Anonymous #2 23h

It’s really not.

0

Anonymous #3 22h

you were saying?

4

Anonymous #2 21h

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 21h

“Too broad”

0

Anonymous #3 20h

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 20h

and how is someone exposing themselves without consent not harmful?

6

Anonymous #3 20h

it’s in the letter of the law.

4

Anonymous #2 13h

CLOCK THAT SHIT

4

Anonymous #2 12h

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 12h

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

1

Anonymous #2 12h

Because genitals are not automatically offensive.

1

Anonymous #3 10h

it wasn’t innocent dude…

1

Anonymous #2 10h

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

1

Anonymous #2 10h

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