Their destination: the city of Nikko, nestled in the beautiful mountains and one of the top sightseeing destinations not just in Tochigi, but all of Japan. However, over a dozen boys who, as first-year high school students, were 15 or 16 years old figured out another strategy.
That something contingent is a pretty significant portion of the group, which consisted of a total of roughly students and teachers. We will be taking measures to ensure this sort of thing never happens again. I said usually. I am aware that it is possible to explicitly give consent, but one can hardly call this a usual state. Thus, it is reasonable to expect privacy. So you acknowledge that consent is legitimate, and that it is necessary to get consent in circumstances where people have the right to expect privacy.
While you may certainly make an argument for this, now it is no longer an attempt to push it by claim to the right of privacy, which was my primary objection in that post. You can argue the males violated an implicit agreement they consented to when they entered the bath area in the knowledge it has such rules.
The "explicit consent" part is simply inconsistent with the usual facts. When you go into the bathhouse, you don't exactly go around to each person presumably women saying "I consent to you viewing my body". No, any consent you gave was merely implicit and general, by you entering the bathhouse. Thus, by entering the onsen, one has done so with the understanding that these rules must be obeyed.
As such, there is the expectation that ALL guests will obey, and there is no expectation that the rules will be violated. However, when the rules ARE violated, there IS expectation that management will enforce those rules and thus eject the culprits who break them.
This means that women have a reasonable expectation that men will not be allowed in and thus, a reasonable expectation of privacy from men. Further, even if we categorize it as "explicit", you don't really answer my objection. Presumably, you'll give consent to all the women, but not any male.
Isn't that discriminatory? You agreed earlier that consent is legitimate and that consent must be given in circumstances where privacy is expected. But now you are arguing the opposite - if you think giving consent to one person but not another is discriminatory, then you can't claim to believe in the concept of consent. In other words, you don't believe people have ownership over their bodies. You are arguing in particular that women don't have bodily autonomy, and you don't want women to be able to refuse to consent.
I find that to be incredibly creepy. When I asked if you were a sex offender, I was kind of joking. Now I don't think it's a joke at all. Even in cases of specific mutual consent such as employments , we are no longer permitted to refuse consent on the basis of gender with few exceptions. This is even in the knowledge that all else being even, females do often mean a relative burden - they usually can't lift as much even if that's not their main job, most workplaces need manual labor even now and then and they statistically would cut the careers short more often than men but it is also Unwert to shove them into these short term tracks.
But we are supposed to close our eyes to such things and hire them on an "even basis" anyway. Employment does not involve consent. Consent in this context is "permission". Employment is a mutually agreed upon legally binding contract for the exchange of labor for payment. You are trying to twist the definitions of words to give support to your arguments, which is completely dishonest. More like I'm giving it the right size, and fighting against incorrect basis for declaring it to be a wrong.
If the best you can do when pushed is to argue that the males broke an implicit agreement with the bathhouse owner, or that they violated consent They are civil torts. Besides, in the former case, isn't the victim the bath-house owner, and not the women? As for voyeurism, I am aware in some places it is criminalized. We are discussing criminalizing it here in HK as well. But that's not the same as it having a good basis in theory. So you are arguing that voyeurism should be legal. Yeah, the sex offender joke isn't a joke any more.
This whole conversation is just gross and creepy, and I want nothing more to do it or with you. But that consent is only given to those who have permission to be in the bathhouse.
You are trying to argue that because consent has been given to someone , it has been given to everyone. Another person may be invited to be inside the toilet stall with you. This is called "giving consent. There are these things called "rules" which are produced by management of such places, and these "rules" are enforceable, as long as they do not violate the law.
The actual argument is that every person, male and female, needs explicit consent to view another person, male or female, naked. Some of the shrill feminist comments in this article make me laugh - no wonder left wing governments around the world are being elected out of power. You think that asking for teenage to receive just and fair punishment for voyeurism is solely a feminist argument?
I would hope for the sake of humankind that every person would agree that voyeurism is a crime that should not just be ignored. The boys should face some punishment, a school suspension or perhaps some minor community service, but treating them as criminals for this very, very common behavior is not appropriate.
There are bigger fish to fry. Someone asked me what punishment I felt would be right, and I said that school suspension and community service would be just punishments for these boys. Oh my goodness !! Did you just agree with a feminist?
Better walk that back, or else you might start wearing pink p-hats and going to woman's marches next. What was inacceptable is that some women would rhink to punish the boys by declaring them criminals.
Voyerism is literally a crime. It is against the law. But you think declaring that they broke the law and asking that they receive just punishment is unacceptable?
See, literally no one here has even once suggested they should be declared "criminals", as if they ought to be put in jail. That includes me, and I am the most vociferous person on here. You are being hyperbolic at least, and dishonest at worst. Being groped is wrong but there is a difference between a perprator who is 12 and a grown man, and also how groped was done, from one wrong touch to aggressive massage or worse.
One needs maturity to assess and see what can happen in life. Your statement about 12 year olds vs. The boys in the story are not They are teenagers in high school, and the girls they peeped at are the same age.
That makes them peers, at the same social level. You set up situation that is not even comparable. Even so, who are you to dicate to any woman, teenager or adult, how she should feel about any kind of sexual harassment or sexual assault? Please, I would love to hear you justify why you think have enough insight into how women feel about sex crimes that we should listen to your opinion and change our behavior. I am waiting. If this happened to my daughter I would press charges against the school.
No one has the right to see you naked without your permission and from what the article states the school doesn't seem to be doing much about it. Teens are idiots and the ones that did this are particularly gross but it's the school's responsibility to monitor the behavior of their students. They failed to protect the privacy of their female students and that is unacceptable. There certainly is, but why are you bringing year-olds into the discussion? Those calling for criminal justice here need to get a life and I take great comfort in knowing that you can't vote here for politicians that would validate your opinions in any meaningful way.
What was inacceptable is that some women would rhink to punish the boys by declaring them criminals! A very powerful water pistol might have been good to have at hand. At least I would have sat with my back to the communal screen. But what's not right is thinking that the existence of this desire therefore gives the right to infringe upon the privacy of the girls at whom they would like to peak.
If the existence of the desire is justification for the infringement to privacy, then that justification can then be extended to justification for rape. After all, if human history and war has shown us anything, it's that a lot of men have a lot of instinct to rape.
It's healthy for boys to have these urges. It's not healthy for us as society to excuse the infringement upon other people's rights simply because these urges are natural. And before anyone freaks out, I'm not saying these kids need to be imprisoned. But what I am saying is that saying boys will be boys and leaving it at that, is not the appropriate response to this issue.
Much ado over nothing. The Boys got more excitement over trying to get a peep then from what they probably got to see. Ten years from now during a re-union party it will be a thing to laugh about by both the girls and the boys. The End. Persist all you want but doesn't make you right.
Just annoying. Boys like to peek at naked girls.