NationStates

Eurasian Socialist Combine wrote:

Greater Cesnica wrote:Not of fucking 12 year olds it isn't.

Go look up nudism on google.

Galloism wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Maybe it was wrong to put TB on the sex offenders register for 20 years BUT ALSO his behaviour was bad and wrong and indefensible.

I'd once again like to float the possibility of taking his xbox away.

Greater Cesnica wrote:Many people would say extramarital sex is degrading to your humanity but whatever. Also, respect is not counted in laws. What is counted is whether coercion or if the encounter was forcibly initiated.

Greater Cesnica wrote:

Eurasian Socialist Combine wrote:Go look up nudism on google.

You know I'd rather not be put on an INTERPOL watchlist for looking for depictions of nude 12 year olds?

Eurasian Socialist Combine wrote:

Greater Cesnica wrote:Many people would say extramarital sex is degrading to your humanity but whatever. Also, respect is not counted in laws. What is counted is whether coercion or if the encounter was forcibly initiated.

I don’t care about extramarital sex, we’re talking about going around trying to pressure people into sex. In my book you need real consent. That means no hounding people.

Greater Cesnica wrote:

Eurasian Socialist Combine wrote:I don’t care about extramarital sex, we’re talking about going around trying to pressure people into sex. In my book you need real consent. That means no hounding people.

Can one buy consent? -Asking for a friend in Nevada

Greater Cesnica wrote:I can't help but wonder if the FBI is just flagging anyone who replies to this thread more than 15 times.

Nova Cyberia wrote:

Eurasian Socialist Combine wrote:Ok, let’s begin. I am listening.

I'm poor.

Give me more money.

Greater Cesnica wrote:

Eurasian Socialist Combine wrote:I don’t care about extramarital sex, we’re talking about going around trying to pressure people into sex. In my book you need real consent. That means no hounding people.

Can one buy consent? -Asking for a friend in Nevada

Eurasian Socialist Combine wrote:

Greater Cesnica wrote:Can one buy consent? -Asking for a friend in Nevada

In a manner of speaking maybe, I would personally think twice before buying sex. I think that depends on the person, if the person just has no issue selling their body that’s fine, but if they just need the money I’d prefer not to exploit them, we could do something other than sex.
As a socialist I would just assume prositutes have their material conditions satisfied, if they go around doing sex for money after that, then that’s fine.

Ors Might wrote:Eh, I’m not sure if them needing the money makes it inherently unethical. At least, not any more unethical than any other job.

Ors Might wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Ah, so your argument is that harassment is fine. Cool. Please continue to argue that if you ask someone for nude pictures and they say no, it's perfectly okay to keep asking and asking and ignoring their refusals until they get so fucking sick of you that they give in, not because they actually want you to see them naked, but because they just can't fucking put up with you asking any more. Very good. Very healthy behaviour. Definitely not problematic at all.

Here's a fucking thought for you. Maybe it was wrong to put TB on the sex offenders register for 20 years BUT ALSO his behaviour was bad and wrong and indefensible. Maybe both of those things are true. Maybe you don't need to try and defend shitty behaviour just because you think that the person who did the shitty behaviour was too harshly punished.

---

Because people can't be charged with sexually exploiting themselves in Colorado. As has been explained to you already. Maybe instead of flailing around to try and insult Gravlen you should have been reading his posts. You might have learned something.

My argument is that asking for something after being told no is not by itself harassment. Dickish and immature, probably, but not harassment.

Gravlen wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:Now, repeatedly asking after a no has been given is different and may well constitute sexual harassment. But the court does not say that occurred.
It says the girls were reluctant, not refusing and made to change their minds.

About that:

¶ 7 E.H. testified during the trial that, in the fall of 2012, the juvenile had texted her photographs of his erect penis. When E.H. received them, "[she] deleted them" because she "didn't want to keep those on [her] phone."

¶ 8 The juvenile repeatedly asked her to send him nude photographs of herself. She said that "[t]he first time [she] told him no. Then after that [she] was like well, maybe after a while, and then just kind of like getting him off [her] case, and then finally [she] just gave in."

The People of the State of Colorado In the Interest of T.B., Colorado Court of Appeals 2016.

So he did indeed repeatedly ask after a 'no' was given. Just FYI, since it made a difference to you.

Gravlen wrote:

Nova Cyberia wrote:You're assigning motivation that has not even been proven.

In fact, we are both just speculating here.

¶ 8 The juvenile repeatedly asked her to send him nude photographs of herself. She said that "[t]he first time [she] told him no. Then after that [she] was like well, maybe after a while, and then just kind of like getting him off [her] case, and then finally [she] just gave in."

Greater Cesnica wrote:

Nova Cyberia wrote:Ah, the teeth-pulling has worked at last.

Look I actually agree with Iffy now that they've fully compiled their thoughts. But just a caveat... Block button.

Ifreann wrote:

Ors Might wrote:My argument is that asking for something after being told no is not by itself harassment. Dickish and immature, probably, but not harassment.

He didn't just ask multiple times.

Gravlen wrote:About that:

¶ 7 E.H. testified during the trial that, in the fall of 2012, the juvenile had texted her photographs of his erect penis. When E.H. received them, "[she] deleted them" because she "didn't want to keep those on [her] phone."

