University finds prominent astrophysicist Lawrence Krauss grabbed a woman’s breast

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Jonjonj

Okay. Gotcha. You refuse to say it outright, but you seem to think it's okay for folks to do what they will to other people... I much prefer a world where people respect other people and their persons and keep their hands to themselves.

Um, no? I prefer a world were a man or woman is free to express themselves without the fear of being degraded for making a mistake. We all make mistakes, some mistakes even lead to happy marriages, children and a great bloody life.


Tell you what, you do you, how about that?

a reply to: Jonjonj

Um, no? I prefer a world were a man or woman is free to express themselves...

Me too -- as long as they don't impose their "expressions" on others and their persons.

...without the fear of being degraded for making a mistake. We all make mistakes, some mistakes even lead to happy marriages, children and a great bloody life.

I am a firm believer that our mistakes aren't nearly as important as what we do about them once we realize we've made a mistake. And if you're saying it's wrong for random guys to grab the breasts of random women, I agree.

But that's not what I've been reading; i.e., you said you preferred a world where that's okay -- not that it's a mistake. Sure, you spoke to some woman grabbing your arse as opposed to some guy grabbing a woman's breast, but the end result is the same: Someone violating another's person.

Tell you what, you do you, how about that?

Of course... and that includes others keeping their hands off me.

originally posted by: dantanna
the only girls complaining about this kind of stuff, seem to be pretty incel.
the late great jay thomas said, ive never met a feminist stripper.

of course not, a stripper is out having fun, drinking, partying, hooking up to worry about feminism.

the meanest groups around---
3. athiests
2. vegans
1. feminists

Perhaps you are too young (and Jay Thomas was too old) to have missed 3rd wave feminism, in which a lot of the proponents/originators of the movement were strippers.

And way to feed your flags with some low-grade generalizations after that. But you knew your rightie pals would soak it up.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Jonjonj

Um, no? I prefer a world were a man or woman is free to express themselves...

Me too -- as long as they don't impose their "expressions" on others and their persons.

...without the fear of being degraded for making a mistake. We all make mistakes, some mistakes even lead to happy marriages, children and a great bloody life.

I am a firm believer that our mistakes aren't nearly as important as what we do about them once we realize we've made a mistake. And if you're saying it's wrong for random guys to grab the breasts of random women, I agree.

But that's not what I've been reading; i.e., you said you preferred a world where that's okay -- not that it's a mistake. Sure, you spoke to some woman grabbing your arse as opposed to some guy grabbing a woman's breast, but the end result is the same: Someone violating another's person.

Tell you what, you do you, how about that?

Of course... and that includes others keeping their hands off me.

Then you misunderstood me and that isn't my fault. Where did I say it's ok? I simply said maybe he misunderstood a signal and if not then words would be said.

a reply to: Krakatoa

I imagine that sexual assault is a crime where this happened.

I guess that some people who witness a crime want to make sure that person committing the crime is brought to justice.

a reply to: Jonjonj

Then you misunderstood me and that isn't my fault.

I asked for clarification in the most direct terms several times. For whatever reason, you chose NOT to clarify in argumentative and indirect terms.

Where did I say it's ok?

Exactly the same place you said it's NOT okay... no where. You had every opportunity to make a clear and blanket statement. You chose not to do so. What you did say is that you prefer a world where women can grab your arse and so on... the implication/inference being that you prefer a world where you can do the same to women... and all men can do the same to all women. If that is not what you meant, you can of course clarify.

I simply said maybe he misunderstood a signal and if not then words would be said.

You did not say that to me. And perhaps he did misunderstand a signal... maybe he really thought she wanted to take a selfie of him grabbing her boob in front of the whole crowd. I don't believe that for a minute, but anything's possible.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Jonjonj

Then you misunderstood me and that isn't my fault.

I asked for clarification in the most direct terms several times. For whatever reason, you chose NOT to clarify in argumentative and indirect terms.

Where did I say it's ok?

Exactly the same place you said it's NOT okay... no where. You had every opportunity to make a clear and blanket statement. You chose not to do so. What you did say is that you prefer a world where women can grab your arse and so on... the implication/inference being that you prefer a world where you can do the same to women... and all men can do the same to all women. If that is not what you meant, you can of course clarify.

I simply said maybe he misunderstood a signal and if not then words would be said.

You did not say that to me. And perhaps he did misunderstand a signal... maybe he really thought she wanted to take a selfie of him grabbing her boob in front of the whole crowd. I don't believe that for a minute, but anything's possible.

Sorry, I will clarify. Not your demands for clarification but rather my own desire.

I don't believe that it is acceptable in any way for a person to abuse another.

I also don't accept that horseplay or any other type of consensual gameplay should be recriminatory.

Are we good?

a reply to: Krakatoa

I am traumatized by her traumatization...

Am i an astrophysicists now?

Ahhh... the Grievance Industry... making the system reward conformity and stifle free expression and discourse.

Those that don't get offended learn to accept everything as it is and everyone as they are and they don't complain about it and they just live their life.

The others who complain just don't accept anything for what it is.

a reply to: Jonjonj
I get what you're saying and agree with your stance. It seems the whole concept of personal responsibility and the leeway to handle a situation oneself is being hijacked by people that only want "authority" to have any authority.

It feels like a bully mentality backed by some nebulous "system".

originally posted by: Words
It was Krauss' fault for grabbing a woman's breast. What makes him think he can do that?

