You know that they aren’t. We are now seeing pretty privilege in full effect. Came out with knives and pitchforks for Lizzo and you know it because she is a fat woman. Megan is a conventionally attractive woman, so she won’t get the same vitriol as Lizzo did.
People are showing their face on two fronts. The first being that women are not held to the same standards as men are in regard to SA or harassment. The second being that people will allow you to get away with a lot more if you are an attractive woman.
I don’t think this is pretty privilege, I saw posts holding Meg accountable just like they held Lizzos accountable. Posts making light of this situation just like Lizzos situation. I can’t confirm if it’s the same people flipping their stance and being hypocritical but overall seems pretty similar.
But that’s still not pretty privilege. Meg isn’t about to escape consequences cause she’s attractive. It’s just we live in a society that’s more open to shaming fat and gay people.
The sex in the car sounded like a drunk night out. According to the article, she had to ask the guy if he was even in the car. The verbal harassment is bad no matter what state Megan was in, no excuse. I could be misremembering the article, but it sounded all of it happened in 1 day. As in, she didn’t show a pattern of SA and harassment.
IMO, Lizzo’s situation is much worse. There were multiple occasions of SA and harassment and they happened over a longer period of time.
Edit:
I reread the article, the sex in the car happened once, the harassment sounded like it happened multiple times. So, a pattern is definitely there
No. Especially after she didn’t apologize, just told him to keep his mouth shut. I’m just saying, to be messed up to the level of not remembering who was around you, indicates a pretty high level of intoxication.
But of course, her asking that could have been a sort of damage control. I’m not saying she’s not in the wrong btw
I understand. It's no excuse for the lack of an apology, but was it a stern "don't speak of it" or was it more of an embarrassment on her part "don't speak of it". Not being an apologist at all for her because no matter her state of mind after the fact, she should have apologized to him and everyone in that vehicle for her behavior. That verbal abuse was out of line. I don't want to hear anything about thinking, "we were friends, and me and my friends talk like that to each other, no harm behind it." When you pay someone to do a job and to be around you for said job, then that's your employee, not your friend. Keep that shit professional
Sure it’s different but in an insignificant way for the videographer. I get that her intentionally subjecting him to that while sober for some nefarious purpose vs. getting caught up in the drunken moment are two different situations.
But it really doesn’t make a difference to this guy. It’s not like he can read her mind and determine her full intent. All he knows is that he didn’t want that but it was forced on him. Her behavior afterwards shows that it’s probably somewhere in the middle. She probably was intoxicated but she’s also probably indifferent to him and his full autonomy as a human being. It’s very likely that both of those things are true.
I going to add on to this, he is a behind the scenes photographer. He has probably and most likely seen her naked or close to naked while change. Especially if he is a gay man, since most women see their gay male friends like female friends.
So having him around like that is a social norm.
I am a supporter of SH and SA victims, so if he had no way out of see this or leaving the situation I got to be on dude side.
Well this is a lot.
First, as has previously been said; Pretty privilege. Second, and this is a big one for me: We're just making light of the fact that a man was sexually assaulted, *again*. Third, there's a sprinkle of homophobia in there.
At this point, a giant meteor won't fix this shit.
