it was, like the BBC's much better ''Till Death Us Do Part', also anathema to programmers nowadays, anti-racist: The bigotted white bloke was portrayed as an idiot, and his black neighbour as much cleverer and wittier and more likeable, and who always got the better of the white bloke in arguments. It was taking the piss out of racists and racism, as was TDUDP.
Yeah, why get offended at assault - it's an obvious time to lighten up, and tell women to ignore being assaulted as it's just a boit of banter.
-
The woman didn't say anything - no-one knows for surew who she was.
First bit of your post isn't true "it wasn't my choice to be kissed. The guy just came over and kissed or grabbed." "I did not see him approaching, and before I know it I was in this tight grip," Friedman told CBS News in 2012. Second bit then doubles down by implying that she was lying. You really have a problem with women objecting to assault, don't you.
-
From time in memorial some men, not all by any means, have thought the female of the species has been created for their delectation and delight, to do with as they wish, in the past they got away with it. NO MORE! :o
-
The crucial bit in the link seems to be
'The widely agreed-upon identity of the female subject in the photo, dental assistant Greta Zimmer Friedman, had also explicitly stated that the kiss in question was not a consensual act.' Hence the #MeToo issues
Not that you would, but you could say 'Zimmer was framed'.
ippy.
-
His future wife Rita was also present with him. What came over him to suddenly grab a stranger and kiss her that way...is difficult to say. :)
Many #Metoo supporters are having a field day on this....writing graffiti on the statue and stuff like that..... :D
Haven't you ever felt the sheer joy of the day Sriram and don't forget there's no special upset in the U S A, generally in the west if all you're doing is kissing a woman out on the street especially on a day like V J day of all times.
Regards, ippy.
-
Haven't you ever felt the sheer joy of the day Sriram and don't forget there's no special upset in the U S A, generally in the west if all you're doing is kissing a woman out on the street especially on a day like V J day of all times.
Regards, ippy.
Even if it's assault?
-
Haven't you ever felt the sheer joy of the day Sriram and don't forget there's no special upset in the U S A, generally in the west if all you're doing is kissing a woman out on the street especially on a day like V J day of all times.
Regards, ippy.
You wouldn't kiss a guy, unless you were gay, for sheer joy, so why kiss a woman?
-
Your post reveals the hyper-sensitivity and determination to be offended of many nowadays: 'Love Thy Neighbour' was a rubbish sitcom, but it was, like the BBC's much better ''Till Death Us Do Part', also anathema to programmers nowadays, anti-racist: The bigotted white bloke was portrayed as an idiot, and his black neighbour as much cleverer and wittier and more likeable, and who always got the better of the white bloke in arguments. It was taking the piss out of racists and racism, as was TDUDP.
I'd agree about the merits, or otherwise, of these two programmes but that isn't my point, especially since I didn't mention TDUDP.
My point is simply that social attitudes change over time and that what once might have seemed socially acceptable may have contained elements that might nowadays be seen as, say, taking advantage of others: in this case the lady who it seems was an unconsenting co-opted kissee.
-
Any bloke who kissed me without my permission would have my foot connecting with their nether regions.
;D good for you.
It wasn't until I read the detils that I realised they were 'real', they looked like actors posing, perhaps even people in a musical who dance around. That behaviour wouldn't be tolerated now & no man would dare try it. I doubt he meant any harm but it's right that we object because so many women and girls have been cornered and groped over the years. Strikes me in the past that was considered normal behaviour, expected even, which is so wrong.
-
It wasn't a different time in terms of consent. And do you think being reprieved is a pass on the idea of consent?
It was a time in which going round kissing people wasn't considered to be an evil crime. And yes, finding out you have future does give you a bit of latitude.
-
Yeah, why get offended at assault - it's an obvious time to lighten up, and tell women to ignore being assaulted as it's just a boit of banter.
It wouldn't have been considered an assault at the time. Greta said the kiss was nonconsensual but she didn't say she was assaulted. She didn't press charges. For all we know, she enjoyed the moment. Why don't we stop getting offended on behalf of other people?
-
;D good for you.
It wasn't until I read the detils that I realised they were 'real', they looked like actors posing, perhaps even people in a musical who dance around. That behaviour wouldn't be tolerated now & no man would dare try it. I doubt he meant any harm but it's right that we object because so many women and girls have been cornered and groped over the years. Strikes me in the past that was considered normal behaviour, expected even, which is so wrong.
It was considered normal for a man to squeeze a woman's breast or her bottom. :o A guy squeezed our eldest daughter's breast in our home in front of my husband and I when she was only 15. :o She told him she would kill him if he ever did it again. He paid for that and other actions, not long after that occurrence. I discovered he had in all probability been sexually abusing his primary school age children of whom he had custody after his wife left him for another man. I got the social services involved and they were removed PDQ and given back to the mother.
-
It wouldn't have been considered an assault at the time. Greta said the kiss was nonconsensual but she didn't say she was assaulted. She didn't press charges. For all we know, she enjoyed the moment. Why don't we stop getting offended on behalf of other people?
How would she have pressed charges? She has expressed that it was non consensual. Perhaps you need to stop justifying the assault.
-
LR
//48. That's quite horrific.
-
LR //48. That's quite horrific.
But he was still permitted to be an Ofsted inspector! A few years down the line he was charged with sexually molesting one of the women teachers at a school he was inspecting. He managed to get off as there wasn't enough evidence to make the charge stick unfortunately. :o
-
It wouldn't have been considered an assault at the time. Greta said the kiss was nonconsensual but she didn't say she was assaulted. She didn't press charges. For all we know, she enjoyed the moment. Why don't we stop getting offended on behalf of other people?
She doesn't look like she is enjoying it in the photo.
But that isn't the point - all sorts of things are captured in photos in the context of their time and place. And they become a historical record, even if the events they capture aren't something we'd approve of now, albeit accepted at the time. But we aren't discussing the photo and the real event - we are discussing the decision in recent times, with our current views on acceptability, to recreate that event in a sculpture. And that sculpture detaches the event from its context - no longer can you see all the other people round and about celebrating in Time Square. All that is left is a man aggressively kissing a woman who is entirely passive in her demeanour (not how she would be if she was actively enjoying it).
And then the sculpture of a man imposing himself on a woman is called 'Unconditional surrender'. The original photo wasn't called that - it was termed VJ Day in Time Square. The change of name seems to me to talk about the unequal nature of the interaction between the two people, not the war, as the context is entirely lost in the sculpture - that's what I find rather disturbing about the sculpture.
-
None of that really surprises me unfortunately.
there wasn't enough evidence to make the charge stick
I bet plenty would have liked to charge at him with a sharpened stick (not v good pun but best I can do right now).
-
It wouldn't have been considered an assault at the time. Greta said the kiss was nonconsensual but she didn't say she was assaulted. She didn't press charges. For all we know, she enjoyed the moment. Why don't we stop getting offended on behalf of other people?
Yes more or less my sentiments jp it was after all 1945 V J day of all days and my goodness aren't there some miserable people around today, It's not like he grabbed her and kissed her like that in some hidden away dingy place, his hands were not in any places on her that may have been considered improper.
Victory over Japan with all of the loss of life involved on those Pacific islands was absolutely horrific it's hardly surprising that any American at those times was just a tad pleased the war was finally over.
He was a serviceman and had every reason to be ecstatic about not having to go and fight any more suicidal Japanese soldiers and he acted on impulse on that occasion, like was said no charges were levelled, looks lovely to me and didn't look in the least out of place in those circumstances; grow up.
ippy
-
Yes more or less my sentiments jp it was after all 1945 V J day of all days and my goodness aren't there some miserable people around today, It's not like he grabbed her and kissed her like that in some hidden away dingy place, his hands were not in any places on her that may have been considered improper.
Victory over Japan with all of the loss of life involved on those Pacific islands was absolutely horrific it's hardly surprising that any American at those times was just a tad pleased the war was finally over.
He was a serviceman and had every reason to be ecstatic about not having to go and fight any more suicidal Japanese soldiers and he acted on impulse on that occasion, like was said no charges were levelled, looks lovely to me and didn't look in the least out of place in those circumstances; grow up.
ippy
Which is why the photo and the sculpture are different - the photo is imbued entirely with context - the sculpture is entirely detached from that context.
-
Yes more or less my sentiments jp it was after all 1945 V J day of all days and my goodness aren't there some miserable people around today, It's not like he grabbed her and kissed her like that in some hidden away dingy place, his hands were not in any places on her that may have been considered improper.
Victory over Japan with all of the loss of life involved on those Pacific islands was absolutely horrific it's hardly surprising that any American at those times was just a tad pleased the war was finally over.
He was a serviceman and had every reason to be ecstatic about not having to go and fight any more suicidal Japanese soldiers and he acted on impulse on that occasion, like was said no charges were levelled, looks lovely to me and didn't look in the least out of place in those circumstances; grow up.
ippy
Yeah, grow up because assault against women is just fun.
-
Which is why the photo and the sculpture are different - the photo is imbued entirely with context - the sculpture is entirely detached from that context.
And?
ippy.
-
And?
ippy.
And you think assault is ok
-
And?
ippy.
And once you take it out of its context what you are left with is a sculpture called 'Unconditional Surrender" of a man imposing himself on an unwilling woman. If you cannot see why that is problematic then I think you need to think a little harder.
-
Prof D said:- "...we are discussing the decision in recent times, with our current views on acceptability, to recreate that event in a sculpture. And that sculpture detaches the event from its context - no longer can you see all the other people round and about celebrating in Time Square. All that is left is a man aggressively kissing a woman who is entirely passive in her demeanour (not how she would be if she was actively enjoying it).
