Gabby Douglas Slams Aly Raisman: Dressing in ‘Sexual Way’ Welcomes Wrong Crowd

New York Post ^ | November 17, 2017 | Joe Tacopino and David K. Li

[AnotherUnixGeek]

By "touching" I assume you mean private parts, but I've been unexpectedly touched elsewhere, sometimes hugged, more rarely kissed.

And is this a function of what you choose to wear, or was this based on some other factors? Regardless of whether you objected or not, do you believe that you are conveying an invitation to be touched by what you wear? Has it ever been your expectation or belief that what you wear should be the determining factor in whether or not people should touch you?

As to "exposing ones self", you only mention men. What about the woman in a low cut top who bends over and provides a clear view of a well formed breast? Or the woman in a short skirt who allows a clear view. You might not object to that. I might not object to that. Can we get everybody to agree with us?

I was referring specifically to exposure of genitalia as a prelude to masturbation and an attempt to coerce another to join in this activity. Most of us do already agree about the advisability and legality of coerced sexual activity.

There are many befuddling aspects to modern society and the legal system, but this simply is not one of them. What another person wears is not the way we decide whether or not we should touch any part of them. And by "we" I mean all of us in society - those of us who haven't gotten the message will be taught by negative feedback and possibly law enforcement.

[petitfour]

I haven’t seen the Raisman photo shoot photos. I remember her former gym teammate doing a nakey shoot years ago. I’m not sure what the purpose of the nakey shoot is. Appreciation of the beauty of the human body? Some might look at such photos that way. And some might see those photos as an attempt to titillate. Why would a magazine choose to publish such? Is there a bigger art market or sex sells market??? Maybe the publishers should educate these young girls on why they sell such issues and who buys them.

[Brooklyn Attitude]

It pretty funny that women dress sexy in order to attract men and then are upset when men approach them. They only want to be approached by men who are “acceptable” to them, but there is no way for men to know who is acceptable. Talk about female privilege.

[lepton]

It’s not legitimate to suggest that how anyone dresses justifies or explains unwelcome sexual advances made to them.
——
Advertising sexuality isn’t an exact science choosing only those welcome advances. Simply existing also isn’t advertising.

What it doesn’t justify is using force, drugging, trapping, or violence.

[KrisKrinkle]

And is this a function of what you choose to wear, or was this based on some other factors?

Possibly "yes" to both at different times. But I don't see how that matters because the point of what I wrote is that it could have been considered by some to be unwanted touching and sexual harassment on the part of the woman.

Regardless of whether you objected or not, do you believe that you are conveying an invitation to be touched by what you wear?

Aside from something that says "kiss me I'm Irish" or something similar, no. And I don't actually expect it then. But I don't see how that matters because the point of what I wrote is that it could have been considered by some to be unwanted touching and sexual harassment on the part of the woman, even though I didn't think of it as such.

Has it ever been your expectation or belief that what you wear should be the determining factor in whether or not people should touch you?

Aside from something that says "kiss me I'm Irish" or something similar, no. And I don't acually expect it then. But I don't see how that matters because the point of what I wrote is that it could have been considered by some to be unwanted touching and sexual harassment on the part of the woman, even though I didn't think of it as such.

I was referring specifically to exposure of genitalia as a prelude to masturbation and an attempt to coerce another to join in this activity.

That wasn't clear to me. I was thinking of "exposing ones self" in a broader context.

There are many befuddling aspects to modern society and the legal system, but this simply is not one of them. What another person wears is not the way we decide whether or not we should touch any part of them.

The point of what I wrote is not about whether or not what another person wears is the way we decide whether or not we should touch any part of them. The point I intended is that what another person wears (or reveals by not wearing) may be considered by some to be sexual harassment.

[lepton]

I really am not concerned about wolf whistles or comments, and I don’t believe the law is either - people are free to make all sorts of comments about the appearance of total strangers, and face any resulting anger. And as for long looks - this doesn’t rise to the level of even a trivial offense, not in my eyes and certainly not in eyes of the law.
——-
You’ve just described several elements of ‘a hostile environment ‘. People have been fired and successfully sued over these things.

And, in part, this has made things worse for everyone, as it has destroyed and convoluted longstanding rails.