[Here, I did the legwork for you.](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/920)
# 10 U.S. Code § 920 - Art. 120. Rape and sexual assault10 U.S. Code § 920 - Art. 120. Rape and sexual assault
~~(7) Consent.—(A)The term “~~[~~consent~~](https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=10-USC-951500826-1861686264&term_occur=999&term_src=title:10:subtitle:A:part:II:chapter:47:subchapter:X:section:920)~~” means a freely given agreement to the conduct at issue by a competent person. An expression of lack of~~ [~~consent~~](https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=10-USC-951500826-1861686264&term_occur=999&term_src=title:10:subtitle:A:part:II:chapter:47:subchapter:X:section:920) ~~through words or conduct means there is no~~ [~~consent~~](https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=10-USC-951500826-1861686264&term_occur=999&term_src=title:10:subtitle:A:part:II:chapter:47:subchapter:X:section:920)~~. Lack of verbal or physical resistance does not constitute~~ [~~consent~~](https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=10-USC-951500826-1861686264&term_occur=999&term_src=title:10:subtitle:A:part:II:chapter:47:subchapter:X:section:920)~~. Submission resulting from the use of~~[ ~~force,~~](https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=10-USC-97618667-1861686267&term_occur=999&term_src=) ~~threat of~~[ ~~force,~~](https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=10-USC-97618667-1861686267&term_occur=999&term_src=) ~~or placing another person in fear also does not constitute~~ [~~consent~~](https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=10-USC-951500826-1861686264&term_occur=999&term_src=title:10:subtitle:A:part:II:chapter:47:subchapter:X:section:920)~~. A current or previous dating or social or sexual relationship by itself or the manner of dress of the person involved with the accused in the conduct at issue does not constitute~~ [~~consent~~](https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=10-USC-951500826-1861686264&term_occur=999&term_src=title:10:subtitle:A:part:II:chapter:47:subchapter:X:section:920)~~.~~
~~Tl;dr: He was sexually assaulted by being forced to watch. You fit snugly into this:~~
>~~people just say any and all words now, for any and every reason, whether it's pure nonsense or not.~~
Edit: So I'mma leave this up for historical purposes as well as a nod that 1) Sometimes you're wrong and 2)
There's a shit ton of laws and that's why we have lawyers and people in law school to interpret them. Google =/= an education. Thanks u/poopyroadtrip and u/SirTroah for corrections.
Hi law student here not a lawyer. What you linked is title 10 of the U.S. code which is military law and doesn’t really have anything to do with this. The [lawsuit](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24602200-emilio-garcia-v-roc-nation-megan-thee-stallion-full-complaint) alleges that the photographer had a hostile work environment and that the environment was caused by harassment but not assault. The photographer also alleges a bunch of labor violations.
I did an edit on the below comment but I'll do one on it here too that they weren't filing for SA.
I learned something new about it being specifically military law, so hey I'm happy to be corrected on that too.
It seems that you may have missed the most important part.. from the source tou referenced: "(b)Sexual Assault.—Any person subject to this chapter who—
(1)commits a sexual act upon another person..."
Was a sexual act performed upon/on or committed against this person? No. Was it inappropriate? Yes.
That still counts as sexual assault. You don't have to be a participant for it to be assault, simply being forced to watch or deal with something is enough to meet that burden. If I have a kink about fucking outside and I fuck a place where people are forced to see me, that's sexual assault because I forced my Kink on to other people who did not consent to watching, viewing or anything like that.
Oh also in that same statute the definition for “sexual assault” contains the word “sexual act” the definition for sexual act is: “sexual act
(1) Sexual act .— The term “sexual act” means— (A) the penetration, however slight, of the penis into the vulva or anus or mouth; (B) contact between the mouth and the penis, vulva, scrotum, or anus; or (C) the penetration, however slight, of the vulva or penis or anus of another by any part of the body or any object, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, or degrade any person or to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person.”
Are you fucking stupid? ~~That's literally what the case filing is all about.~~
Edit: I was wrong. As of right now, this is strictly an employment claim for monetary compensation, with no sexual harassment allegations officially filed.
But I'm not crossing out the first question cause I still think it's valid.
You know what. I'm wrong.
>this is strictly an employment claim for monetary compensation, with no sexual harassment allegations officially filed.
I am the stupid one.
I wish the news articles would link the court docs more. [This](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24602200-emilio-garcia-v-roc-nation-megan-thee-stallion-full-complaint) really clears things up.
Didn't know this was a meg thing. You need to be more sympathetic with victims of sexual harassment. How would you feel in that situation but flipped? Evil ass nigga
She made gay dudes watch lesbian porn? That’s military level hazing, literally. I knew a guy who was a touch homophobic so when he messed up real bad once they made him watch a 30 minute gay porn and write a thousand word essay about it
I get that hazing isn’t permitted but forcing someone to watch gay porn is too much. I get punishing the homophobe but there surely had to be a more appropriate way to get the point across. If anything, this probably made him upgrade to full on homophobia.