And then the sculpture of a man imposing himself on a woman is called 'Unconditional surrender'. The original photo wasn't called that - it was termed VJ Day in Time Square. The change of name seems to me to talk about the unequal nature of the interaction between the two people, not the war, as the context is entirely lost in the sculpture - that's what I find rather disturbing about the sculpture."
Yes it is & I wonder why the statue has been given prominence in so many places; it's blatant. I hope not a sign of going backwards.
In fairness to Ippy I think he has only really looked at the original photograph which on first glance looked to me like a musical chorus or two lovers reunited in a crowd of others.
The sculpture has totally different emphasis.
-
Prof D said:- "...we are discussing the decision in recent times, with our current views on acceptability, to recreate that event in a sculpture. And that sculpture detaches the event from its context - no longer can you see all the other people round and about celebrating in Time Square. All that is left is a man aggressively kissing a woman who is entirely passive in her demeanour (not how she would be if she was actively enjoying it).
And then the sculpture of a man imposing himself on a woman is called 'Unconditional surrender'. The original photo wasn't called that - it was termed VJ Day in Time Square. The change of name seems to me to talk about the unequal nature of the interaction between the two people, not the war, as the context is entirely lost in the sculpture - that's what I find rather disturbing about the sculpture."
Yes it is & I wonder why the statue has been given prominence in so many places; it's blatant. I hope not a sign of going backwards.
In fairness to Ippy I think he has only really looked at the original photograph which on first glance looked to me like a musical chorus or two lovers reunited in a crowd of others.
The sculpture has totally different emphasis.
So you are saying ippy hasn't read the stuff that has been posted and has just posted ignorantly?
-
I was assaulted in a pub by a woman I didn't know from a bar of soap
It was the strike of New Year and people were dancing and singing and drinking .
She kissed me , it was awful !
-
I was assaulted in a pub by a woman I didn't know from a bar of soap
It was the strike of New Year and people were dancing and singing and drinking .
She kissed me , it was awful !
Ah another person justifying assault. Hur - Fecking - Rah
-
NS: So you are saying ippy hasn't read the stuff that has been posted and has just posted ignorantly?
.....
Can't think of any other explanation NS; ippy has never struck me as the sort of person who would approve of assault, seems like an average family man. We don't really know each other on here but I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt (yes I know that can be a weakness, been told often enough). However he didn't seem to grasp the difference between the context of the original photograph and the sculpture.
Let's wait and see if he has anything else to say. I don't like talking about him really despite it was me who mentioned him in last post.
-
NS: So you are saying ippy hasn't read the stuff that has been posted and has just posted ignorantly?
.....
Can't think of any other explanation NS; ippy has never struck me as the sort of person who would approve of assault, seems like an average family man. We don't really know each other on here but I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt (yes I know that can be a weakness, been told often enough). However he didn't seem to grasp the difference between the context of the original photograph and the sculpture.
Let's wait and see if he has anything else to say. I don't like talking about him really despite it was me who mentioned him in last post.
It's just the logic of your post.
-
How would she have pressed charges? She has expressed that it was non consensual. Perhaps you need to stop justifying the assault.
Perhaps you need to get down from your moral high horse, and get a sens of proportion.
-
Perhaps you need to get down from your moral high horse, and get a sens of proportion.
A sense of proportion being supporting assault on women, it appears.
-
Ah another person justifying assault. Hur - Fecking - Rah
being you must be a Fecking nightmare of confusion
-
being you must be a Fecking nightmare of confusion
Of course. Doesn't mean that supporting the assault of women is right though.
-
A sense of proportion being supporting assault on women, it appears.
I don't think anyone here is actually supporting assaulting women.
I think the difficulty lies in the challenge of context - once the context of VJ day and Times Square with all sorts of other people celebrating (in other words the photo) is removed, what we are left with is a man forcing himself onto a woman who is clearly not, in any way, an equal participant (which is obvious from the original photo and confirmed from the woman involved). Add to that the title and we have something deeply disturbing. I suspect the sculpture and some here (who know the photo) simply see is as a 3D sculpture version of the photo - but many, many people will see the sculpture only, and will not know either the photo or the context (the name has erase the notion of the end of WW2) - put yourself into their minds for a moment.
-
I did say in my first post on this thread that what he did wasn't right, and he'd be in trouble nowadays, but there's quite a difference between kissing a young woman (who doesn't appear to be putting up any resistance) on an occasion of general celebration and gaiety, and out-and-out rape, which NS doesn't seem to appreciate.
-
Of course. Doesn't mean that supporting the assault of women is right though.
saney
Don't worry dear, everything's going to be alright 😘
-
I did say in my first post on this thread that what he did wasn't right, and he'd be in trouble nowadays, but there's quite a difference between kissing a young woman (who doesn't appear to be putting up any resistance) on an occasion of general celebration and gaiety, and out-and-out rape, which NS doesn't seem to appreciate.
Ah the 'she didn't about protest enough' victim blaming beloved of apologists of sexual assault of women.
-
saney
Don't worry dear, everything's going to be alright 😘
It really isn't if people justify sexual assault.
-
I don't think anyone here is actually supporting assaulting women.
I think the difficulty lies in the challenge of context - once the context of VJ day and Times Square with all sorts of other people celebrating (in other words the photo) is removed, what we are left with is a man forcing himself onto a woman who is clearly not, in any way, an equal participant (which is obvious from the original photo and confirmed from the woman involved). Add to that the title and we have something deeply disturbing. I suspect the sculpture and some here (who know the photo) simply see is as a 3D sculpture version of the photo - but many, many people will see the sculpture only, and will not know either the photo or the context (the name has erase the notion of the end of WW2) - put yourself into their minds for a moment.
If they are just the action as ok, or something that people should ' lighten up' about then in what sense are they not supporting it? If it is ok, acceptable, just a matter of excitement, then how is that not supporting it?
-
Ah the 'she didn't about protest enough' victim blaming beloved of apologists of sexual assault of women.
I'm not blaming her!
-
I'm not blaming her!
Apart from judging the specific women as a liar earluer.
-
Which is why the photo and the sculpture are different - the photo is imbued entirely with context - the sculpture is entirely detached from that context.
I think I would agree with you on that point.
-
And once you take it out of its context what you are left with is a sculpture called 'Unconditional Surrender" of a man imposing himself on an unwilling woman. If you cannot see why that is problematic then I think you need to think a little harder.
You can either like or dislike a work of art and with most works of art it's more often than not that most of us are able to enjoy them even more when we know some more about their history.
If anyone looks at this sculpture knowing it's based on that world famous photo it's very likely that most people that know about the history of the original theme that motivated the sculpture, will be able to appreciate it for what it is.
Those looking at the statue would be more likely be thinking either this is inspired or maybe think it's rubbish, after that anyone that has any idea about the source of inspiration for this statue would be unlikely to be misled into thinking it's an illustration of an assault and probably think to themselves why call it that?
There's always going to be the odd few that haven't managed to understand the history of the sculpture's origins, tough luck for them.
ippy
-
You can either like or dislike a work of art and with most works of art it's more often than not that most of us are able to enjoy them even more when we know some more about their history.
This isn't about whether an individual likes or dislikes the sculpture but what it represents to them.
If anyone looks at this sculpture knowing it's based on that world famous photo it's very likely that most people that know about the history of the original theme that motivated the sculpture, will be able to appreciate it for what it is.
I agree - if you know the photo then you will probably understand the context of the sculpture even though it is entirely unclear from the sculpture and its name itself. However I think there are huge numbers of people who have never seen the photo, particularly those from younger generations who will have no context for the sculpture should they encounter it.
Those looking at the statue would be more likely be thinking either this is inspired or maybe think it's rubbish, after that anyone that has any idea about the source of inspiration for this statue would be unlikely to be misled into thinking it's an illustration of an assault and probably think to themselves why call it that?
This isn't about whether someone like it or not, but the meaning they take from it. If you hadn't seen the photo (probably most people) and encounter the sculpture, then what you will see is a man all over a woman who is clearly not an active participant. And then you see the name 'Unconditional surrender' and I think you would consider the context being the unconditional surrender of a woman to a man forcing himself on her.
Whether someone thinks the sculpture is 'good' is irrelevant to this discussion.
-
You can either like or dislike a work of art and with most works of art it's more often than not that most of us are able to enjoy them even more when we know some more about their history.
If anyone looks at this sculpture knowing it's based on that world famous photo it's very likely that most people that know about the history of the original theme that motivated the sculpture, will be able to appreciate it for what it is.
Those looking at the statue would be more likely be thinking either this is inspired or maybe think it's rubbish, after that anyone that has any idea about the source of inspiration for this statue would be unlikely to be misled into thinking it's an illustration of an assault and probably think to themselves why call it that?
There's always going to be the odd few that haven't managed to understand the history of the sculpture's origins, tough luck for them.
ippy
Lot of words to cover your support for assault.
-
Lot of words to cover your support for assault.
Saney
You make me smile out loud !😄
-
Saney
You make me smile out loud !😄
Few words to support assault.
-
Few words to support assault.
nope , not biting !
😘😝😘
-
Few words to support assault.
You are getting very tiresome now. Give it a rest.
-
You are getting very tiresome now. Give it a rest.
I can imagine you finding someone pointing out your support for assault tiresome.
-
nope , not biting !
😘😝😘
Your evasion of your support of assault is noted. You have daughters, if someone just walked up and deep kisses them with no consent, you would support that? If not then...
