Yes, Ethics Dunce Madonna Indeed Engaged in Sexual Assault On Stage In Australia

Why would anyone think otherwise?

From the Guardian:

It began when 17-year-old Josephine Georgiou joined the singer [above] on stage during her second evening at the Brisbane Entertainment Centre.

“She’s the kind of girl you just want to slap on the ass,” the singer said admiringly of the barista and would-be model standing next to her. “And pull,” Madonna added, yanking down the girl’s strapless top to briefly reveal one breast, to aghast cheers from the crowd.

 

23 thoughts on “Yes, Ethics Dunce Madonna Indeed Engaged in Sexual Assault On Stage In Australia

  1. Well, it definitely was not sexual assault, but only because Madonna was lucky. Sexual assault turns on consent, and the young woman in question makes it clear that she consented to the encounter, and explicitly states that after the fact. So no assault.

    But Madonna is being a horrible role model. You don’t want to rely on making consent explicit after the fact. That puts both parties in very dangerous territory. Until the young woman spoke up, Madonna was very vulnerable to arrest and/or civil suit. You want to model behavior that makes it clear that consent should be given, and clear beforehand.

    • “She looked like she was into me so I knew she wouldn’t mind.”
      “She told me it was okay after I groped her. Lucky me!”

      Do either of these excuses sound okay coming from a man?

      • Nope, which is why I said Madonna was lucky, nothing more, that her actions, were in fact ok by the girl. It easily could have been sexual assault, however, it was not sexual assault.

        • Wrong, very wrong. As it was not consensual, it was sexual assault. A victim can;t alter the act after the fact, not with rape, not with battery, not with sexual assault. It may make the crime harder to prosecute, but the crime is committed when the act is complete.

          • Wrong, very wrong. As it was not consensual, it was sexual assault. A victim can;t alter the act after the fact, not with rape, not with battery, not with sexual assault.

            Ahh, but how do we know if the act was consensual or not? We have to look at two things. The easiest is explicit verbal consent. I think we both agree that did not happen in this instance. Then there is nonverbal consent. Which is a lot more tricky (which is why verbal consent is preferred). Did she gesture at Madonna, indicating the move to remove the top? Did she pull Madonna’s hand on her top? Did she laugh and was unconcerned? I have not seen the video, so we have no idea what kind of body language may have passed between the two, so we cannot declare that consent was not given. We have to take the girl’s word on that that Madonna’s actions were in fact welcome.

            It would be one thing if she had ever said otherwise, but it sounds like there was no point during the proceedings that Madonna’s actions were unwelcome, and were in fact eagerly anticipated. We cannot make a victim whole cloth where none exists. She said she wanted it, was thrilled to have it, there is nothing to indicate otherwise, there isn’t any crime. Sexual assault would be the unwanted touching, but it seems the girl very much wanted it, judging by her own words. Madonna had consent. Like I said, Madonna got lucky.

            • “Did she gesture at Madonna, indicating the move to remove the top?” No, and why would she do such a thing? She wasn’t asked first. It’s an absurd question.

              “Did she pull Madonna’s hand on her top?”

              Seriously? THAT would be sexually harassing Madonna, and the audience would have seen it. Didn’t happen.

              “Did she laugh and was unconcerned?” Irrelevant.

              Now you are back to after-the-fact consent.

              “we have no idea what kind of body language may have passed between the two, so we cannot declare that consent was not given.”

              Come on.
              Absent charades or telepathy, what kind of communication silently says, “It’s Ok to pull down my top and flash my breast to a hall full of strangers”? Ridiculous.

              ” We have to take the girl’s word on that that Madonna’s actions were in fact welcome.”

              AH HA!!!! I KNEW it! You are confusing sexual assault, the issue at hand, with sexual harassment. The latter is defined as an UNWELCOME sexual advance or action…that can be determined after the fact (and is why sexual harassment law is so unfair and subjective.) But while all sexual assault is a form of sexual harassment, the fact that a particular instance would get by the harassment standards won’t change the assault standards, which cannot be voided by post-attack consent OR the fact that the assault was “welcome.” If a street cop sees me kick 7 strangers in the balls,he’s arresting me, and the fact that by dumb luck I picked 7 freaks who enjoyed the pain doesn’t mean I’m not guilty of seven assaults.

              • The latter is defined as an UNWELCOME sexual advance or action…that can be determined after the fact (and is why sexual harassment law is so unfair and subjective.) But while all sexual assault is a form of sexual harassment, the fact that a particular instance would get by the harassment standards won’t change the assault standards, which cannot be voided by post-attack consent OR the fact that the assault was “welcome.”

                This is from the Queensland, Australia police website:

                What is Sexual Assault?

