Post a response:
|
I don't really know how many have been convicted of hugging and kissing, per se, only that they have been, since this is substantially opaque to us given the nature of plea bargains - which almost everyone takes - and the dramatically expanded body of "sex" and "grooming" laws that have increased the range of criminal charging tools available to prosecutors. I do know of cases in which there are men, and possibly women, too, who have been sent to prison for such things as stroking or massaging parts of the body that are not genitalia, e.g. shoulders, heads, feet, etc. - in other words, "affection - or for words that they have uttered that did not include sexual propositions, so one cannot say that simple affection can't get you put in a cage in America or probably the U.K. In those cases, it is what the defendant must have had as a motive for those actions that confers criminality to his actions Now, as to Manstuprator as the person making his arguments, when someone makes such an argument that can stand independently from the speaker, himself, his history of interactions, whatever agenda he may or may not have, etc., and in the absence of a larger specified motive upon which this argument serves, then I think it should be judged alone, in isolation. If it's true, it's true, no matter the speaker. I'd say, wait for someone to say something that isn't true or is objectionable before criticizing him ad hominem, rather than the validity of his argument. |