-
Your evasion of your support of assault is noted. You have daughters, if someone just walked up and deep kisses them with no consent, you would support that? If not then...
" noted" now is it ?
Well, fuck me . I'll not sleep tonight 😤
-
I can imagine you finding someone pointing out your support for assault tiresome.
You are looking more like a santimonious, self-righteous, humourless obsessive with every post you make on this thread.
-
You are looking more like a santimonious, self-righteous, humourless obsessive with every post you make on this thread.
Said the man who supports a woman being assaulted.
-
" noted" now is it ?
Well, fuck me . I'll not sleep tonight 😤
And evasion too
-
And evasion too
https://youtu.be/k9IfHDi-2EA
Oh dear!
-
You are looking more like a santimonious, self-righteous, humourless obsessive with every post you make on this thread.
Talking to yourself again, Steve. ::)
-
This isn't about whether an individual likes or dislikes the sculpture but what it represents to them.
I agree - if you know the photo then you will probably understand the context of the sculpture even though it is entirely unclear from the sculpture and its name itself. However I think there are huge numbers of people who have never seen the photo, particularly those from younger generations who will have no context for the sculpture should they encounter it.
This isn't about whether someone like it or not, but the meaning they take from it. If you hadn't seen the photo (probably most people) and encounter the sculpture, then what you will see is a man all over a woman who is clearly not an active participant. And then you see the name 'Unconditional surrender' and I think you would consider the context being the unconditional surrender of a woman to a man forcing himself on her.
Whether someone thinks the sculpture is 'good' is irrelevant to this discussion.
Quote from: ippy on November 30, 2019, 01:26:10 PM
Those looking at the statue would be more likely be thinking either this is inspired or maybe think it's rubbish, after that anyone that has any idea about the source of inspiration for this statue would be unlikely to be misled into thinking it's an illustration of an assault and probably think to themselves why call it that?
This isn't about whether someone like it or not, but the meaning they take from it. If you hadn't seen the photo (probably most people) and encounter the sculpture, then what you will see is a man all over a woman who is clearly not an active participant. And then you see the name 'Unconditional surrender' and I think you would consider the context being the unconditional surrender of a woman to a man forcing himself on her.
Actually on having a re-read of your post you it seems to be a combination attributing things to me that I haven't conveyed at any point in that former post of mine and shuffling the some of my other words around another way that in fact amounted to repeating what I did say.
If you look at the two paragraphs toward the end of your post, one of yours and one of mine, your paragraph doesn't relate to the things I had written, it looks to me that you may have misread my words in some way, we all do it from time to time, even I get it wrong sometimes even though I know you'll find that difficult to believe.
-
Those looking at the statue would be more likely be thinking either this is inspired or maybe think it's rubbish, after that anyone that has any idea about the source of inspiration for this statue would be unlikely to be misled into thinking it's an illustration of an assault and probably think to themselves why call it that?
And what about those people (probably the majority) who have never seen the photo and therefore have no idea about the context and inspiration for the statue. As I've pointed out previously I imagine what they will see is a man all over a woman who is clearly not an active participant. And then you see the name 'Unconditional surrender' and I think you would consider the context being the unconditional surrender of a woman to a man forcing himself on her.
And actually for those people who do understand the background, quite a few (as NS points out) will know that the photo involved a non consensual act and the photo and the sculpture are pretty obvious in that respect as the woman is so obviously not an equal participant in the act.
-
Technically it's also considered to be an assault if someone blows smoke into your eyes and I suppose it's also unfortunate for those that misrepresent and others that miss the point.
ippy
-
Talking to yourself again, Steve. ::)
Grow up. Most people grow out of that response before they enter their teens.
-
Grow up. Most people grow out of that response before they enter their teens.
It is you who needs to grow up, many of your posts resemble those of a toddler having a temper tantrum. ::)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. >:(
-
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).
-
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?
-
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.
-
[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'.
-
[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.
-
[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?
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
You and LR have at least strongly implied it.
Where?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope
Quite - and the related "logical conclusion" argument is fallacious, as well.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
If you didn't know what the sculpture was based on, you wouldn't know that the kiss portrayed wasn't fully consensual.
-
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.
I seems bizarre to me when someone is sitting there and sees an article like this one via the forum whilst surfing the P C or perhaps laptop and then to start going, into one, (the well known phrase, 'going into one'), before checking the facts on the P C or laptop the surfer already has in operation right there in front of them self.
Lots of the posts are mislead by the misleading name/title given to the sculpture, are rather ill informed and are also radiating a rather misguided puritanical tone that seems to me way over the top.
Maybe the sculptor gave it that title/name in order to bring his works to notice, strange because probably like your good self Proff, I've never heard of anyone ever doing this kind of thing before either.
Regards, ippy
-
If you didn't know what the sculpture was based on, you wouldn't know that the kiss portrayed wasn't fully consensual.
I don't think you need to understand the background to realise that the kiss is extremely one-sided. The body language screams non consensual to me. The if you read the title of the piece that impression is reinforced.
-
I don't think you need to understand the background to realise that the kiss is extremely one-sided. The body language screams non consensual to me. The if you read the title of the piece that impression is reinforced.
This reply looks to me you've missed something I have written in my post.
ippy
-
I don't think you need to understand the background to realise that the kiss is extremely one-sided. The body language screams non consensual to me. The if you read the title of the piece that impression is reinforced.
"Surrender" implies voluntariness. One chooses to surrender.
-
I seems bizarre to me when someone is sitting there and sees an article like this one via the forum whilst surfing the P C or perhaps laptop and then to start going, into one, (the well known phrase, 'going into one'), before checking the facts on the P C or laptop the surfer already has in operation right there in front of them self.
And your point is exactly?
Lots of the posts are mislead by the misleading name/title given to the sculpture, are rather ill informed and are also radiating a rather misguided puritanical tone that seems to me way over the top.
The title of the sculpture is what it is - in this case 'Unconditional surrender' - that along with the sculpture itself will provoke a reaction amongst people who see it. I understand that people who know the context and background will recognise it to be a recreation of a photo and that 'Unconditional surrender' is probably meant to refer to the surrender of Japan on VJ day, although the title is much more oblique than the title of the photo 'VJ day in Times square'.
However as I've pointed out many, if not most, people wont know the context and there is nothing in the sculpture and its name which overtly links it to VJ day. Those people are likely to come to a different interpretation of its meaning based on the sculpture and its name alone.
In neither case is referring to the viewer as 'ill informed' appropriate. A piece of art shouldn't require the viewer to have delved into its background to understand and have a response to it. If it is likely to be misinterpreted without that background then it is the role of the artist and those responsible for its installation to provide background at the sculpture site to counter that misinterpretation.
Maybe the sculptor gave it that title/name in order to bring his works to notice, strange because probably like your good self Proff, I've never heard of anyone ever doing this kind of thing before either.
Perhaps that is what the artist intended - a modern take on something that might once have been seen to be acceptable but now isn't. A rye and political message for our times. However looking at his other pieces I doubt this to be the case as this and his other pieces tend to err on the side of kitsch rather than political.
-
"Surrender" implies voluntariness. One chooses to surrender.
Nice one, a good bit of semantic work there Steve.
Regards, ippy.
-
"Surrender" implies voluntariness. One chooses to surrender.
You surrender unconditionally when you have no reasonable alternative choice - usually in the face of overwhelming force that you cannot counter. Consent requires a choice to me made freely - it is not consensual if you allow someone to kiss you because you don't have the strength to force them off you.
-
it is not consensual if you allow someone to kiss you because you don't have the strength to force them off you.
But she is obviously not trying to resist - and that is not victim-blaming, whatever NS may claim. Why should she resist, if she doesn't want to? Besides, since we don't know for certain who they are (a number of people have claimed to be one or the other of them?, we don't know that it was non-consensual. He may have said "May I?" beforehand, or there may have been a bit of non-verbal negotiation.
-
But she is obviously not trying to resist - and that is not victim-blaming, whatever NS may claim.
It is exactly victim blaming. Just because someone doesn't resist that doesn't mean they consent.
And actually if you look at the photo series (there is more than one) there is evidence that she is trying to resist and get away from him. First her hand is clenched in a fist (not something someone enjoying a consensual kiss would be likely to do). Secondly in a further photo, presumably a second or so later, she'd got that arm with the clenched fist up against his face trying to push him away. Her whole strange body posture is of a person trying to extract themselves from the situation.
-
The photo didn't look consensual to me, the poor woman looks as if she is being forced into that position.
-
But she is obviously not trying to resist - and that is not victim-blaming, whatever NS may claim. Why should she resist, if she doesn't want to? Besides, since we don't know for certain who they are (a number of people have claimed to be one or the other of them?, we don't know that it was non-consensual. He may have said "May I?" beforehand, or there may have been a bit of non-verbal negotiation.
And as already quoted she has said she didn't consent. And when you say it isn't victim blaming, it's precisely the same type of victim blaming which attacks those assaulted didn't fight enough. She was a 21 year old woman who describes the shock and the fact that he seemed so strong. But on you go with your antediluvian misogyny.
-
And as already quoted she has said she didn't consent. And when you say it isn't victim blaming, it's precisely the same type of victim blaming which attacks those assaulted didn't fight enough. She was a 21 year old woman who describes the shock and the fact that he seemed so strong. But on you go with your antediluvian misogyny.
Good post NS, with which I completely agree.
-
And as already quoted she has said she didn't consent. And when you say it isn't victim blaming, it's precisely the same type of victim blaming which attacks those assaulted didn't fight enough. She was a 21 year old woman who describes the shock and the fact that he seemed so strong. But on you go with your antediluvian misogyny.
