Anonymous #2 1d

It’s really not.

0

Anonymous #3 1d

you were saying?

4

Anonymous #2 22h

None of that stuff appears to apply to the situation that was described. Further, having two brought a definition for sex crimes really kind of waters down those that are actually harmful. Like, unexpectedly seeing someone naked is not the same thing as rape. Not even close. And they shouldn’t be seen in the same context.

0

Anonymous #3 22h

“Too broad”

0

Anonymous #3 21h

it does apply bro he didn’t have pants on… he did that on purpose… and then started massaging the OP… also, “sex crime” is an umbrella term for everything defined as a sex crime under the LAW. i’m not equating it to rape at all.

2

Anonymous #3 21h

and how is someone exposing themselves without consent not harmful?

6

Anonymous #3 21h

it’s in the letter of the law.

4

Anonymous #2 14h

CLOCK THAT SHIT

4

Anonymous #2 14h

Naked doesn’t mean sexual. A massage isn’t sexual. The person in question isn’t a minor. So I guess the highlighting was all for naught.

1

Anonymous #2 14h

No, I’m saying in many cases the law equates it with rape and that’s stupid.

1

Anonymous #2 14h

Because genitals are not automatically offensive.

1

Anonymous #3 12h

it wasn’t innocent dude…

1

Anonymous #2 12h

all the highlighting was for you to actually read the letter of the law

1

Anonymous #2 12h

it made OP uncomfortable, it wasn’t consensual, it was indecent exposure. whether or not genitals are inherently sexual is an entirely different discussion that i happen to agree with you on. nudity shouldn’t be inherently sexual, but that doesn’t change the minutia of the issue.

1