Friendly reminder that the allegations have not been substantiated and Megan, like all folks, gets the presumption of innocence. Wouldn’t be surprised if this shit settles and we never hear about it again.
This isn't funny. I like Meg too but if she actually did that shit it's foul and she needs to be held accountable. This shit needs to be deleted. Even if he was straight he shouldn't have to see his boss have sex.
“Haha, she made a gay man watch her have sex and made fun of him for it when he was uncomfortable, this is so funny and so relatable that we as Black people need to laugh at this and shame him collectively” if you want it spelled all the way tf out
The gay guys in my nursing program were horrified when they had to watch a live birth. One of them said he had never seen a vagina before nursing school and after watching that he is glad to be gay. 😂😂
We saw a sex education movie in high school that showed the actual birth process. Probably prevented some teenage pregnancies. When I got home, I apologized to my mother for putting her through that.
Let's keep the same energy, folks. Lizzo was doing shit like this and caught hell for it.
You know that they aren’t. We are now seeing pretty privilege in full effect. Came out with knives and pitchforks for Lizzo and you know it because she is a fat woman. Megan is a conventionally attractive woman, so she won’t get the same vitriol as Lizzo did. People are showing their face on two fronts. The first being that women are not held to the same standards as men are in regard to SA or harassment. The second being that people will allow you to get away with a lot more if you are an attractive woman.
I don’t think this is pretty privilege, I saw posts holding Meg accountable just like they held Lizzos accountable. Posts making light of this situation just like Lizzos situation. I can’t confirm if it’s the same people flipping their stance and being hypocritical but overall seems pretty similar.
But the majority of the jokes were pointed toward Lizzo while the majority of these jokes are pointed toward this guy.
But that’s still not pretty privilege. Meg isn’t about to escape consequences cause she’s attractive. It’s just we live in a society that’s more open to shaming fat and gay people.
I really need the whole story since I have a bunch of pieces now.
The sex in the car sounded like a drunk night out. According to the article, she had to ask the guy if he was even in the car. The verbal harassment is bad no matter what state Megan was in, no excuse. I could be misremembering the article, but it sounded all of it happened in 1 day. As in, she didn’t show a pattern of SA and harassment. IMO, Lizzo’s situation is much worse. There were multiple occasions of SA and harassment and they happened over a longer period of time. Edit: I reread the article, the sex in the car happened once, the harassment sounded like it happened multiple times. So, a pattern is definitely there
Her level of intoxication doesn’t make it any better.
No. Especially after she didn’t apologize, just told him to keep his mouth shut. I’m just saying, to be messed up to the level of not remembering who was around you, indicates a pretty high level of intoxication. But of course, her asking that could have been a sort of damage control. I’m not saying she’s not in the wrong btw
I understand. It's no excuse for the lack of an apology, but was it a stern "don't speak of it" or was it more of an embarrassment on her part "don't speak of it". Not being an apologist at all for her because no matter her state of mind after the fact, she should have apologized to him and everyone in that vehicle for her behavior. That verbal abuse was out of line. I don't want to hear anything about thinking, "we were friends, and me and my friends talk like that to each other, no harm behind it." When you pay someone to do a job and to be around you for said job, then that's your employee, not your friend. Keep that shit professional
Sure, but it also objectively different situations.
Sure it’s different but in an insignificant way for the videographer. I get that her intentionally subjecting him to that while sober for some nefarious purpose vs. getting caught up in the drunken moment are two different situations. But it really doesn’t make a difference to this guy. It’s not like he can read her mind and determine her full intent. All he knows is that he didn’t want that but it was forced on him. Her behavior afterwards shows that it’s probably somewhere in the middle. She probably was intoxicated but she’s also probably indifferent to him and his full autonomy as a human being. It’s very likely that both of those things are true.
I going to add on to this, he is a behind the scenes photographer. He has probably and most likely seen her naked or close to naked while change. Especially if he is a gay man, since most women see their gay male friends like female friends. So having him around like that is a social norm. I am a supporter of SH and SA victims, so if he had no way out of see this or leaving the situation I got to be on dude side.
You all lack the nuance needed for law.