No-one knows for certain who either of them were, so "she" must be one of the many claimants, and apparently there was a lot of this going on between strangers.
I didn't say she "didn't fight enough", nor did I imply it: if you'd actually read my fucking post properly, instead of jumping in with your usual self-righteous, virtue-signalling, humourless, puritanical bollocks, you'd have read that I said "why should she reisit, if she doesn't want to?" If two strangers want to have a quick snog on an occasion of general rejoicing, that's fine by me. I emphatically do not blame the woman for not resisting.
-
And your point is exactly?
The title of the sculpture is what it is - in this case 'Unconditional surrender' - that along with the sculpture itself will provoke a reaction amongst people who see it. I understand that people who know the context and background will recognise it to be a recreation of a photo and that 'Unconditional surrender' is probably meant to refer to the surrender of Japan on VJ day, although the title is much more oblique than the title of the photo 'VJ day in Times square'.
However as I've pointed out many, if not most, people wont know the context and there is nothing in the sculpture and its name which overtly links it to VJ day. Those people are likely to come to a different interpretation of its meaning based on the sculpture and its name alone.
In neither case is referring to the viewer as 'ill informed' appropriate. A piece of art shouldn't require the viewer to have delved into its background to understand and have a response to it. If it is likely to be misinterpreted without that background then it is the role of the artist and those responsible for its installation to provide background at the sculpture site to counter that misinterpretation.
Perhaps that is what the artist intended - a modern take on something that might once have been seen to be acceptable but now isn't. A rye and political message for our times. However looking at his other pieces I doubt this to be the case as this and his other pieces tend to err on the side of kitsch rather than political.
There's not much I can do if you're so determined to misrepresent my words and then argue with things you seem to think I have written that I haven't actually conveyed, so I'll leave it there with your good self Proff.
Regards, ippy.
-
No-one knows for certain who either of them were, so "she" must be one of the many claimants, and apparently there was a lot of this going on between strangers.
I didn't say she "didn't fight enough", nor did I imply it: if you'd actually read my fucking post properly, instead of jumping in with your usual self-righteous, virtue-signalling, humourless, puritanical bollocks, you'd have read that I said "why should she reisit, if she doesn't want to?" If two strangers want to have a quick snog on an occasion of general rejoicing, that's fine by me. I emphatically do not blame the woman for not resisting.
The photo gives the impression the woman didn't have the chance to resist because of the angle at which the guy is holding her would make it difficult to push him away.
-
There's not much I can do if you're so determined to misrepresent my words and then argue with things you seem to think I have written that I haven't actually conveyed, so I'll leave it there with your good self Proff.
How exactly am I misrepresenting you Ippy?
I might not agree with you and I may make my views clear, but that isn't the same as misrepresenting you.
-
No-one knows for certain who either of them were, so "she" must be one of the many claimants, and apparently there was a lot of this going on between strangers.
I didn't say she "didn't fight enough", nor did I imply it: if you'd actually read my fucking post properly, instead of jumping in with your usual self-righteous, virtue-signalling, humourless, puritanical bollocks, you'd have read that I said "why should she reisit, if she doesn't want to?" If two strangers want to have a quick snog on an occasion of general rejoicing, that's fine by me. I emphatically do not blame the woman for not resisting.
We don't know for certain but it's where the evidence points, and in dismissing her, you are then implying that's she was lying. Further when you mentioned earlier '(who doesn't appear to be putting up any resistance)' - why did you mention that without victim blaming. You really have an appalling attitude to the question of women and assault.
-
Perhaps the ethics of the original event have been overlooked: presumably the sailor-chappie had never read his Kant else surely he wouldn't have used this woman as just a means to an end: the end being his wish to express his emotions in a way that met his personal needs.
The subsequent statue is in poor taste.
-
We don't know for certain but it's where the evidence points, and in dismissing her, you are then implying that's she was lying. Further when you mentioned earlier '(who doesn't appear to be putting up any resistance)' - why did you mention that without victim blaming. You really have an appalling attitude to the question of women and assault.
You have an appalling attitude... full stop. Go to hell.
-
I agree with Nearly Sane. I can't understand why this statue has been made. I hope, if it's sufficiently and appropriately vandalised, it might serve to remind people that their impulses are not an excuse for assault, whatever motivates them.
-
You have an appalling attitude... full stop. Go to hell.
Given you think that you can just dismiss a woman as lying about sexual assault, then your advice about travel is not something I hold in high regard.
-
Perhaps the ethics of the original event have been overlooked: presumably the sailor-chappie had never read his Kant else surely he wouldn't have used this woman as just a means to an end: the end being his wish to express his emotions in a way that met his personal needs.
The subsequent statue is in poor taste.
Very poor taste. >:(
-
How exactly am I misrepresenting you Ippy?
I might not agree with you and I may make my views clear, but that isn't the same as misrepresenting you.
What would be the point?
Ippy
-
I agree with Nearly Sane. I can't understand why this statue has been made. I hope, if it's sufficiently and appropriately vandalised, it might serve to remind people that their impulses are not an excuse for assault, whatever motivates them.
It looks like they both later enjoyed celebrity status ..... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-J_Day_in_Times_Square#/media/File:George_Mendonca_and_Greta_Friedman.jpg
-
What would be the point?
Ippy
The point would be that you explain where I have misrepresented you because I am genuinely at a loss to see any misrepresentation (rather than disagreement) of your posts.
-
Very poor taste. >:(
The naming of the statue, 'Unconditional surrender', doesn't convey the heightened feeling of that particular day.
I really don't see how it is you think this is an assault and not a sailor being a bit cheeky or, if you like, perhaps a lot cheeky especially when the photo has mentioned V J Day Celebrations along with the picture, it's a delight to the eye and a lovely composition that conveys just how joyful a day that V J Day must have been.
Of course he didn't ask for permission he rather obviously acted on impulse through sheer joy and we don't know but he may well have apologised to her after acting on impulse and may have said something like, "sorry I shouldn't have done that", technically he wasn't correct but hay?
Come on you miserable lot even I'm not 100% correct every time I act, V J DAY?
If a person doesn't understand the history of how the sculptor named his piece of work particularly with that, 'Unconditional surrender', misleading misnomer, well yes it may well be looked on as a demonstration of malevolent force being used on that woman if all you know of it is that awful title.
ippy.
-
The point would be that you explain where I have misinterpreted you because I am genuinely at a loss to see any misinterpretation (rather than disagreement) of your posts.
You really haven't got my meaning I've written another post above see if you can get that, somehow I can't see that happening.
I'm not deliberately trying to write anything in an ambiguous way.
ippy
-
You really haven't got my meaning I've written another post above see if you can get that, somehow I can't see that happening.
I'm not deliberately trying to write anything in an ambiguous way.
ippy
You want to see it from a woman's perspective.
-
The naming of the statue, 'Unconditional surrender', doesn't convey the heightened feeling of that particular day.
I really don't see how it is you think this is an assault and not a sailor being a bit cheeky or, if you like, perhaps a lot cheeky especially when the photo has mentioned V J Day Celebrations along with the picture, it's a delight to the eye and a lovely composition that conveys just how joyful a day that V J Day must have been.
Of course he didn't ask for permission he rather obviously acted on impulse through sheer joy and we don't know but he may well have apologised to her after acting on impulse and may have said something like, "sorry I shouldn't have done that", technically he wasn't correct but hay?
Come on you miserable lot even I'm not 100% correct every time I act, V J DAY?
If a person doesn't understand the history of how the sculptor named his piece of work particularly with that, 'Unconditional surrender', misleading misnomer, well yes it may well be looked on as a demonstration of malevolent force being used on that woman if all you know of it is that awful title.
ippy.
No consent means it is an assault. You need to stop apologising for assault.
-
You want to see it from a woman's perspective.
I've asked several women they all knew the photo and see it as a delight in a similar way that I do and I've had a similar reaction from my own male friends and again they all knew of the photo referred to.
When the statue, taken on its own, I can understand how that can be misconstrued, with its inappropriate name/title but even then if you learn the history.
Regards, ippy.
-
I've asked several women they all knew the photo and see it as a delight in a similar way that I do and I've had a similar reaction from my own male friends and again they all knew of the photo referred to.
When the statue, taken on its own, I can understand how that can be misconstrued, with its inappropriate name/title but even then if you learn the history.
Regards, ippy.
And did you tell people that it was non consensual?
-
And did you tell people that it was non consensual?
My wife has just reminded me of when we celebrated new years eve some to many years back when all of the traffic was brought to a standstill by all of the revellers blocking the roads around Trafalgar Square and lots of the young women were assaulting the policemen by planting so many non-consensual kisses all over the poor fellows.
I can remember reading about all of the court proceedings on the following days where some of these women were even accused of trying to cuddle these police as well as kissing them? Tut Tut it was getting like Sod em and Gomorrah, well I never did.
Is this thread a wind up? I suppose it must be?
ippy
-
We don't know for certain but it's where the evidence points, and in dismissing her, you are then implying that's she was lying. Further when you mentioned earlier '(who doesn't appear to be putting up any resistance)' - why did you mention that without victim blaming. You really have an appalling attitude to the question of women and assault.
How do we know she regarded herself as a victim? Yes, she said the kiss was non consensual, but that doesn't mean she had a problem with it at the time. As far as I know, no formal complaint was made to the police.
I don't think you should be making accusations like this about other forum members without some evidence that there was anybody involved who felt they were assaulted.
