Since I get the feeling you're referring to me on the overreaction dealiobob
However, calling people misogynists and saying they believe all women need to be publicly sexually humiliated is what I would describe as an overreaction.
Well it'll teach her not to screw up again! Genuinely hilarious moment.
That was the best part of the night. Austin Aries is the man.
It would appear that at least these two got their jollies jiggled by watching a woman degraded by a sexual act. Not sure how this can't be seen at least a sign of misogyny.
And don't get me wrong, this isn't exclusive to TNA fans, it's a good population of wrestling fans. We're talking about the same people that made Fandangoing a thing; this isn't exactly the MIT students of the world.
It isn't just you though. In fact you have been more reasonable than many. I find the whole what if you did this at a real job to be silly. Aries would have been fired from a real job for several reasons, including being in his underwear, before he even got anywhere near the ring.
Underwear is part of the job requirement, at least for the vast majority of wrestling.
Sexual harassment, on the other hand, innit. Though it is rampant through wrestling, and again, it isn't exclusive to TNA.
This situation is not directly comparable to a real office by any stretch of the imagination.
But it is. I get it, the wrestling ring isn't exactly your typical office. But sexual harassment is unwarranted, in both the wrestling ring, and the regular office.
Depending on your definition of defend then I find your statement troubling. There is such a thing as defending someone that you think didn't behave perfectly, just much less imperfectly than many are describing.
See, there's a fair point to that. But it's dependent on your tolerance of said imperfect act. Mine's pretty damn low, and I don't mind saying that, likely lower than just about everyone. Doesn't mean I'm right in the slightest, it's just the way I see it.
Your level of comfort with said act is up to you. Just don't be shocked if I feel you're wrong, and can back it up.
There are levels of sexual harassment and I don't see how anyone being reasonable would contend this should be equally punished as the more agregious levels.
Egregious. But that's actually very fair. This surely isn't the worst case of sexual harassment, even in the last year, with professional wrestling.
But sexual harassment is still sexual harassment
I just don't think the vitriol matches the "crime" here. What we have is a questionable split second decision when in character as a bad guy, not a malevolently sexual individual.
Which is fair enough, this isn't some act of rape from a hardened criminal. It's questionable, sure. And should he have shown some sign that he knew it was wrong, I'd be much more willing to grant that Austin Aries had a lapse of judgement, and moved on.
That didn't exactly happen, did it?
Austin Aries said:
Pretty nuts, some of the junk people get the balls to say over the net, knowing they couldn't to your face...Eh, anyway, time to sack out.
I am not saying that makes it right, just that this situation isn't solely dependent on the definition of sexual harassment that someone has googled.
See, here's the thing; it isn't just a definition googled (technically, Binged). It's the legal definition. Which means by the laws of America, yeah, it's still sexual harassment.
This isn't dependent on some google job. It's dependent on the law of America