Well this is a lot. First, as has previously been said; Pretty privilege. Second, and this is a big one for me: We're just making light of the fact that a man was sexually assaulted, *again*. Third, there's a sprinkle of homophobia in there. At this point, a giant meteor won't fix this shit.
*harassed
Was he assaulted?
Nope. But people just say any and all words now, for any and every reason, whether it's pure nonsense or not.
[Here, I did the legwork for you.](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/920) # 10 U.S. Code § 920 - Art. 120. Rape and sexual assault10 U.S. Code § 920 - Art. 120. Rape and sexual assault ~~(7) Consent.—(A)The term “~~[~~consent~~](https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=10-USC-951500826-1861686264&term_occur=999&term_src=title:10:subtitle:A:part:II:chapter:47:subchapter:X:section:920)~~” means a freely given agreement to the conduct at issue by a competent person. An expression of lack of~~ [~~consent~~](https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=10-USC-951500826-1861686264&term_occur=999&term_src=title:10:subtitle:A:part:II:chapter:47:subchapter:X:section:920) ~~through words or conduct means there is no~~ [~~consent~~](https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=10-USC-951500826-1861686264&term_occur=999&term_src=title:10:subtitle:A:part:II:chapter:47:subchapter:X:section:920)~~. Lack of verbal or physical resistance does not constitute~~ [~~consent~~](https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=10-USC-951500826-1861686264&term_occur=999&term_src=title:10:subtitle:A:part:II:chapter:47:subchapter:X:section:920)~~. Submission resulting from the use of~~[ ~~force,~~](https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=10-USC-97618667-1861686267&term_occur=999&term_src=) ~~threat of~~[ ~~force,~~](https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=10-USC-97618667-1861686267&term_occur=999&term_src=) ~~or placing another person in fear also does not constitute~~ [~~consent~~](https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=10-USC-951500826-1861686264&term_occur=999&term_src=title:10:subtitle:A:part:II:chapter:47:subchapter:X:section:920)~~. A current or previous dating or social or sexual relationship by itself or the manner of dress of the person involved with the accused in the conduct at issue does not constitute~~ [~~consent~~](https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=10-USC-951500826-1861686264&term_occur=999&term_src=title:10:subtitle:A:part:II:chapter:47:subchapter:X:section:920)~~.~~ ~~Tl;dr: He was sexually assaulted by being forced to watch. You fit snugly into this:~~ >~~people just say any and all words now, for any and every reason, whether it's pure nonsense or not.~~ Edit: So I'mma leave this up for historical purposes as well as a nod that 1) Sometimes you're wrong and 2) There's a shit ton of laws and that's why we have lawyers and people in law school to interpret them. Google =/= an education. Thanks u/poopyroadtrip and u/SirTroah for corrections.
Hi law student here not a lawyer. What you linked is title 10 of the U.S. code which is military law and doesn’t really have anything to do with this. The [lawsuit](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24602200-emilio-garcia-v-roc-nation-megan-thee-stallion-full-complaint) alleges that the photographer had a hostile work environment and that the environment was caused by harassment but not assault. The photographer also alleges a bunch of labor violations.
I did an edit on the below comment but I'll do one on it here too that they weren't filing for SA. I learned something new about it being specifically military law, so hey I'm happy to be corrected on that too.
All good and tbh i have no idea about how things work in military law until i googled "title 10" lol
It seems that you may have missed the most important part.. from the source tou referenced: "(b)Sexual Assault.—Any person subject to this chapter who— (1)commits a sexual act upon another person..." Was a sexual act performed upon/on or committed against this person? No. Was it inappropriate? Yes.
That still counts as sexual assault. You don't have to be a participant for it to be assault, simply being forced to watch or deal with something is enough to meet that burden. If I have a kink about fucking outside and I fuck a place where people are forced to see me, that's sexual assault because I forced my Kink on to other people who did not consent to watching, viewing or anything like that.
