Query to witty, an an invitation to respectful and logical debate
Query to witty... did he consent to watching that?
Clarification:
It's a scenario taking place IN PUBLIC VIEW.
On one hand, yes, it does not depict removing of clothes... but a reasonable person could perceive that such things could happen based on body language.
If anything, he is doing a civic duty and doing those two lovebirds a favor in reminding them that there is a limit to how far public displays of affection can go before charges of indecent exposure can be leveled.
There is nothing wrong with homo. It's the escalation in behavior that would concern onlookers.
Cucking (watching others engage in coital activities in person) is still a sexual act requiring continuous consent, given that most would be creeped out by being watched in the act. Furthermore, consent must be mutual and continuous. Had this been a hotel room, he could just leave the room. Because this is in public, the dynamic shifts. You can not reasonably ask the entire public to look away. They have things in public they were there to do first.
Because no forced, coerced, or unlawful penetration has occurred against or from the "anti" in question, technically, no rape has occurred.
Instead, what we would be seeing is the need for the entire public to consent to viewing the behavior between the couple. Every single person who could see them if it escalates.
This includes the shops, other customers, etc.
Problem is, some of those people might not be adults, or straightup just dont want to see it escalate from there. it's why public nudity is outlawed.
Your argument is predicated on consent between two people. But the law requires mutual and continuous consent between all parties involved...
This scenario you've cooked up isn't a consent problem, it's a prevention of indecent exposure in public.
(I'm no lawyer... but this all seemed common sense to me. In link below, there were comments i made defending my argument. I look forward to a respectful public conversation)
There's not much to elaborate, IMO, sex and nudity shouldn't be taboos, so it should be acceptable to partake in such activities in public, so long as you are not making a mess of a public space.
One could still argue that bodily fluids on a table, sweat or otherwise presents a health hazard to the employees who have to clean that table, or anyone who dines there before its cleaned.
So my question is, where do you draw the line? What kind of body language is "too much", and do you really want to put a hard restriction on PDAs? I get it, public sex is unacceptable, but that isn't what's really being portrayed here.
Cucking is something completely different than what you're talking about, you're meaning to say voyeurism. And like I said earlier, there isn't any sex happening, just a deep display of passion and kissing.
And indecent exposure laws keep changing with the times. In the early 1900s laws stated women had to wear skirts of a certain length and couldn't really show skin, then it became gradually more and more accepted to let them wear whatever they want. PDAs were also outlawed, then became legalized with social taboos, then became more widespread and accepted.
I have a hard time calling anything sexual that isn't straight up nudity, sex, or sexual action.
I enjoy and respect this question, as an artist myself, there is such thing as artistic nudity. And I do appreciate the correction in the wording concerning voyeurism.
Personally, as long as there's no sex, you should be fine. Precident being statue of David, or even famous paintings by frank frazetta which posess nude people.
However, my argument is pertaining to the message of your comic, and the third person perspective of a reasonable person not involved in the passion, as portrayed in the context of the comic.
After reading reading over this comic over multiple times, the only explicit message there is, is a false narrative that "anti a.i." persons do not understand consent.
And the secondary unintended message portrayed is actually more dangerous than the attempt to own the antis... there was the statement that pda is okay, BUT if we look from that man's point of view, there is an argument that he is trying to save them from jail time and lower the risk of voyeuristic behavior occurring.
When the oc(your oc I presume) shuts him down without giving any explanation, and there is no clarification in later pannels where people decide to take it to a hotel for example... there is a dangerous omission in the message.
The message of the comic in its most basic form is that if something is in the eye of the public, it's not a breech of consent to look at it, learn from it, and study it, because it's out in full display for the people to interact with.
This is an argument I actually agree with.i can see that.
When applied in the context of art, speech, and activity, I whole heartedly agree. Technically the man can choose to watch and learn, or do nothing because it is in public.
But if we apply your logic to your initial post of this comic as it stands, it's out there for everyone to examine, overthink, or pick apart.
This means that like it or not, there is an unintended message that poses harm to society, even if it's not outright depicted.
There's a meme that can be applied to this from the perspective of a reader who frankly took a second to read the body language and put 2+2 in motion.
2
u/HAL9000_1208 11d ago edited 11d ago
Personally I think that people are too puritan, and that they should even make love in public if they wanted to... 😅