The teenager was arrested after a woman complained to police when she saw his shirt, which shows a picture of a nun in a pornographic pose. The top was being worn by Shepherd's girlfriend when a police officer approached her. As soon as the teenager realized there was a problem, he told the officer it was his and swapped tops with his girlfriend. But he refused to take it off or cover it up and was arrested.
So British law considers it the boyfriend's responsibility to say what the girlfriend can and can not wear?
The teenager was arrested after a woman complained to police when she saw his shirt, which shows a picture of a nun in a pornographic pose. The top was being worn by Shepherd's girlfriend when a police officer approached her. As soon as the teenager realized there was a problem, he told the officer it was his and swapped tops with his girlfriend. But he refused to take it off or cover it up and was arrested.
So British law considers it the boyfriend's responsibility to say what the girlfriend can and can not wear?
...are you dense? When he was arrested HE HAD IT ON. So essentially he took the fall for his girlfriend, but was too stubborn to just turn the shirt inside out.
The teenager was arrested after a woman complained to police when she saw his shirt, which shows a picture of a nun in a pornographic pose. The top was being worn by Shepherd's girlfriend when a police officer approached her. As soon as the teenager realized there was a problem, he told the officer it was his and swapped tops with his girlfriend. But he refused to take it off or cover it up and was arrested.
So British law considers it the boyfriend's responsibility to say what the girlfriend can and can not wear?
...are you dense? When he was arrested HE HAD IT ON. So essentially he took the fall for his girlfriend, but was too stubborn to just turn the shirt inside out.
Then why didn't they just say that? It sounded like they were arresting the boyfriend because it was his shirt and his girlfriend.
No not really at all. See, he said the shirt was his and switched shirts with her. I'd wager to probably keep her from getting in trouble. I'm not seeing the issue.
Quid on
0
Options
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
edited July 2008
I love all the precedents set by other countries laws. Yeah sorry news guys they don't count.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
Are we saying that it is O.K. to display pornographic materials forcibly to the public?
Someone earlier in this discussion said that he would be fine with public acts of sexuality. In their opinion passer-bys would have the option of moving on or becoming voyeurs. First of all- why should you be considered a voyeur? If I was watching two people skateboarding it would not be voyeurism in the way that the word was used in that sentence.
Sex is a bodily function much the same way that pissing, eating, and taking a shit are all bodily functions. However, only one of those four is not a personal or at least private action. I pose a question- Would you be upset if you were walking down the street and the person in front of you pulled down their pants and took a shit?
A vulgar analogy but it gets the point across in my mind.
Have you guys even LOOKED at the shirt? Yes it is a nun masturbating. Yes nuns masturbate. But The depiction on the T-shirt in question is a rather vulgar depiction of a masturbating nun. In much the same way taking a shit on the sidewalk is a vulgar display of bodily function, that shirt is a vulgar display of bodily function.
Should the kid have been arrested? Probably not. Should he (she) have publicly flaunted a vulgar depiction of a sex act? Also probably not.
It is not a crime to expose children to sex in the same way that letting kids know that everybody poops. but just because you CAN poop and then smear it on the walls of the bathroom does not mean that you should tell children that it is possible. Letting a child know that people masturbate, that it is ok, and when they are ready they can masturbate as well is well and good, but masturbating or showing someone masturbating to your children with no context except for vulgar language meant to shock and antagonize is not ok.
Also- to those of you engaging in the discussion of what is or isn't art consider this- I have two baseballs. I made both of them by hand and it took me many hours. One of them I sit on the shelf, in a trophy case and tell people "Why yes, I made that by hand what do you think?". The other one I toss to my nephew and say "Let's go find some bats and play ball!"
Which is art? The answer is that the first one is art because I WANT IT TO BE.
Without intent to be art, a thing is just a thing.
(this was really long, but I came a bit late and wanted to reply to a few things in here)
Are we saying that it is O.K. to display pornographic materials forcibly to the public?
Someone earlier in this discussion said that he would be fine with public acts of sexuality. In their opinion passer-bys would have the option of moving on or becoming voyeurs. First of all- why should you be considered a voyeur? If I was watching two people skateboarding it would not be voyeurism in the way that the word was used in that sentence.
Sex is a bodily function much the same way that pissing, eating, and taking a shit are all bodily functions. However, only one of those four is not a personal or at least private action. I pose a question- Would you be upset if you were walking down the street and the person in front of you pulled down their pants and took a shit?
Does he pick up after himself? (I'm a dog walker, so this actually matters to me)
Are we saying that it is O.K. to display pornographic materials forcibly to the public?
Someone earlier in this discussion said that he would be fine with public acts of sexuality. In their opinion passer-bys would have the option of moving on or becoming voyeurs. First of all- why should you be considered a voyeur? If I was watching two people skateboarding it would not be voyeurism in the way that the word was used in that sentence.
