A tag 'sexual harrasment' for this world famous photography???
It's a colorized photography made by Alfred Eisenstaedt in 14th august 1945 on a V-J day (Victory over Japan day) on it's celebration at Time Square in N.Y.C. Try to google it for more info.
kejsirajbek It's maybe an act of happiness, of victory, of celebration, but it's also a photo of non-consent sexual act, which is the definition of sexual assault, and that's why I consider it as interesting to be indicated.
That means concerning the tags that both point-of-views can be kept: the celebration, the fest, the joy that was initially the goal, but also the sexual assault of a drunk man on a woman, whatever the context.
KalAmar
OK. Let me explain it to you a with more details; you can look at this photo just two ways: 1. You know nothing about circumstances happened there OR 2. you know about circumstances and a bit about HUMAN FEELINGS, too. So:
What can you see, a man and a woman are kissing in a public place, they are probably a couple, they want to show they love in public, on the streets, everybody seems happy and relaxed around there ---> you would NEVER EVER even think about a sexual assault because there you see an act of love and/or passion and that they are happy.
There is a dentist assistant woman kissed by a home-coming sailor. He has a couple of drinks (like he said it, not drunk but he drink a COUPLE of drinks, so he was more encouraged). It's not OK, you would think, because she said it in many interviews that she didn't want to kiss him and he just grabbed her without her permission to do it. Did he do it in a sexual meaning? You KNOW the circumstances so of course he DIDN'T because you know that he wanted just share his happiness there and as a heterosexual man he just seen a nurse (in his head was a thankfullnes for nurses) and just walked to her and hugged her and kissed her because he wanted to show how he feels, his emotions (encouraged by a few drinks; God forgive him) and then WALKED AWAY from her. That was it, no sexual meanings at all, even when you know and memorized the meaning of a sexual assault, it just CAN'T be used to this situation.
So both point of views leads into seeing this act as a NONsexual, NONviolent action.
kejsirajbek I'm sorry, but do you understand the concept of "consent" and by consequence of "sexual assault"?
On the point 1), I totally agree with you. But I can't disagree more on the point 2).
The main point of the "sexual assault" is the consent. Kissing on the mouth (as depicted on the picture) is considered as a sexual act.
Was this sexual act consent? No. That's the woman who says it, I quote: “It wasn’t my choice to be kissed.” & "I wasn’t kissing him. He was kissing me."
Moreover, she clearly states that this kiss is made with constraint: "The guy just came over and grabbed!” adding, “That man was very strong." and “I did not see him approaching, and before I knew it, I was in this vice grip (sic).”
So contrary to what you said, it IS a sexual act, and it IS made with constraint. That's the kissed woman who states that. She states that he did not asked her consent.
That's what makes the HUGE difference with the famous kiss picture by Robert Doisneau (Le Baiser de l'hôtel de ville), which is consent (because it was staged).
That's why I ask since the beginning to share the two sides of the story, the nice one and the less nice one, especially when we know the truth about it.
A tag 'sexual harrasment' for this world famous photography??? It's a colorized photography made by Alfred Eisenstaedt in 14th august 1945 on a V-J day (Victory over Japan day) on it's celebration at Time Square in N.Y.C. Try to google it for more info.
kejsirajbek It's maybe an act of happiness, of victory, of celebration, but it's also a photo of non-consent sexual act, which is the definition of sexual assault, and that's why I consider it as interesting to be indicated. That means concerning the tags that both point-of-views can be kept: the celebration, the fest, the joy that was initially the goal, but also the sexual assault of a drunk man on a woman, whatever the context.
KalAmar OK. Let me explain it to you a with more details; you can look at this photo just two ways: 1. You know nothing about circumstances happened there OR 2. you know about circumstances and a bit about HUMAN FEELINGS, too. So:
What can you see, a man and a woman are kissing in a public place, they are probably a couple, they want to show they love in public, on the streets, everybody seems happy and relaxed around there ---> you would NEVER EVER even think about a sexual assault because there you see an act of love and/or passion and that they are happy.
There is a dentist assistant woman kissed by a home-coming sailor. He has a couple of drinks (like he said it, not drunk but he drink a COUPLE of drinks, so he was more encouraged). It's not OK, you would think, because she said it in many interviews that she didn't want to kiss him and he just grabbed her without her permission to do it. Did he do it in a sexual meaning? You KNOW the circumstances so of course he DIDN'T because you know that he wanted just share his happiness there and as a heterosexual man he just seen a nurse (in his head was a thankfullnes for nurses) and just walked to her and hugged her and kissed her because he wanted to show how he feels, his emotions (encouraged by a few drinks; God forgive him) and then WALKED AWAY from her. That was it, no sexual meanings at all, even when you know and memorized the meaning of a sexual assault, it just CAN'T be used to this situation.
So both point of views leads into seeing this act as a NONsexual, NONviolent action.
kejsirajbek I'm sorry, but do you understand the concept of "consent" and by consequence of "sexual assault"? On the point 1), I totally agree with you. But I can't disagree more on the point 2).
The main point of the "sexual assault" is the consent. Kissing on the mouth (as depicted on the picture) is considered as a sexual act. Was this sexual act consent? No. That's the woman who says it, I quote: “It wasn’t my choice to be kissed.” & "I wasn’t kissing him. He was kissing me." Moreover, she clearly states that this kiss is made with constraint: "The guy just came over and grabbed!” adding, “That man was very strong." and “I did not see him approaching, and before I knew it, I was in this vice grip (sic).” So contrary to what you said, it IS a sexual act, and it IS made with constraint. That's the kissed woman who states that. She states that he did not asked her consent.
That's what makes the HUGE difference with the famous kiss picture by Robert Doisneau (Le Baiser de l'hôtel de ville), which is consent (because it was staged).
That's why I ask since the beginning to share the two sides of the story, the nice one and the less nice one, especially when we know the truth about it.