It was done in the name of science. As an astrophysicist he also told the woman “I’m interested in Uranus”.

a reply to: Jonjonj

I don't believe that it is acceptable in any way for a person to abuse another.

I also don't accept that horseplay or any other type of consensual gameplay should be recriminatory.

Are we good?

If you're agreeing that anything non-consensual is abuse -- to one degree or another, depending on the act -- then yes, I'm good.

a reply to: Boadicea

Absolutely, non-consensual is not acceptable and should be respected, but saying it is abuse without knowing the particulars of a given situation is over-reach.

Misunderstandings or over-zealousness does not necessarily constitute abuse. Shades of grey and all that.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Jonjonj

I don't believe that it is acceptable in any way for a person to abuse another.

I also don't accept that horseplay or any other type of consensual gameplay should be recriminatory.

Are we good?

If you're agreeing that anything non-consensual is abuse -- to one degree or another, depending on the act -- then yes, I'm good.

Can you explain to me one thing. How would someone know what is non-consent before the fact? It only becomes non-consent when told it is such. Unless, of course, you are projecting your personal level of consent upon everyone on the planet. See, everyone is different....and not everyone can agree on what is consent regarding pre-crime status.

And, in this specific case, the person themselves did NOT think it was bad enough to be considered assault. It was dealt with between the two of the participants, and should have ended there. If the next person has a lower tolerance then they should be the one to make a case of it at that point.

Pre-crime is where all of this is going, and frankly., it makes me sick that mere accusations from a 3rd party can result in this type of public crucification.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Jonjonj

I don't believe that it is acceptable in any way for a person to abuse another.

I also don't accept that horseplay or any other type of consensual gameplay should be recriminatory.

Are we good?

If you're agreeing that anything non-consensual is abuse -- to one degree or another, depending on the act -- then yes, I'm good.

I am saying that and meaning that. I am sure that the majority of men agree.

originally posted by: puzzlesphere
a reply to: Boadicea

Absolutely, non-consensual is not acceptable and should be respected, but saying it is abuse without knowing the particulars of a given situation is over-reach.

Misunderstandings or over-zealousness does not necessarily constitute abuse. Shades of grey and all that.

Well, yes... I'm happy to define my terms. If it is a knowing and willful act, it is abuse.

If a guy's arm accidentally brushes a lady's breast, no harm and no foul.

We have to remember as well that exual assault has long been considered a crime of power --

Sexual abuse is about power – and the powerful shouldn't be protected

Sexual Assault Is About Power

-- and the crimes tend to escalate. The professor in this case had been accused multiple times before, but there had never been enough proof. It would seem to indicate that his abuse escalated from doing it when there were no witnesses, to brazenly doing it in front of a crowd of people. Where would it go next?

a reply to: Krakatoa

Can you explain to me one thing. How would someone know what is non-consent before the fact?

Obviously, one cannot obtain consent after the fact, so what kind of word salad is this?

If I take your wallet, can I say, "Well, how could I know of his non-consent before the fact?" Because I know to keep my grubby paws off of other people's things. Apparently you don't know that men need to keep their grubby little paws off of women.

It only becomes non-consent when told it is such.

Hence the reason one must request consent BEFORE the act.

Unless, of course, you are projecting your personal level of consent upon everyone on the planet.

Yeah, that's it... Let me skool myself and see what the definition "consent":

In common speech, consent occurs when one person voluntarily agrees to the proposal or desires of another.

Hmmm.... the way I'm reading that is that consent must be obtained BEFORE the act. Apparently I'm not the only one on the planet with this "level of consent."

See, everyone is different....and not everyone can agree on what is consent regarding pre-crime status.

There are legal definitions applicable under the law.

And, in this specific case, the person themselves did NOT think it was bad enough to be considered assault. It was dealt with between the two of the participants, and should have ended there. If the next person has a lower tolerance then they should be the one to make a case of it at that point.

And ASU did consider it bad enough to be a violation of their sexual harassment policy.

Pre-crime is where all of this is going, and frankly., it makes me sick that mere accusations from a 3rd party can result in this type of public crucification.

But it wasn't "mere accusations," and the woman gave a statement substantiating the report, so it wasn't only a "third party":

Krauss denied to investigators that he touched the woman’s breast. Thomson provided the investigators with the selfie photo, with the woman’s face redacted. According to the report, it shows his right hand and arm coming over her right shoulder, with his hand in mid-air. Krauss told investigators he was either raising his hand to protect his eyes from the camera flash or reaching to steady the woman, who perhaps had lost her balance, he suggested.

Investigators found the woman and the four witnesses more credible, based on a preponderance of the evidence, according to the report.

originally posted by: Jonjonj

I am saying that and meaning that. I am sure that the majority of men agree.

Yes -- I'm sure the vast majority of men agree!

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: Words
It was Krauss' fault for grabbing a woman's breast. What makes him think he can do that?

It was done in the name of science. As an astrophysicist he also told the woman “I’m interested in Uranus”.

Could have just been natural attraction caused by the gravity of the situation.

originally posted by: Boadicea

originally posted by: Jonjonj

I am saying that and meaning that. I am sure that the majority of men agree.

Yes -- I'm sure the vast majority of men agree!

Are you kidding? Of course we agree...hold on..

Melanie Thompson.

More like #IAMCAITTHOMPSON

Woof