The way the “funny” version describes it is a woman pastor giving bjs to parishioners - who are assumed in the joke to be willing participants - and later claiming it was part of a religous rite when people found out.
The real 2019 New Jersey case was about a preacher actually telling impressionable men they had demons in them and tricking them into letting him give them blowjobs.
The joke is problematic, but the real case is clearly sexual assault.
I was trying to give the poster the benefit of the doubt, and saying they poorly explained why the real situation was worse than the joke. They described it as being about the gender swap, but left out the details regarding how the real event was sexual assault.
They said it was based on a real fact, but was gender swapped, and that could be read as saying that the problem was the gender swap and not the event itself. I’m giving them the benefit of the doubt and reading it as them saying it was based on a real event which was horrible, and the bit about the gender swap being a clarifying detail that was added poorly.
They said it was based on a real fact, but was gender swapped, and that could be read as saying that the problem was the gender swap and not the event itself.
That’s exactly how it reads, and I’m not the only one in this thread who seems to think that. The commenter made it about the problem being “it was actually a man who did this,” not about the actual problem that “it was coerced and an abuse of a position of power/influence.”
Almost like it reads “Men are evil, so when they do things, it’s evil. But if a woman does the same thing, well, you go girl, slay!”
I think the poster described it poorly.
The way the “funny” version describes it is a woman pastor giving bjs to parishioners - who are assumed in the joke to be willing participants - and later claiming it was part of a religous rite when people found out.
The real 2019 New Jersey case was about a preacher actually telling impressionable men they had demons in them and tricking them into letting him give them blowjobs.
The joke is problematic, but the real case is clearly sexual assault.
So the problem is that in the real story, it was coerced? Not that the pastor was a dude?
Kinda not what the commenter above said at all. Kinda like saying “Nah the sexual assault was okay, the real problem here was the gayness!”
I was trying to give the poster the benefit of the doubt, and saying they poorly explained why the real situation was worse than the joke. They described it as being about the gender swap, but left out the details regarding how the real event was sexual assault.
They said it was based on a real fact, but was gender swapped, and that could be read as saying that the problem was the gender swap and not the event itself. I’m giving them the benefit of the doubt and reading it as them saying it was based on a real event which was horrible, and the bit about the gender swap being a clarifying detail that was added poorly.
That’s exactly how it reads, and I’m not the only one in this thread who seems to think that. The commenter made it about the problem being “it was actually a man who did this,” not about the actual problem that “it was coerced and an abuse of a position of power/influence.”
Almost like it reads “Men are evil, so when they do things, it’s evil. But if a woman does the same thing, well, you go girl, slay!”