-
My wife has just reminded me of when we celebrated new years eve some to many years back when all of the traffic was brought to a standstill by all of the revellers blocking the roads around Trafalgar Square and lots of the young women were assaulting the policemen by planting so many non-consensual kisses all over the poor fellows.
I can remember reading about all of the court proceedings on the following days where some of these women were even accused of trying to cuddle these police as well as kissing them? Tut Tut it was getting like Sod em and Gomorrah, well I never did.
Is this thread a wind up? It suppose it must be?
ippy
Yep, women objecting to assault is obviously a wind up.
-
My wife has just reminded me of when we celebrated new years eve some to many years back when all of the traffic was brought to a standstill by all of the revellers blocking the roads around Trafalgar Square and lots of the young women were assaulting the policemen by planting so many non-consensual kisses all over the poor fellows.
I can remember reading about all of the court proceedings on the following days where some of these women were even accused of trying to cuddle these police as well as kissing them? Tut Tut it was getting like Sod em and Gomorrah, well I never did.
Is this thread a wind up? It suppose it must be?
ippy
It is an assault if consent isn't given, whether you like it or not.
-
How do we know she regarded herself as a victim? Yes, she said the kiss was non consensual, but that doesn't mean she had a problem with it at the time. As far as I know, no formal complaint was made to the police.
I don't think you should be making accusations like this about other forum members without some evidence that there was anybody involved who felt they were assaulted.
So any time a woman doesn't immediately run to the police then it isn't assault? Do you really want to go down that route?
If it is non consensual then it is assault. Women who are n general in a position of less power have had to put up with this shite for centuries. In part that was what #metoo was about. And if posters want to continue to deny them a voice then I will just point out what they are supporting. And if pointing that out about posters on here is offending you, then tough.
-
It is an assault if consent isn't given, whether you like it or not.
Like I've already said technically blowing cigarette smoke into someones face is an assault, come on L R, get real.
I wouldn't want to see someone assaulted, anyone at all, the one in the photo hardly puts that bloke on a par with Fred West and the statue was just given a stupid name.
Regards, ippy.
-
So any time a woman doesn't immediately run to the police then it isn't assault? Do you really want to go down that route?
What other evidence is there in this specific instance that the woman considered herself to be a victim?
If it is non consensual then it is assault. Women who are n general in a position of less power have had to put up with this shite for centuries. In part that was what #metoo was about. And if posters want to continue to deny them a voice then I will just point out what they are supporting. And if pointing that out about posters on here is offending you, then tough.
I think it's pretty demeaning to claim somebody is a victim if she herself didn't think of it that way. Neither of us has any evidence one way or the other.
I've been kissed non consensually more than once by people of both major genders. Apparently, it's assault though and I should have gone to the police. Or maybe you should get a sense of proportion.
-
A rye and political message for our times.
Do you think that drink was involved, then?
Or did you mean "wry"?
-
Do you think that drink was involved, then?
Or did you mean "wry"?
Looks like someone else has acquired my talent for faultless spelling.
Regards, ippy.
-
What other evidence is there in this specific instance that the woman considered herself to be a victim?
I think it's pretty demeaning to claim somebody is a victim if she herself didn't think of it that way. Neither of us has any evidence one way or the other.
I've been kissed non consensually more than once by people of both major genders. Apparently, it's assault though and I should have gone to the police. Or maybe you should get a sense of proportion.
You mean sexes? Rather than genders? And your idea that it is only assault if people go to the police is both a straw man/woman and dismissing anyone who hasn't for whatever reason.
You need to work out why you are justifying non consensual assault.
-
Given you think that you can just dismiss a woman as lying about sexual assault, then your advice about travel is not something I hold in high regard.
I have not accused anyone of lying. The woman who described her experience may or may not have been the woman in the photo: there was a lot of this going on. The woman has been identified as probably, but not certainly, Greta Friedman. Greta Zimmer Friedman
Lawrence Verria and George Galdorisi, authors of The Kissing Sailor, a 2012 book about the identity of the couple, used interviews of claimants, expert photo analysis, identification of people in the background and consultations with forensic anthropologists and facial recognition specialists. They concluded that the woman was Greta Zimmer Friedman and that she was wearing her dental hygienist uniform in the photograph.[11]
"It wasn't my choice to be kissed", Friedman stated in a 2005 interview with the Library of Congress.[3] "The guy just came over and grabbed!" she said, adding, "That man was very strong. I wasn't kissing him. He was kissing me."[3][12] "I did not see him approaching, and before I know it I was in this tight grip," Friedman told CBS News in 2012.[13] Friedman died at age 92 on September 8, 2016, in Richmond, Virginia, due to age-related health complications.[14][15]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-J_Day_in_Times_Square#Greta_Zimmer_Friedman.
No doubt what she described did happen to her, but, as I say, this happened more than once.
-
I have not accused anyone of lying. The woman who described her experience may or may not have been the woman in the photo: there was a lot of this going on. The woman has been identified as probably, but not certainly, Greta Friedman.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-J_Day_in_Times_Square#Greta_Zimmer_Friedman.
No doubt what she described did happen to her, but, as I say, this happened more than once.
So not lying just confused. It's no wonder so many assaults are not reported.
-
"It wasn't my choice to be kissed", Friedman stated in a 2005 interview with the Library of Congress.[3] "The guy just came over and grabbed!" she said, adding, "That man was very strong. I wasn't kissing him. He was kissing me."[3][12] "I did not see him approaching, and before I know it I was in this tight grip,"
Although I'd know this photo for years I was unaware of the back story until reading this thread. But it doesn't surprise me at all as I'd alway though the body language etc in the photo were all wrong, not what two mutually consenting about equally amorous young lovers act like when kissing each other. I can't think I've ever seen two people who are in love, or even just mutually attracted to each other, kissing in that way.
And so it proved - this was him kissing her, against her will.
And I've always felt the same about that other famous kiss photo, in Paris:
http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20170213-the-iconic-photo-that-symbolises-love
Which also seems unnatural, and indeed the positioning looks modelled on the earlier Times Sq photo. And so it proves - the Paris photo didn't involve two young lovers, but two actors hired for the shoot.
-
Like I've already said technically blowing cigarette smoke into someones face is an assault, come on L R, get real.
I wouldn't want to see someone assaulted, anyone at all, the one in the photo hardly puts that bloke on a par with Fred West and the statue was just given a stupid name.
Regards, ippy.
There is no technically about it, if anyone deliberately blows cigarette smoke into one's face it is an assault, especially if like my middle daughter you suffer from asthma. Any stranger who kisses me is assaulting me.
-
I am going to try to stop posting on this thread, becauuse it's going nowhere except round in circles, but that does not mean I'm declaring unconditional surrender. I stand by sll my previous posts. If NS, in his usual childish way, wants to get the last word with another post aimed at me, which is obviously what he's been trying to do since I first posted on this thread, he's welcome to. The fsact remains that he's being self-righteous and pharisaical.
-
The fsact remains that he's being self-righteous and pharisaical.
That's a problematic (as well as tautological) accusation as "pharisaical" means self righteous & hypocritical. So ignoring the self-righteous tautological element, in what sense are you accusing NS of being hypocritical?
-
I am going to try to stop posting on this thread, becauuse it's going nowhere except round in circles, but that does not mean I'm declaring unconditional surrender. I stand by sll my previous posts. If NS, in his usual childish way, wants to get the last word with another post aimed at me, which is obviously what he's been trying to do since I first posted on this thread, he's welcome to. The fsact remains that he's being self-righteous and pharisaical.
There, there little one, calm down and cuddle your favourite soft toy and read the book of 66 fairy tales you love best. ;D
-
Like I've already said technically blowing cigarette smoke into someones face is an assault, come on L R, get real.
I wouldn't want to see someone assaulted, anyone at all, the one in the photo hardly puts that bloke on a par with Fred West and the statue was just given a stupid name.
Regards, ippy.
The Fred West comparison is simply a straw man. No one has argued that. You are still supporting assault though.
-
I am going to try to stop posting on this thread, becauuse it's going nowhere except round in circles, but that does not mean I'm declaring unconditional surrender. I stand by sll my previous posts. If NS, in his usual childish way, wants to get the last word with another post aimed at me, which is obviously what he's been trying to do since I first posted on this thread, he's welcome to. The fsact remains that he's being self-righteous and pharisaical.
I will just point out that I have not been saying that I think Steve H is a misogynist apologist for assault who thinks women shouldn't talk about such things but rather as regards sexual assault to quote Steve H 'Let's just say that I think there's a lot to be said for traditional British reserve, in this hyper-confessional age in which we live' to annoy him. I've been posting it because I think Steve H is a misogynist apologist for assault who thinks women shouldn't talk about such things but rather as regards sexual assault to quote Steve H 'Let's just say that I think there's a lot to be said for traditional British reserve, in this hyper-confessional age in which we live'
-
You mean sexes? Rather than genders?
Do I?
And your idea that it is only assault if people go to the police is both a straw man/woman and dismissing anyone who hasn't for whatever reason.
No, my point is that if the kissee didn't mind the kiss, even if they didn't agree to it before hand then you should stop white knighting.
You need to work out why you are justifying non consensual assault.
Nobody present at the time seemed to be quite as butt-hurt as you are now. I suggest that is a good sign that you are over-reacting.
-
Do I?
No, my point is that if the kissee didn't mind the kiss, even if they didn't agree to it before hand then you should stop white knighting.
Nobody present at the time seemed to be quite as butt-hurt as you are now. I suggest that is a good sign that you are over-reacting.