                Sexual assault is any unwanted or forced sexual act or behaviour without consent. It covers a broad range of sexual activity. Sexual assault is a crime and occurs when an offender:
                •Without lawful reason indecently assaults you (eg groping, inappropriate touching of a sexual nature)…

                If the person wanted it/welcomed it, it is not a sexual assault. No crime has occurred, because even during the act, the person wanted the act to be performed. Similarly, there was no assault in your example of the kicking, as assault is normally defined as, “an act intended to cause an apprehension of harmful or offensive contact that causes apprehension of such contact in the victim.” If the seven kicked dudes had no apprehension of being kicked, and in fact welcomed such a kicking, then no assault can have occurred. The essential element of apprehension on the part of the victims is missing. (Battery works the same, except for instead of apprehension of contact, you have actual contact. But if the contact is wanted, then no battery has occurred.) You got lucky.

                • Nononono. Consent is always before the fact Always. Always. That’s why it is often called “advance consent.” There is no such thing as post-facto consent to a crime. That’s why spouse abusers are sometimes prosecuted even after the abused spouse says, “I love him; I’m fine.” The law presumes that unconsented conduct involving contact is unwelcome. In this case, the evidence is right there.

                  As a prosecutor I’d arrest Madonna.

      • Yes, consent has to be beforehand. In cases where it is ambiguous, to an outside observer whether consent has occurred, you must ask the participants. The girl has indicated that Madonna, indeed had her (nonverbal) consent to perform those actions, and she has never indicated otherwise, by either deed or word. We cannot substitute our own consent for someone else’s in this situation. I personally don’t think she should have consented, but she did.

        • There is no statement or visual evidence that indicates that. How did she know what Madonna was going to do? That argument comes down to “she could do anything she wanted to me, including assault.” There is no such consent in ethics or law.

        • ” The teen, who was in the crowd at the concert, says she was offered the chance to dance with Madonna. She claims she was told that the pop star would spank her, they’d walk down the runway together, flip off the audience and then that Madonna would go crazy and do her own thing.”

          This is what she consented to, not to have her clothes pulled down.

            • What?? She reaches over and tugs at her top, straight down! What do you think her intent was?

              And Janet Jackson’s boob exposure was a “costume malfunction,” right? Boy, you will see what you want to…do you think that excuse would fly in court? Not for a second. If a man did it? It would be laughed out of court.

              • The incident apparently happened when Madonna’s team asked Georgiou if she wanted to come up on stage.

                The teen, who was in the crowd at the concert, says she was offered the chance to dance with Madonna. She claims she was told that the pop star would spank her, they’d walk down the runway together, flip off the audience and then that Madonna would go crazy and do her own thing.

                Georgiou was wearing her mum’s leather corset at the time. She explained that the the flashing was accidental, as Madonna had been holding a nipple ring attached to the corset, which had cause it to come undone.

                You can look at the video. The girl is seen adjusting her top, pulling it up as it is drifting down (it is way too loose). Madonna is talking to the audience at the time, and does not see this. Madonna’s talking, touches the corset, fiddles with it, the top slips again, exposing the girl, Madonna seems genuinely taken aback, pulls it back up, and tries to play it off. It does seem like an accident. If it is staged, then they both were in on it, and that isn’t an assault either.

                • It doesn’t look staged (when would they stage it?), nor does it look like an accident.

                  The holding of the nipple ring is battery–and unconsensual touching—anyway…and this is obviously damage control. I get why they are doing it, but why are you so determined to spin this, and deny the obvious?

                  • The holding of the nipple ring is battery–and unconsensual touching—anyway…and this is obviously damage control. I get why they are doing it, but why are you so determined to spin this, and deny the obvious?

                    I actually find it interesting, especially now with the new information and video added. Can a sexual assault charge against someone be imposed when both participants indicate that the touching was either accidental or consensual?

                    I don’t know if Madonna holding on the corset ring would qualify as battery. The girl says that she did consent to do some activities on stage, including dancing and spanking. If she knew Madonna’s style at all, there was obviously going to be some bumping and grinding and touching on the clothes. So she did explicitly consent to that much. So the question is whether the pulldown was accidental, as claimed. It seems so to me. Both people appear to be surprised, and Madonna immediately attempts to pull the top back up. Those aren’t the normal reactions of a person who has deliberately pulled down someone’s top.

  2. This kind of star-blindness is what has abused kids grow up sick, sad and sorry, and come forward thirty years later.

  3. Only the Guardian called it speculation; the lawyer they quoted straight up called it sexual assault, unless there were some discussion before hand backstage.

  4. Why isn’t this “rape culture?” Amanda Marcotte? Sally Kohn? Anyone?

    I’m having a hard time keeping all this straight.

    I can’t wait until the clear thinking Camille Paglia get a holt a this.

  5. Sweet little Josephine, being obsessed with a modeling career and whatever might spring from it, was naturally not inclined to think of this in terms of right or wrong. She had no inkling that by allowing this public liberty with her personal, she was forwarding the same cultural climate that keeps the exploitation of young women and children a going concern. No, all she was thinking about was the great and free publicity she was getting by being pawed on stage and concurrently regaled by a middle aged woman whose entire life has been a scandal. But it’s also been a profitable life. Some cannot look beyond fame and fortune and understand that this variety carries a heavy price of a different order. Josephine should have had parents to set that concept in her head early on.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.