¶ 8 The juvenile repeatedly asked her to send him nude photographs of herself. She said that "[t]he first time [she] told him no. Then after that [she] was like well, maybe after a while, and then just kind of like getting him off [her] case, and then finally [she] just gave in."

The People of the State of Colorado In the Interest of T.B., Colorado Court of Appeals 2016.

So he did indeed repeatedly ask after a 'no' was given. Just FYI, since it made a difference to you.

Gravlen wrote:

¶ 8 The juvenile repeatedly asked her to send him nude photographs of herself. She said that "[t]he first time [she] told him no. Then after that [she] was like well, maybe after a while, and then just kind of like getting him off [her] case, and then finally [she] just gave in."

He asked and asked and asked until she was worn down and gave in, not because she actually enthusiastically consented, but to get him to fuck off. Which is bad. Obviously.

---

Greater Cesnica wrote:Look I actually agree with Iffy now that they've fully compiled their thoughts. But just a caveat... Block button.

He.

Ors Might wrote:Asking three or four times is harassment? Again, this isn’t harassment, it’s pestering. Its not even harassment in a legal sense.

Ors Might wrote:

Ifreann wrote:He didn't just ask multiple times.



He asked and asked and asked until she was worn down and gave in, not because she actually enthusiastically consented, but to get him to fuck off. Which is bad. Obviously.

---

He.

Asking three or four times is harassment? Again, this isn’t harassment, it’s pestering. Its not even harassment in a legal sense.

Ifreann wrote:

Ors Might wrote:My argument is that asking for something after being told no is not by itself harassment. Dickish and immature, probably, but not harassment.

He didn't just ask multiple times.

Gravlen wrote:About that:

¶ 7 E.H. testified during the trial that, in the fall of 2012, the juvenile had texted her photographs of his erect penis. When E.H. received them, "[she] deleted them" because she "didn't want to keep those on [her] phone."

¶ 8 The juvenile repeatedly asked her to send him nude photographs of herself. She said that "[t]he first time [she] told him no. Then after that [she] was like well, maybe after a while, and then just kind of like getting him off [her] case, and then finally [she] just gave in."

The People of the State of Colorado In the Interest of T.B., Colorado Court of Appeals 2016.

So he did indeed repeatedly ask after a 'no' was given. Just FYI, since it made a difference to you.

Gravlen wrote:

¶ 8 The juvenile repeatedly asked her to send him nude photographs of herself. She said that "[t]he first time [she] told him no. Then after that [she] was like well, maybe after a while, and then just kind of like getting him off [her] case, and then finally [she] just gave in."

He asked and asked and asked until she was worn down and gave in, not because she actually enthusiastically consented, but to get him to fuck off. Which is bad. Obviously.

---

Greater Cesnica wrote:Look I actually agree with Iffy now that they've fully compiled their thoughts. But just a caveat... Block button.

He.

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:"After initially resisting" seems like an important qualifier here.

Ors Might wrote:

Ifreann wrote:He didn't just ask multiple times.



He asked and asked and asked until she was worn down and gave in, not because she actually enthusiastically consented, but to get him to fuck off. Which is bad. Obviously.

---

He.

Asking three or four times is harassment? Again, this isn’t harassment, it’s pestering. Its not even harassment in a legal sense.

Ifreann wrote:The fuck kind of hill is this to die on? TB wasn't charged with harassment, so I don't know what you're trying to achieve by arguing that he wasn't harassing anyone, just pestering them to take nude pictures for him until they gave in and complied, not because they actually wanted to send him nude pics, but because they wanted him to fuck off.

Ifreann wrote:The fuck kind of hill is this to die on? TB wasn't charged with harassment, so I don't know what you're trying to achieve by arguing that he wasn't harassing anyone, just pestering them to take nude pictures for him until they gave in and complied, not because they actually wanted to send him nude pics, but because they wanted him to fuck off.

Galloism wrote:

Ifreann wrote:The fuck kind of hill is this to die on? TB wasn't charged with harassment, so I don't know what you're trying to achieve by arguing that he wasn't harassing anyone, just pestering them to take nude pictures for him until they gave in and complied, not because they actually wanted to send him nude pics, but because they wanted him to fuck off.

They wanted him to fuck off? Can you source that?

Because they were in a long distance relationship with him according to the court case.

Galloism wrote:

Ifreann wrote:The fuck kind of hill is this to die on? TB wasn't charged with harassment, so I don't know what you're trying to achieve by arguing that he wasn't harassing anyone, just pestering them to take nude pictures for him until they gave in and complied, not because they actually wanted to send him nude pics, but because they wanted him to fuck off.

They wanted him to fuck off? Can you source that?

Because they were in a long distance relationship with him according to the court case.

Cekoviu wrote:

Galloism wrote:They wanted him to fuck off? Can you source that?

Because they were in a long distance relationship with him according to the court case.

This is just me, but if a guy begged for my nudes after pretty clearly saying no, I'd want him to fuck off.

Greater Cesnica wrote:So one does not cave in and send nudes. They block lmao. Though the long distance relationship aspect might have compounded that.