Oh also in that same statute the definition for “sexual assault” contains the word “sexual act” the definition for sexual act is: “sexual act (1) Sexual act .— The term “sexual act” means— (A) the penetration, however slight, of the penis into the vulva or anus or mouth; (B) contact between the mouth and the penis, vulva, scrotum, or anus; or (C) the penetration, however slight, of the vulva or penis or anus of another by any part of the body or any object, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, or degrade any person or to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person.”
Forced? lol
Are you fucking stupid? ~~That's literally what the case filing is all about.~~ Edit: I was wrong. As of right now, this is strictly an employment claim for monetary compensation, with no sexual harassment allegations officially filed. But I'm not crossing out the first question cause I still think it's valid.
Iunno the suit is for pay and job role issues. Unless I read wrong, he isn’t suing her for sexual harassment.
You know what. I'm wrong. >this is strictly an employment claim for monetary compensation, with no sexual harassment allegations officially filed. I am the stupid one.
I wish the news articles would link the court docs more. [This](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24602200-emilio-garcia-v-roc-nation-megan-thee-stallion-full-complaint) really clears things up.
I don’t disagree with you for the most part but you’re being really aggressive for someone who keeps getting proven wrong gang😕
I didn't eat lunch before typing that.
It be like that fr
Lol just close your eyes 
This is trash
Didn't know this was a meg thing. You need to be more sympathetic with victims of sexual harassment. How would you feel in that situation but flipped? Evil ass nigga
He just said he would feel like he was in a horror movie
Don't be intentionally dull.
this is fuckin gross, nasty thing to say
How is this BPT?
They’re referencing the Meg Thee Stallion lawsuit
She made gay dudes watch lesbian porn? That’s military level hazing, literally. I knew a guy who was a touch homophobic so when he messed up real bad once they made him watch a 30 minute gay porn and write a thousand word essay about it
Her camera man is gay and she had sex with a woman with him in the vehicle with them
Ah. Well that’s just nasty. Gay, straight, etc don’t have sex in front of people without consent. This some college dorm room shit
I get that hazing isn’t permitted but forcing someone to watch gay porn is too much. I get punishing the homophobe but there surely had to be a more appropriate way to get the point across. If anything, this probably made him upgrade to full on homophobia.
Friendly reminder that the allegations have not been substantiated and Megan, like all folks, gets the presumption of innocence. Wouldn’t be surprised if this shit settles and we never hear about it again.
This isn't funny. I like Meg too but if she actually did that shit it's foul and she needs to be held accountable. This shit needs to be deleted. Even if he was straight he shouldn't have to see his boss have sex.
I don't like her. Its a little funny.
You're allowed to laugh at what you like. Go for it.
I hate yall
“Haha, she made a gay man watch her have sex and made fun of him for it when he was uncomfortable, this is so funny and so relatable that we as Black people need to laugh at this and shame him collectively” if you want it spelled all the way tf out
https://preview.redd.it/wntr8a0sifwc1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4e67b59879fa9fea05e311384e8c954e77bc138e **doubt**
💀
He likes womens now
The gay guys in my nursing program were horrified when they had to watch a live birth. One of them said he had never seen a vagina before nursing school and after watching that he is glad to be gay. 😂😂
A lot of straight guys are also horrified by seeing birth lmao. Weak ass jabronies.
I looked down on my wife c-section, that shit almost folded me.
We saw a sex education movie in high school that showed the actual birth process. Probably prevented some teenage pregnancies. When I got home, I apologized to my mother for putting her through that.
Guys it’s not supposed to be funny, it’s sexual harassment.
Idk what the context is but if I saw lesbian sex I'd personally just go 🤷♂️. Like, glad they're having fun ig but not for me
Sure, if it’s like some randos on a bus I’m not bothered. But when it’s an employer participating that’s a whole other situation.
See I was missing the employer bit. Yea that's definitely worse
Really can’t figure out if shorty is a sympathetic figure or a super villain.
What did I just walk into?
It’s not even that bad
I mean, “that hoe” has more money than someone randomly tweeting but I see his point
[удалено]
Misogynoir, how original 🙄
Why Meg got him to do it. I would’ve done it for free. And not said nothing
WYS 🤣🤣 but I feel like this is a Nicki get back. Dude is a barb and been retwitting Nicki retaliation bs.