Sex is a bodily function much the same way that pissing, eating, and taking a shit are all bodily functions. However, only one of those four is not a personal or at least private action. I pose a question- Would you be upset if you were walking down the street and the person in front of you pulled down their pants and took a shit?
Does he pick up after himself? (I'm a dog walker, so this actually matters to me)
The teenager was arrested after a woman complained to police when she saw his shirt, which shows a picture of a nun in a pornographic pose. The top was being worn by Shepherd's girlfriend when a police officer approached her. As soon as the teenager realized there was a problem, he told the officer it was his and swapped tops with his girlfriend. But he refused to take it off or cover it up and was arrested.
So British law considers it the boyfriend's responsibility to say what the girlfriend can and can not wear?
...are you dense? When he was arrested HE HAD IT ON. So essentially he took the fall for his girlfriend, but was too stubborn to just turn the shirt inside out.
Then why didn't they just say that? It sounded like they were arresting the boyfriend because it was his shirt and his girlfriend.
They did. Read this again:
As soon as the teenager realized there was a problem, he told the officer it was his and swapped tops with his girlfriend. But he refused to take it off or cover it up and was arrested.
The teenager was arrested after a woman complained to police when she saw his shirt, which shows a picture of a nun in a pornographic pose. The top was being worn by Shepherd's girlfriend when a police officer approached her. As soon as the teenager realized there was a problem, he told the officer it was his and swapped tops with his girlfriend. But he refused to take it off or cover it up and was arrested.
So British law considers it the boyfriend's responsibility to say what the girlfriend can and can not wear?
...are you dense? When he was arrested HE HAD IT ON. So essentially he took the fall for his girlfriend, but was too stubborn to just turn the shirt inside out.
Then why didn't they just say that? It sounded like they were arresting the boyfriend because it was his shirt and his girlfriend.
They did. Read this again:
As soon as the teenager realized there was a problem, he told the officer it was his and swapped tops with his girlfriend. But he refused to take it off or cover it up and was arrested.
Apparently, reading long block of text off a computer screen is not my strong suit.
Posts
New Zealand?
...are you dense? When he was arrested HE HAD IT ON. So essentially he took the fall for his girlfriend, but was too stubborn to just turn the shirt inside out.
Then why didn't they just say that? It sounded like they were arresting the boyfriend because it was his shirt and his girlfriend.
Are we saying that it is O.K. to display pornographic materials forcibly to the public?
Someone earlier in this discussion said that he would be fine with public acts of sexuality. In their opinion passer-bys would have the option of moving on or becoming voyeurs. First of all- why should you be considered a voyeur? If I was watching two people skateboarding it would not be voyeurism in the way that the word was used in that sentence.
Sex is a bodily function much the same way that pissing, eating, and taking a shit are all bodily functions. However, only one of those four is not a personal or at least private action. I pose a question- Would you be upset if you were walking down the street and the person in front of you pulled down their pants and took a shit?
A vulgar analogy but it gets the point across in my mind.
Have you guys even LOOKED at the shirt? Yes it is a nun masturbating. Yes nuns masturbate. But The depiction on the T-shirt in question is a rather vulgar depiction of a masturbating nun. In much the same way taking a shit on the sidewalk is a vulgar display of bodily function, that shirt is a vulgar display of bodily function.
Should the kid have been arrested? Probably not. Should he (she) have publicly flaunted a vulgar depiction of a sex act? Also probably not.
It is not a crime to expose children to sex in the same way that letting kids know that everybody poops. but just because you CAN poop and then smear it on the walls of the bathroom does not mean that you should tell children that it is possible. Letting a child know that people masturbate, that it is ok, and when they are ready they can masturbate as well is well and good, but masturbating or showing someone masturbating to your children with no context except for vulgar language meant to shock and antagonize is not ok.
Also- to those of you engaging in the discussion of what is or isn't art consider this- I have two baseballs. I made both of them by hand and it took me many hours. One of them I sit on the shelf, in a trophy case and tell people "Why yes, I made that by hand what do you think?". The other one I toss to my nephew and say "Let's go find some bats and play ball!"
Which is art? The answer is that the first one is art because I WANT IT TO BE.
Without intent to be art, a thing is just a thing.
(this was really long, but I came a bit late and wanted to reply to a few things in here)
Do the couple fucking on the park bench?
They did. Read this again:
Apparently, reading long block of text off a computer screen is not my strong suit.
Not directly related, but interesting nonetheless.
hahahaha
He's right though, the student did convey meaning and correct spelling..
Also isn't it kinda weird that this is coming from a Chinese news source not a British one.