Quite the little mindreading act - if no one complains about sexual assault, then you manage to assume they are happy with it. This is the sort of reasoning that leads women not to report it.
-
Quite the little mindreading act
You're describing yourself with that, as much as anybody else here.
if no one complains about sexual assault, then you manage to assume they are happy with it.
I think I said neither of us has any evidence one way or the other. Let's just check...
... Oh yes, I did.
Also, I don't assume she was happy with it, I just have no evidence to assume she felt like a victim.
This is the sort of reasoning that leads women not to report it.
I'm arguing that, if there is no evidence that somebody regards themselves as being a victim, you shouldn't get more outraged than that person.
-
You're describing yourself with that, as much as anybody else here.
I think I said neither of us has any evidence one way or the other. Let's just check...
... Oh yes, I did.
Also, I don't assume she was happy with it, I just have no evidence to assume she felt like a victim.
I'm arguing that, if there is no evidence that somebody regards themselves as being a victim, you shouldn't get more outraged than that person.
We know she didn't consent so therefore it was assault. Arguing that non reporting is of any significance as you did is the attitude that leads to people being asked why didn't you report it at the time with the implication that because of that they are somehow not being truthful.
-
When I was 14 I was touched inappropriately by the pastor of our Pentecostal church, I didn't report it to the police, but that didn't mean I hadn't been assaulted.
-
When I was 14 I was touched inappropriately by the pastor of our Pentecostal church, I didn't report it to the police, but that didn't mean I hadn't been assaulted.
Terrible as that experience of yours obviously was L R, it hardly compares in even the slightest way with that photo taken on V J day 1945.
We know about the stupid name of that statue, we've been through all of that.
Regards, ippy
-
I am going to try to stop posting on this thread, becauuse it's going nowhere except round in circles, but that does not mean I'm declaring unconditional surrender. I stand by sll my previous posts. If NS, in his usual childish way, wants to get the last word with another post aimed at me, which is obviously what he's been trying to do since I first posted on this thread, he's welcome to. The fsact remains that he's being self-righteous and pharisaical.
You bite too easily SH. By now you should have realised that one or two people suddenly go off on one and worry like a dog with a bone,it's best to leave alone until they've calmed down.
-
Terrible as that experience of yours obviously was L R, it hardly compares in even the slightest way with that photo taken on V J day 1945.
We know about the stupid name of that statue, we've been through all of that.
Regards, ippy
A woman being grabbed by a stranger in that way could be very frightening indeed. If a bloke did that to me he would really wish he hadn't. >:(
-
You bite too easily SH. By now you should have realised that one or two people suddenly go off on one and worry like a dog with a bone,it's best to leave alone until they've calmed down.
It is SteveH who has gone off on one if you read his posts! ::)
-
We know she didn't consent so therefore it was assault.
Technically it is assault (at least it is now, I don't know what courts at the time would have decided). But the point is that the woman involved made no fuss about it, neither did anybody else. Therefore your crusade is an over reaction in this case.
Arguing that non reporting is of any significance as you did
Of course non reporting is of significance when determining if somebody feels they are a victim of a crime. It's not a guarantee of lack of victimhood, but it's all we've got in this case.
is the attitude that leads to people being asked why didn't you report it at the time
Ah, the fallacy of adverse consequences.
Anyway, it's a reasonable question to ask. The problem is not in the asking the question, but in using the lack of prompt reporting as an excuse not to treat the case seriously. Had Greta Zimmer Friedman ever reported it as an assault at any time in the subsequent 71 years, I'd be with you on this. Had she even said she felt like she had been violated, I'd be with you.
-
It is SteveH who has gone off on one if you read his posts! ::)
I've read every post on this thread some more than once.
Jeremy's post above mine is balanced in my opinion.
-
A woman being grabbed by a stranger in that way could be very frightening indeed. If a bloke did that to me he would really wish he hadn't. >:(
In almost any other set of circumstances I would have no option other than having to agree with you but in this particular case I really can't see whatever it is you're going on about.
In the circumstances of that particular time and that occasion this photo doesn't convey anything like the words you're using to describe this event, which is to me, perfectly normal, cheeky, acceptable, behaviour when surrounded by such obvious joy, occasioned by such an unusual one off and outstanding historical event of that day and times.
I don't get whatever it is you're on about L R, I think you are utterly and completely wrong about the photograph and no I would never condone any person sexually assaulting a women, as is the very idea of sexual assault against the women in my family for whom I have so much respect is an anathema to me.
The statue name was either stupidity or the sculptor seeking notoriety and publicity, my guess would be the latter.
Regards, ippy
-
In almost any other set of circumstances I would have no option other than having to agree with you but in this particular case I really can't see whatever it is you're going on about.
In the circumstances of that particular time and that occasion this photo doesn't convey anything like the words you're using to describe this event, which is to me, perfectly normal, cheeky, acceptable, behaviour when surrounded by such obvious joy, occasioned by such an unusual one off and outstanding historical event of that day and times.
I don't get whatever it is you're on about L R, I think you are utterly and completely wrong about the photograph and no I would never condone any person sexually assaulting a women, as is the very idea of sexual assault against the women in my family for whom I have so much respect is an anathema to me.
The statue name was either stupidity or the sculptor seeking notoriety and publicity, my guess would be the latter.
Regards, ippy
I certainly don't see it your way at all, there is no excuse for that guy's behaviour, whatever the circumstances. >:(
-
I certainly don't see it your way at all, there is no excuse for that guy's behaviour, whatever the circumstances. >:(
Well I'll have to leave it there L R, where I think you're 100% wrong with your analysis of that, lovely evocative of the day to me, photograph.
Regards, ippy.
-
Well I'll have to leave it there L R, where I think you're 100% wrong with your analysis of that, lovely evocative of the day to me, photograph.
Regards, ippy.
I see nothing lovely about that photo, where a guy appears to be forcing himself on a woman.
-
I see nothing lovely about that photo, where a guy appears to be forcing himself on a woman.
Nonsense!
Regards, ippy.
-
Nonsense!
Regards, ippy.
Further more, I think that awful statue might give the male of the species the idea that it is ok to force himself on a woman in that way. I know you disagree, but TOUGH! ::)
-
remember, Saney is a pacifist . He will only do his 'white knighting' from the safety of his armchair :o
-
Further more, I think that awful statue might give the male of the species the idea that it is ok to force himself on a woman in that way. I know you disagree, but TOUGH! ::)
I specifically referred to the original photograph and how many times do I have to comment on that attention seeking stupid misguiding name given to that statue.
The stupid misguiding name given to that statue completely distorts the mind set of any viewer and has had the effect of completely altering the meaning of now both of the objects in the mind of the observer in many cases.
Regards, ippy.
-
I specifically referred to the original photograph and how many times do I have to comment on that attention seeking stupid misguiding name given to that statue.
The stupid misguiding name given to that statue completely distorts the mind set of any viewer and has had the effect of completely altering the meaning of now both of the objects in the mind of the observer in many cases.
Regards, ippy.
I have seen the original photo and it looks like an assault to me. He held the woman in such a way it would have been very hard for her to resist his unwanted attention.
-
I specifically referred to the original photograph ...
Then look again, and in particular look at the clenched fist of the woman. This isn't someone enjoying a kiss - it is someone dealing with an unwanted incident. There is a photo taken probably just after the most famous one where the clenched fist of the woman is pushing against the man's cheek - she is trying to push him off. I've seen plenty of people lovingly place the palm of their hand against their lover's cheek - never someone pushing them away with a clenched fist.
-
Then look again, and in particular look at the clenched fist of the woman. This isn't someone enjoying a kiss - it is someone dealing with an unwanted incident. There is a photo taken probably just after the most famous one where the clenched fist of the woman is pushing against the man's cheek - she is trying to push him off. I've seen plenty of people lovingly place the palm of their hand against their lover's cheek - never someone pushing them away with a clenched fist.
And of course we have the comments of the woman who was probably the one in the picture that the kiss was non consensual, and would therefore be assault.
-
And of course we have the comments of the woman who was probably the one in the picture that the kiss was non consensual, and would therefore be assault.
The comments of the woman and the various photos of the incident are completely consistent - whether or not we wish to describe it as an assault - what we are seeing is a man kissing an unwilling woman who is trying to extract herself from the situation.
On the discussion about her not reporting it or needing to understand the time, we should reflect that there is a difference between something that was accepted at a particular time and whether that was acceptable. I would suggest that a man forcing himself on a woman by kissing her without her agreement was certainly accepted at the time, however it is not and was not acceptable.
-
As has been said before, in times past men thought it acceptable to touch a woman in a way, which is deemed inappropriate these days, and rightly so.
-
As has been said before, in times past men thought it acceptable to touch a woman in a way, which is deemed inappropriate these days, and rightly so.
And my point is that although it was accepted at the time it was never acceptable.
There are plenty of similar examples from the past.
-
And my point is that although it was accepted at the time it was never acceptable.
There are plenty of similar examples from the past.
I agree.
-
The comments of the woman and the various photos of the incident are completely consistent - whether or not we wish to describe it as an assault - what we are seeing is a man kissing an unwilling woman who is trying to extract herself from the situation.
On the discussion about her not reporting it or needing to understand the time, we should reflect that there is a difference between something that was accepted at a particular time and whether that was acceptable. I would suggest that a man forcing himself on a woman by kissing her without her agreement was certainly accepted at the time, however it is not and was not acceptable.
To an extent yes, but there are plenty of peopke who now will not report assault because they see the prevalent attitude as still being dismissive.
-
To an extent yes, but there are plenty of peopke who now will not report assault because they see the prevalent attitude as still being dismissive.
