{"views":["
\"KalAmar\"<\/a>
KalAmar<\/a> \u2013 28927<\/a><\/small><\/header>

kejsirajbek<\/a> This picture is famous for being a sexual harrasment. The sailor was was not the girl boyfriend, he was drunk and kissed the women without consent. See: https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/V-J_Day_in_Times_Square#Alternate_interpretations<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/article>","

\"kejsirajbek\"<\/a>
kejsirajbek<\/a> \u2013 28930<\/a><\/small><\/header>

KalAmar<\/a>\nMaybe you did read a Wikipedia's alternate interpretation of that situation but at that time (after WW2 and right after a war with Japan) it was an act of joy and celebration. Maybe if it would happen nowadays it would be an act of a sexual harrasment but deffinetly not then.<\/p><\/div><\/article>","

\"KalAmar\"<\/a>
KalAmar<\/a> \u2013 28934<\/a><\/small><\/header>

kejsirajbek<\/a> This picture is specifically a picture of sexual assault. The event in Times Square is maybe a celebration of joy, but the picture itself is just a drunk guy that grabbed and kissed a girl without consent. That's the direct definition of "sexual assault". That's also what explains the Time: http:\/\/time.com\/4486812\/wwii-kiss-photo-vj-day\/<\/a>\nSee also: http:\/\/www.nydailynews.com\/new-york\/famed-image-marking-v-j-day-sinister-shade-article-1.2774540<\/a>\nI quote:\n"The post highlights a series of comments from Greta Friedman\u2019s 2005 Veterans History Project interview, which addresses the issue of what we would now call consent. \u201cIt wasn\u2019t my choice to be kissed,\u201d Friedman said at the time. \u201cThe guy just came over and grabbed!\u201d adding, \u201cThat man was very strong. I wasn\u2019t kissing him. He was kissing me.\u201d Leopard also cited a CBS News interview in which Friedman said of Mendonsa, \u201cI did not see him approaching, and before I knew it, I was in this vice grip (sic).\u201d".\nSo yes, that would be nice to not over-idealize a picture and also consider both sides, that despite representing a celebration event, the picture also represent a direct case of sexual assault.<\/p><\/div><\/article>","

\"kejsirajbek\"<\/a>
kejsirajbek<\/a> \u2013 28936<\/a><\/small><\/header>

KalAmar<\/a>\nIt not represent it at all. You have to see it as a spontaneous act of happyness that war is over, from both side of view. Ms. Friedman never ever complained about it even she said what you've quoted. Have a look at this article, an interview with her from 2005:<\/p>\n

https:\/\/memory.loc.gov\/diglib\/vhp-stories\/loc.natlib.afc2001001.42863\/transcript?ID=sr0001<\/a><\/p>\n

And a quote from it, she said:\n"...and it wasn't that much of a kiss, it was more of a jubilant act that he didn't have to go back, I found out later, he was so happy that he did not have to go back to the Pacific where they already had been through the war. And the reason he grabbed someone dressed like a nurse was that he just felt very grateful to nurses who took care of the wounded."<\/p>\n

BTW nobody ever claimed about to be drunk or violent in that case. Many sailors then there kissed and hugged many women randomly as an acts of release from war.\nI myself (thank God) never experienced a hell of a war but I just can imagine how would I feel to be back home from it.<\/p><\/div>