Needed: a Ban on Unsolicited Toe-Licking?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Miles
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the proposed ban on unsolicited toe-licking in the Netherlands, particularly in Amsterdam and Rotterdam. Participants explore the implications of such a law, the nature of consent, and the cultural context surrounding public behavior and personal boundaries.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express support for the law, arguing it is necessary to protect individuals from unsolicited actions.
  • Others question the effectiveness of creating a specific law for toe-licking, suggesting it may be more appropriate to address such behavior under existing laws related to harassment or disorderly conduct.
  • There are humorous remarks about the cultural context of the Netherlands and the absurdity of the situation, with some participants sharing personal anecdotes related to unsolicited attention.
  • Some participants suggest that the behavior could be considered a form of sexual assault, drawing parallels to other forms of unwanted physical contact.
  • Others express skepticism about the motivations behind the toe-licking and whether it reflects a broader issue of consent and personal boundaries.
  • Several comments highlight the bizarre nature of the incident and the reactions it provoked, including disbelief that such behavior could occur in a liberal society.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally do not reach a consensus on the appropriateness of the proposed law or the best way to handle unsolicited toe-licking. Multiple competing views remain regarding the nature of consent and the legal implications of such actions.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference cultural norms and legal frameworks in the Netherlands, indicating that the discussion is influenced by local attitudes toward personal freedom and public behavior. There is also uncertainty about the effectiveness of laws targeting specific behaviors versus broader legal principles.

  • #31
I'm guessing that this man does this as a sort of kinky turn-on. In which case, it should be considered a form of sexual assault. He could certainly be arrested if he came up without being asked and licked someones privates, right? :eek:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
They should at least be able to prosecute him for harassment. Banning something as specific as licking toes seems stupid. What if he starts licking their heels after that?
 
  • #33
Artman said:
I'm guessing that this man does this as a sort of kinky turn-on. In which case, it should be considered a form of sexual assault. He could certainly be arrested if he came up without being asked and licked someones privates, right? :eek:

Just because it is sexually arousing to him, doesn't mean he can be put away for sexual assault. It is the victim that must feel sexually assaulted.

So, maybe I get off on listening to heavy metal real freakin' loud. So, if I blast the windows off my house at 3 am, they neighbours won't be calling the cops with sexual assault on their minds, will they ?
 
  • #34
loseyourname said:
They should at least be able to prosecute him for harassment. Banning something as specific as licking toes seems stupid. What if he starts licking their heels after that?
:smile: you're probably right..
 
Last edited:
  • #35
Gokul43201 said:
Just because it is sexually arousing to him, doesn't mean he can be put away for sexual assault. It is the victim that must feel sexually assaulted.

Sorry, that's not the definition of sexual assault.

Here's one from the web definitions

http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn?stage=1&word=sexual+assault

...a statutory offense that provides that it is a crime to knowingly cause another person to engage in an unwanted sexual act by force or threat...

If it is a sexual act and it is unwanted, and he is forcing it upon them, he is sexually assaulting them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #36
Well, it does not go on to define 'sexual act', does it ?

I guess I was only objecting because of your use of the word 'privates'...which I'm not sure extends to toes.

I'm not rooting for the guy. Peace !
 
  • #37
Gokul43201 said:
Well, it does not go on to define 'sexual act', does it ?

You're right. I think that's why they can't apply an existing law. It just doesn't quite fit.

It really doesn't seem to do any terrible harm to the victim. It's just weird.

Gokul43201 said:
Peace !

To you as well. :smile:
 
  • #38
Some people, eg. lawyers, must have sexual organs in weird places such as their feet. Proof that they arent human. :smile:
 
  • #39
Well, you know that elephants have their sexual organs on their feet... 'cause if an elephant steps on you, you're f@(*ed !
 
  • #40
Gokul43201 said:
Well, you know that elephants have their sexual organs on their feet... 'cause if an elephant steps on you, you're f@(*ed !
:smile: :biggrin: Oh gosh what if one stepped on this guy's tongue
 

Similar threads

If disaster hits NY hide under desk
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
Undergrad How to win at a casino using physics and math
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
European Winters Could Disappear by 2080
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
Private Rocket Plane Makes Historic Space Flight
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Giant Sea Creature Baffles Chilean Scientists
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
6K