I'm not disagreeing on that at all. Certainly these types of incident are far less accepted than they were in the past, but that isn't universal and we still have some way to go in our society.
Whether or not someone reports an assault is a completely different issue than whether it is an assault - an unreported assault is every bit as much an assault as a reported one.
-
I'm not disagreeing on that at all. Certainly these types of incident are far less accepted than they were in the past, but that isn't universal and we still have some way to go in our society.
Whether or not someone reports an assault is a completely different issue than whether it is an assault - an unreported assault is every bit as much an assault as a reported one.
Agreed, it's the idea that not reporting it is indicative of it not being a real assault, or not fighting enough that have in various ways being put forward on here which is pernicious.
-
Agreed, it's the idea that not reporting it is indicative of it not being a real assault, or not fighting enough that have in various ways being put forward on here which is pernicious.
Pernicious is a good word for it.
-
Pernicious is a good word for it.
It is.
-
And my point is that although it was accepted at the time it was never acceptable.
That's complete nonsense. If it was accepted at the time, it was, at least once, acceptable.
I think what you probably meant was that, even though it was accepted at the time, it was still wrong.
How would you have punished the sailor for his wrong doing?
-
That's complete nonsense. If it was accepted at the time, it was, at least once, acceptable.
So do you think slavery is acceptable JP - it was certainly accepted once.
How about human sacrifice, also accepted at a time.
Both were once accepted, neither were acceptable.
-
How would you have punished the sailor for his wrong doing?
That is a different question, you are confusing legality with acceptability (which is an ethical and social construct). The sailor, according to the law of the time, may not have done anything illegal - that doesn't mean what he did was acceptable.
-
The photograph is the photograph of a spontaneous assault. Although the sailor's actions were overlooked at the time given the historical nature of the VJ event, it does not mean that it was generally acceptable for a man to just grab and kiss any woman on the street without consent.
So, although it is a "good" picture it can also be tagged as #MeToo.
The statue(s) are less impressive as they attempt to build on the original idea, but the title does capture the complete collapse of what was left of the Japanese war machine following the two devastating nuclear strikes.
Anyone wanting see what a real kiss looks like should go and see one of Rodin's Le Baiser.
-
Such as:-
This (https://artsandculture.google.com/asset/the-kiss/sAHq8ONjlDFIww?hl=en-GB&ms=%7B%22x%22%3A0.5%2C%22y%22%3A0.5%2C%22z%22%3A8.208842732740237%2C%22size%22%3A%7B%22width%22%3A3.123143194508463%2C%22height%22%3A1.2375047270428996%7D%7D)
Moderator: long URL replaced.
-
And I thought at times that I'd lead a sheltered life when I see or hear about some of the goings on in the news like Andrew yet another useless royal gallivanting about, and not sweating what's that all about?
Reading some of the posts here on this thread I'm no longer so sure I have lead the sheltered life that I thought I had.
ippy.
-
So do you think slavery is acceptable JP - it was certainly accepted once.
How about human sacrifice, also accepted at a time.
Both were once accepted, neither were acceptable.
I think you need to engage your brain. If it was accepted, then, at that time, it was acceptable by definition.
We weren't around back then to sit in moral judgement over them.
-
That is a different question
Well spotted.
you are confusing legality with acceptability
No I'm not, I'm asking you a question, which you have failed to answer.
(which is an ethical and social construct). The sailor, according to the law of the time, may not have done anything illegal - that doesn't mean what he did was acceptable.
I wasn't asking how he should have been punished under the law prevailing at the time, I was asking how you would punish him. You think what he has done is wrong (which I agree with) so what would you do to him?
-
I think you need to engage your brain. If it was accepted, then, at that time, it was acceptable by definition.
We weren't around back then to sit in moral judgement over them.
Nope - accepted refers to a particular time and place - acceptable to a more general view on the ethics of a particular act which is therefore embedded in the present just as much as the past.
Human sacrifice was accepted in certain societies at certain times - it is not acceptable.
Or do you disagree that human sacrifice is not acceptable.
-
Nope - accepted refers to a particular time and place - acceptable to a more general view on the ethics of a particular act which is therefore embedded in the present just as much as the past.
Bullshit. You said "it was never acceptable". That implies a temporal quality.
Human sacrifice was accepted in certain societies at certain times - it is not acceptable.
But it wasn't never acceptable.
Or do you disagree that human sacrifice is not acceptable.
Of course not. But if you time travel back to a civilisation where human sacrifice was practised and ask somebody from that civilisation "is human sacrifice acceptable?" what answer do you think you will get?
-
Of course not.
Therefore it is not acceptable, as I've already said.
But if you time travel back to a civilisation where human sacrifice was practised and ask somebody from that civilisation "is human sacrifice acceptable?" what answer do you think you will get?
That it was accepted at that time - that doesn't mean it is (or was) acceptable.
All sorts of things we recognise to be acceptable were once accepted.
-
Bullshit. You said "it was never acceptable". That implies a temporal quality.
Which again is exactly what I said, hence:
'Nope - accepted refers to a particular time and place - acceptable to a more general view on the ethics of a particular act which is therefore embedded in the present just as much as the past.'
Accepted refers to a particular time and place - acceptable refers to a more general position across time and place.
Human sacrifice was once accepted in certain cultures at a particular time - human sacrifice isn't now acceptable nor was then.
-
Prof D
What are you going on about 'accepted' but 'unacceptable'?! Are you speaking with reference to some Absolute morality that is valid for all time and for all people?
Morality (as we know it) is dependent on the time and social group.....not independent of it. 'Accepted' and 'acceptable' are the same thing with reference to a specific time and place.
-
I agree with the above. What Prof D considers "acceptable" today from his very limited view based on his nature, nurture and geographical location may well be considered "unacceptable" to future generations here or in other geographical locations. I would think what is acceptable depends on new information / knowledge that comes to light as time passes.
-
That it was accepted at that time - that doesn't mean it is (or was) acceptable.
If it was accepted then it was acceptable. It's not now but it was then to the societies that accepted it.
All sorts of things we recognise to be acceptable were once accepted.
And were therefore acceptable at the time.
You seem to be making the claim that there is some sort of absolute standard of acceptability and your assumption is that we are the ultimate arbiters of what is acceptable or not. That's rather arrogant.
-
If it was accepted then it was acceptable.
Nope they are different things - just because something was accepted at a particular time does not imply that it is acceptable.
-
Nope they are different things - just because something was accepted at a particular time does not imply that it is acceptable.
???
'does not imply that it is acceptable'.......to whom?
-
???
'does not imply that it is acceptable'.......to whom?
To those beyond the narrow group who accepted human sacrifice at a particular time and a particular place.
-
Nope they are different things
Nope. It was acceptable by definition if people accepted it. "Accepted" and "acceptable" are both derived from the same verb "to accept". |Sorry you don't like it, but you don't get to define the English language.
just because something was accepted at a particular time does not imply that it is acceptable.
That's true but you are glossing over the fact that you used two different tenses in that sentence.
"just because something was accepted at a particular time does not imply that it was acceptable.
"just because something is accepted does not imply that it is acceptable.
The above two sentences are both false (I omitted "at a particular time" because when you use the present tense, the particular time is now). Your sentence quoted above is true because attitudes have changed.
-
To those beyond the narrow group who accepted human sacrifice at a particular time and a particular place.
But to those who did the human sacrificing, it was acceptable.
-
But to those who did the human sacrificing, it was acceptable.
It was accepted, but I doubt it was even universally acceptable then - I doubt those on the receiving end of the human sacrifice found it acceptable.
Acceptable is a more universal notion than merely accepted, which is about time and place (and perhaps even individuals).
-
It was accepted, but I doubt it was even universally acceptable then - I doubt those on the receiving end of the human sacrifice found it acceptable.
Acceptable is a more universal notion than merely accepted, which is about time and place (and perhaps even individuals).
There is no more universal notion - you just made that up - especially as you cannot predict the future. What is more acceptable during a particular time can be less acceptable during another time. What is more acceptable/ accepted now may not be more acceptable/accepted in the future. That is currently the acceptable way that the word "acceptable" is used. It may be used in a different way in the future.
-
There is no more universal notion - you just made that up - especially as you cannot predict the future. What is more acceptable during a particular time can be less acceptable during another time. What is more acceptable/ accepted now may not be more acceptable/accepted in the future. That is currently the acceptable way that the word "acceptable" is used. It may be used in a different way in the future.
What is more accepted at a particular time and place may be less accepted at another time. Whether it is acceptable is a different matter.
So Gabriella - we can both agree that human sacrifice was accepted in certain cultures in the past. Do you think human sacrifice is acceptable?
-
What is more accepted at a particular time and place may be less accepted at another time. Whether it is acceptable is a different matter.
So Gabriella - we can both agree that human sacrifice was accepted in certain cultures in the past. Do you think human sacrifice is acceptable?
I think human sacrifice was accepted/ acceptable to a certain group of people and now is no longer accepted/acceptable to a certain group of people - though there may still be a small group of people to whom it is still accepted/acceptable. I am currently part of the group of people that thinks human sacrifice is not acceptable/accepted through had I been alive in a different time and place I might have found it acceptable and accepted it.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/04/human-sacrifice-may-have-helped-societies-become-more-complex
-
I am currently part of the group of people that thinks human sacrifice is not acceptable/accepted through had I been alive in a different time and place I might have found it acceptable and accepted it.
But as the person you are now do you think that it was acceptable to sacrifice humans in Aztec Mexico simply because the people of that culture accepted it.
I (and I suspect you) may accept that human sacrifice happened in Aztec Mexico (how could I not) and recognise that it was accepted practice by those people at that time, but still consider that the practice was unacceptable.
-
Your argument in #199 was that "although it was accepted at the time it was never acceptable."
It was acceptable at one time amongst a lot of cultures so using the word "never" was incorrect . I certainly agree that I do not find it acceptable now.
I, along with many others, may have found it acceptable if I had lived in a different era.
-
Your argument in #199 was that "although it was accepted at the time it was never acceptable."
It was acceptable at one time amongst a lot of cultures so using the word "never" was incorrect . I certainly agree that I do not find it acceptable now.
I, along with many others, may have found it acceptable if I had lived in a different era.
Just because something was accepted doesn't mean it was acceptable. I don't belief human sacrifice is acceptable now and I don't think it was acceptable hundreds of years ago.
Do you disagree with me Gabriella - not in some hypothetical 'what might I have thought had I been around in the Aztec times' - no the views of the real Gabriella in the 21stC - do you really think that human sacrifice was acceptable (rather than accepted) in Aztec Mexico?
Your view please - not the views of ancient Aztec, nor the hypothetical view of you had you existed hundreds of years ago. Your view please - are you really arguing that human sacrifice was acceptable in your view.
-
Just because something was accepted doesn't mean it was acceptable. I don't belief human sacrifice is acceptable now and I don't think it was acceptable hundreds of years ago.
Do you disagree with me Gabriella - not in some hypothetical 'what might I have thought had I been around in the Aztec times' - no the views of the real Gabriella in the 21stC - do you really think that human sacrifice was acceptable (rather than accepted) in Aztec Mexico?
Your view please - not the views of ancient Aztec, nor the hypothetical view of you had you existed hundreds of years ago. Your view please - are you really arguing that human sacrifice was acceptable in your view.
I have already answered your question. Human sacrifice was acceptable previously so saying it was never acceptable is an incorrect use of English.
-
I have already answered your question.
Nope - you've answered a different question - I am asking whether you, Gabriella, in Dec 2019 think it was acceptable for humans to be sacrificed in Aztec Mexico.
-
Per my previous answer - I am currently part of the group of people that thinks human sacrifice is not acceptable/accepted.
I was referring to the present and the past in the case of human sacrifice. But for the avoidance of doubt and to answer your current question, my opinion is that I, in 2019, do not find human sacrifice acceptable now or in the past.
That is a different statement from saying human sacrifice was never acceptable as that becomes more than just my opinion in 2019.
-
I was referring to the present and the past in the case of human sacrifice. But for the avoidance of doubt and to answer your current question, my opinion is that I, in 2019, do not find human sacrifice acceptable now or in the past.
Which mean that you, just like me, think that human sacrifice is not acceptable (i.e. now) and was never acceptable (i.e. in the past).
So we are in complete agreement. We would both recognise that human sacrifice was accepted by some cultures in the past - we might also think that those cultured considered it to be acceptable but that we would disagree with them. We would think they were wrong in thinking that human sacrifice was acceptable (i.e. morally right) and therefore consider that human sacrifice was never morally right (i.e. acceptable) regardless of their views at the time.
-
Nope as I explained in the post you quoted - saying I do not think it is or was acceptable "is a different statement from saying human sacrifice was never acceptable as that becomes more than just my opinion in 2019."
So I think your statement that human sacrifice was never acceptable is an incorrect statement.
-
Nope as I explained in the post you quoted - saying I do not think it is or was acceptable "is a different statement from saying human sacrifice was never acceptable as that becomes more than just my opinion in 2019."
So I think your statement that human sacrifice was never acceptable is an incorrect statement.
Can I suggest a possible way out of this - would you both agree that, whilst it might have been acceptable at the time (that was the culture of the time) it shouldn't have been, and that an objective moral analysis brings back the conclusion that it should always have been unacceptable?
O.
-
Can I suggest a possible way out of this - would you both agree that, whilst it might have been acceptable at the time (that was the culture of the time) it shouldn't have been, and that an objective moral analysis brings back the conclusion that it should always have been unacceptable?
O.
Is there such a thing as an 'objective moral analysis'?
-
Is there such a thing as an 'objective moral analysis'?
If there isn't, what's the point in discussing anything about morality?
O.
-
Perhaps some or all of the confusion would disappear if we dropped the tiresome modern word "unacceptable", which is too subjective, and said "immoral", or "wrong".
-
If there isn't, what's the point in discussing anything about morality?
O.
Because we have subjective opinions. Your position apart from being an argumentum ad populum effectively means that you don't think anything that doesn't have an 'objective' method can be discussed which would though beauty, love, emotions, poetry in the range of not to be discussed as pointless. Which may be a valid position but doesn't seem to be your's.
-
Perhaps some or all of the confusion would disappear if we dropped the tiresome modern word "unacceptable", which is too subjective, and said "immoral", or "wrong".
Aren't they just words that we use to mean 'I really really really subjectively feel this is...'
-
Nope as I explained in the post you quoted - saying I do not think it is or was acceptable "is a different statement from saying human sacrifice was never acceptable as that becomes more than just my opinion in 2019."
But all you and I are doing is providing our opinion on the moral acceptability of certain actions. Neither you nor I are in a position to go beyond that - neither of us are absolute arbiters of objective morality (even were that to exist).
So it seems to me that:
Your opinion in 2019 is that human sacrifice is not acceptable (i.e. now) and was never acceptable (i.e. in the past).
And,
My opinion in 2019 is that human sacrifice is not acceptable (i.e. now) and was never acceptable (i.e. in the past).
We are in agreement. And presumably we both think that people, who in the past, considered human sacrifice to be morally acceptable to be wrong.
So I think your statement that human sacrifice was never acceptable is an incorrect statement.
No, because it relates to my opinion (see above, which is the same as your opinion), the result of which is that I consider that people in the past who thought human sacrifice to be morally acceptable were wrong in that thinking.
-
Because we have subjective opinions. Your position apart from being an argumentum ad populum effectively means that you don't think anything that doesn't have an 'objective' method can be discussed which would though beauty, love, emotions, poetry in the range of not to be discussed as pointless. Which may be a valid position but doesn't seem to be your's.
It's not that they can't be discussed, it's that there's no ultimate point to it (in the context of a forum like this, at least) as they are all aesthetic stances - it's not about whether something is right or wrong, it's about whether you or I prefer one or the other.
O.
-
Aren't they just words that we use to mean 'I really really really subjectively feel this is...'
Not if you're a rule-utilitarian, as I am: then, any action or attitude which furthers happiness, or lessens misery, is right, and any act or attitude which does the opposite is wrong, irrespective of my personal tastes.
-
Not if you're a rule-utilitarian, as I am: then, any action or attitude which furthers happiness, or lessens misery, is right, and any act or attitude which does the opposite is wrong, irrespective of my personal tastes.
My three issues with utilitarianism, in a complex world:
1 - intent counts for nothing
2 - what you feel increases happiness might feel to someone else to do no such thing
3 - how can you accurately determine how much happiness a given action brings about, given the near-infinite number of consequences that result over time from even the smallest intervention in a system
O.
-
It's not that they can't be discussed, it's that there's no ultimate point to it (in the context of a forum like this, at least) as they are all aesthetic stances - it's not about whether something is right or wrong, it's about whether you or I prefer one or the other.
O.
What's an 'ultimate' point? We can still have cogent discussions about why we might think things, indeed that's what we do. Ideas of ultimates are for something that is not humanity.
-
Not if you're a rule-utilitarian, as I am: then, any action or attitude which furthers happiness, or lessens misery, is right, and any act or attitude which does the opposite is wrong, irrespective of my personal tastes.
No, that's just you codifying a principle you like, it's still subjective.
-
And as a general musing surely were we able to establish 'objective' morals then that really would make all discussion futile because well they would be objective? It's the very subjectivity of how we are that allows for discussion.
-
And as a general musing surely were we able to establish 'objective' morals then that really would make all discussion futile because well they would be objective? It's the very subjectivity of how we are that allows for discussion.
The Earth is objectively not flat... discuss :)
O.
-
The Earth is objectively not flat... discuss :)
O.
Leaving aside that we are effectively using objective here as synonym for intersubjective, and leaping over hard solipsism, it ties in with my musing - what worthwhile discussion is there on whether the Earth is flat?
-
My three issues with utilitarianism, in a complex world:
1 - intent counts for nothing
2 - what you feel increases happiness might feel to someone else to do no such thing
3 - how can you accurately determine how much happiness a given action brings about, given the near-infinite number of consequences that result over time from even the smallest intervention in a system
O.
1 - irrelevant.
2 - we can make some reasonably accurate assumptions: murder, rape, dishonesty and cruelty reduce the sum of happiness; honoesty, kindness, generosity increase it.
3 - see 2. Note that I said rule-utilitariansm, in which our acts are according to our rules, and our rules based on utilitarianism. We don't have to weigh up the utilitarian pros and cons of each act before performing it.
-
It was accepted, but I doubt it was even universally acceptable then
It was acceptable to the society that did it.
Acceptable is a more universal notion than merely accepted, which is about time and place (and perhaps even individuals).
Is it acceptable to eat meat?
-
Which mean that you, just like me, think that human sacrifice is not acceptable (i.e. now) and was never acceptable (i.e. in the past).
For something to be acceptable or accepted, there has to be a person or people to do the accepting.
You're just using this whole line to retroactively apply moral standards that we have now to people in the past.
You still haven't answered my question: how would you punish the sailor?